SPIDER-MAN 3: Reaction Thread

[Edmund Kattak]

I s'pose... I really don't care much about that angle. I'd rather see the MJ character set straight instead and if that means a different actress as well? So be it.

Totally agree. I'm not sure if it's Dunst's fault or the writing, or a combination of both, but the way they've handled MJ has just been entirely wrong (and I think the worst part is that Dunst COULD be upbeat and fun, a la BRING IT ON).

This movie really was the worst of it. Even during the scenes where they "broke up" and such -- the writing wasn't there. Did she actually think Harry is more powerful than Spider-Man? Why not just tell Peter what was going on so he could kick The "New Goblin"'s behind (he'll always be the HOB-Goblin to me instead of breaking up in the first place?

There were a few guys in front of us who started laughing outloud when Maguire began crying when she was breaking up with him...it was all a little bit much to be honest.

I heard that Alvin Sargent was mentioning that he was done was Spiderman, while at one of the premieres recently. If this is true, then the reactions would kind of confirm his frustration. I have read various sources that the Raimi brothers were primarily responsible for this script. Not to debunk their credibility, but I think one should check the ego at the door at let the experienced and proven screenwriters take over.

Granted, these are movies based on a comic book source. A source where the confines of the real world are frequently stretched and contorted to the point of unbelievable proportions, were these to take place in the real world. However, I think an audience is smart enough to differentiate between "suspension of disbelief" and lack of logical linear progression in the writing. I imagine that a lot of the "coincidences" that we complain about in a film script would be commonplace in a comic book. I don't know. On the flip side, I'm not sure I agree with most of these "film critics" out there. Iin an industry that depends on millions and sometimes billions in revenue for sustenance, I find it hard to believe that at least a dozen of these critics aren't receiving some kind of indirect "kickback" for a favorable review designed to increase ticket sales.

But then again, I have to go and see this movie. I haven't seen a movie in a theater since ROCKY BALBOA and I'm feeling a little out of the loop.

[Jedbu]

My wife and I saw the film last night and while I liked a lot of it (more later), many of the comments on this thread are good-why doesn't MJ just tell Peter the truth about Harry's threat; the butler waited until NOW to tell Harry the truth?!; MJ is kind of whiny as the films go on; etc. No disagreement with these and a few to add:

Where is the spidey sense? Peter is using a police scanner now? That is one of the coolest things about the character and he has to use a (product placement) Realistic police scanner from Radio Shack? Product placement from RADIO SHACK??!! I've heard of retro, but c'mon!

Venom and Eddie were given short shrift-Eddie was just some cartoony character and a jerk from the beginning and away from having even one molecule of conscience and Venom needed his own spectacular scene like Sandman got with the armored truck sequence. And how are they going to bring him back in any further installments-I know, since Raimi and Co. seem to be able to reach back and make changes to previously finished stories this should not be an obstacle, but come on, the character has been disintegrated. . .

If Harry heals scars after the first fight, how come his face is scarred in the last third after surviving the explosion and HOW DOES HE DIE? I know that his death is supposed to mend the breach between him and Peter and Peter and MJ, but if can survive one of his daddy's bombs, he can't survive a spear?

Those quibbles (and previously mentioned ones) aside, I did like the following:

McGuire's SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER sequence was actually funny and it looked like he was really enjoying a chance to have some fun with the character for the first time since the early transformations in the first film.

Thomas Haden Church and Sandman-an incredible performance to rank up with Molina's Doc Ock, and that first transformation in the sandpit was just awesome, with the FX of that character just incredible for the rest of the film. Unless Raimi and Co. are completely creatively (and morally) bankrupt, this should put the lid on the killer of Uncle Ben-they'll just have to come up with other reasons to give work to Cliff Robertson. One quibble with the character-could he have smiled just one time when he sees his kid?

J. K. Simmons as Jameson-not enough of him for my taste and the look he gave the kid with the camera during the big battle was just priceless.

I'm also glad that the resolution with Peter and MJ was not neat and tidy-relationships never are, and since this MJ has become a bit of a wimp, this either gives the character a chance to grow or for Peter to move on. This might be giving the producers an out in case Dunst does not want to come back or if she doesn't like what the character does in subsequent installments.

The problem they might have with Gwen Stacy might be her dad-the police chief-and how he feels about any relationship with Peter after what happened at the jazz club (she has to tell Dad about it and it could color his feelings toward Peter later on). Could be interesting-Daddy-O can't stand Peter but admires the alter ego. . .

Just some thoughts. . .

[AndyDursin]

Great observations Jeff. I also just posted my formal review on the front page.

I think Elizabeth Banks might've made for a better MJ at this point. She's been under-utilized just like JK Simmons. A shame they couldn't give them much more to do.

One issue with Gwen Stacey is that I keep reading how they're going to be using The Black Cat/Felicia Hardy in the next film. One ironic thing is that, if anything, Bryce Dallas Howard looks as much like Felicia Hardy with the platinum hair than she does Gwen Stacey! It might be totally unorthodox and would break totally with the comic book continuity, but a wise idea might be to combine the Gwen Stacey and Black Cat characters -- you've already got the right actress, why not just have her turn into the Black Cat or something? At this point they've already tinkered enough with the Peter/MJ relationship deal, and even well-regarded Spidey adaptations like the Fox '80s TV show have broken with tradition in regards to certain origin stories. Just a thought

I also didn't mention this before, and I only briefly alluded to it in my review, but I found some of the action sequences very difficult to follow, with too much shaking camera and such.

[mkaroly]

Saw this one today too...PHEW! I really liked it. I am amazed at how consistently good this series of films are. I love that Raimi is not afraid to retain the humanity in the characters, especially the villains. Thomas Hayden Church will probably go unnoticed by most people, but if there ever was a villain in superhero lore who earned your sympathy, Church's performance as Sandman is the one that wins (in my opinion). I really, really like that about this series. Goblin, Doc Octopus, now Sandman.... great stuff.

MJ is whiney as some have said, though she is a secondary character without a whole lot of depth in the film series. I don't know a lot about the comic book (aside from a bit here and there), so I don't know how much depth she has in print. But Dunst didn't bother me much.

Topher's Eddie was a bit over-the-top, but when the symbiote (spelling?) took him over, it was great. He has a dead-pan sarcastic delivery that I like. At one point though, I turned to my friend and asked him why Spider-Man didn't have his spider sense anymore...lol...that was kind of irritating.

While I thought it was funny and goofy, Parker's John Travolta imitation was really bad- I didn't much care for those sequences in the movie. But overall, I thought the film was effective in it's emotional punch and fluidity. I do agree with Andy (I think) that some of the action sequences (especially involving Harry as Goblin Jr.) were shaky and hard to follow. Still, this was better than POTC.

[AndyDursin]

This movie DID have some problems, but frankly I'm still surprised at the number of people you run into who just think it flat-out "sucked." One of my friends and I usually disagree on everything and, on this movie, he actually thought POTC was a much better film -- even though they were both terrible in his estimation.

For me SPIDER-MAN was still entertaining and fun -- no DIE HARD, but it had its moments, and was a much better film than AT WORLD'S END, certainly. I also liked it better than KNOCKED UP but that's just me