Topic: $143 for Spider-Man 3 tickets.

[Ceric]

Noooooooo......  Let the series be in peace... No more XMen Movies...

[IceCold]

Isn't there a Wolverine spinoff movie plus for another character?

The movie was okay. Nowhere close to X-Men 2, though, which is still the best superhero movie ever made.

[wandering]

Quote
The movie was okay. Nowhere close to X-Men 2, though, which is still the best superhero movie ever made.

Better than Batman: The Movie starring Adam West? I think not.

Still trying to decide what I think of Spiderman 3. I liked the fight scenes, and Bruce Campbell.  

[BiLdItUp1]

X-Men 3 was a travesty; Bruce Ratner should stick to Rush Hour. Only way I'd wanna see another X-Men movie is if they get the Bryan Singer/David Hayter team back on board.
As for Spiderman 3...dying to see it, though I've heard it's underwhelmed...I hope it worked out for Mr. $143

[that Baby guy]

My review, summed up in a few words: the movie should be called "Peter Parker, who is sometimes Spider-Man, but not too often, though."

[UncleBob]

Magneto is supposed to be getting his own movie, right?

Anywhoo, X-Men 3 wasn't horrible.  I mean, it's watchable and is better than Batman and Robin or Batman Forever.  Heck, I'd even say it was better than Superman Returns...

The original Adam West Batman movie is the best ever.  It's even better to watch the DVD version with the commentary on.

Reply to thatguy's comment above I don't think SM3 had any more or any less Peter Parker than Spider-Man 1.  Plus, the Spider-Man comics have never been all about Spider-Man.  One of the things that really set the SM comics apart from a lot of the other comics in the Super Hero genre is that you get to spend a lot of time finding out who Peter Parker really is and seeing that he has a lot of real life issues. It's not that Spider-Man has to be Peter Parker to keep appearances up and protect his identity.  It's that Peter Parker is just a normal person who also happens to have super powers.  (does that even make sense?)  

[Ian Sane]

I saw it last night and I liked it a lot.  I like Spider-Man 2 better but this was worthy of the other films.  I hear a lot of complaints about it but I felt this fit in fine with the feel Raimi has established in this series.  It's not really Spider-Man and never was but what it is is quite entertaining so I like it.

A lot of people complain that there's too much stuff and I think they could have got more mileage out of using each villian in his own film but that doesn't necessarily make the film bad, it's just dumb from the business point of view.  They're blowing their wad now and that's going to bite them later on when they run low on villians.  One thing someone said on another forum is that having all the plot threads and villians and such in one movie is actually very comic book like.  In multi-issue story arcs usually so much stuff happens and so many characters show up (and not just stupid cash-in crossovers, even good stuff like Dark Knight Returns has stuff like that) so it's kind of cool to see that overblown method of storytelling actually brought to film.  I wouldn't want to see that all the time in films but this is supposed to be a comic book movie so making it feel like a comic book should be part of the idea.

The only thing I didn't like is the dance scene just because it seemed too ridiculously unrealistic.  Yeah this is a movie where a guy has superpowers so it isn't drenched in realism but it took me out of the film like if Spider-Man suddenly sprang into song or looked at the camera and talked to us.  Plus why is nerdy Peter suddenly so good at the piano.  Is this like old Superman comics where they just make superpowers at will ("thanks to my superbowling powers I can beat Jimmy and teach him a valuable lesson")?  Some people complain the film has too much crying.  Hello.  The girl the guy loves more than anything, who was planning on marrying, just dumped his ass.  Seems like an exceptable time to cry.  Ditto finding out who really killed your uncle and watching your best friend die.

And I forget.  Does Spider-Man has a spider sense in these films?  Because if so how hell does Harry sneak up on him when he's riding his bike?

It would be nice though if for once someone made a film based on another property and actually followed the source material.  Batman Begins is really close but for some reason director's always want their own vision (which usually misses the point).  Even Peter Jackson, who comes across as a huge Lord of the Rings fanboy, farted around with his films a bit with Aragorn falling off cliffs and such.  I don't mind it with Spider-Man but it does kind of bug me.  For example I would love to make a Conan movie based on Robert E. Howard's work.  Howard's vision is fantastic and bringing that to film would be a dream.  I don't want to make Ian Sane's Conan.  Howard's is better.  Is it because I'm not really a director that I don't have some warped vision of what I think Conan should be?

[that Baby guy]

It does entirely.  I just felt like a lot of the problems were the main concepts the first movie revolved around, and the third seemed to mimic Parker's problems he had in the first.  I also wanted to see a more violent Symbiote Spider-Man.  I haven't read too much of Spider-Man, but, IIRC, he became a bit more angry and "harsh" with his actions than he did in the movie, and had a much more difficult time deciding to lose the Symbiote.  In this one, it seems too much like he's angry just becuase of his Uncle, whereas in the comic, the suit changes him much more than I felt the movie let on.  I may be wrong too, it might have happened the other way, but they really should have let on about Venom's other weakness being using too much webbing.  Did you see how much he had used up near the end, w/ that whole set-up?  I know they didn't create the technical side w/ Spider-Man and his web catridges, but they could have still made that a feature that Venom used, w/ the symbiote weakening as he used up web.

[BranDonk Kong]

I wonder if Venom will appear in Spider-Man 4. Spider-Man and others have used basically that same method to defeat Venom in the comics, but it never actually killed him. You did see Eddie Brock's skeleton in the explosion, but they could explain that the symbiote protected him or something, and they were both blasted away.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Well I just got back from the movie and thought it was quite good. Some guys were complaining about how it sucked because it wasn't like the comics, but I thought it was a well done movie. I won't spoil anything but my only complaints are that I felt Venom was underused, and that Symbiote Peter got a tad bit cheesy (those that have seen the movie know what I mean). Besides that it was an emotional and well made movie with one exciting final battle, and brilliant special effects.

[Ian Sane]

I've been thinking about the film a bit and I realized something that is a pretty big goof up.  So it turns out Sandman killed Uncle Ben but it was sort of an accident.  Doesn't that completely destroy Spider-Man's origin?  The whole reason he started fighting crime is because of guilt he has for indirectly causing his uncle's death.  If he had done the responsible thing then he uncle would still be alive.  But with Sandman killing him then maybe even if Peter had stopped that crook his Uncle Ben may have gotten killed anyway.  So Peter has no reason to feel guilty.  It's like if Batman's parents turned out to be alive.  It kind of ruins the whole origin story.  Though it does seem like the sort of stupid thing that the Marvel Comics of the last 15 years or so would do so bonus points for accuracy.  I still like the film but if you ever want an example of a filmmaker completely missing the whole point there you go.

[that Baby guy]

Retconning is way overused in Comic Books, so it happens to be churned out into the movies, it looks like.

[BranDonk Kong]

Well in Spider-Man 2 he finds decides that the world really needs him, he's no longer fueled by revenge, at least for a little while...

[Ceric]

I saw the movie last night.  I think they could have axed Sandman to allow for more space for everything else.  Thats the thing the whole movie had the making of a good Movie except everything was to compact and not developed enough.  Close but not enough.  Also I thought Venom's face was a little flat and I hate Mary Jane more every passing movie.

[ShyGuy]

Badump-Bump! Finally saw it.

Yeah, I think taking Sandman out would have helped the movie a lot. Parts of the movie felt so crammed together, like it was two movies editied down to one script.

[Nick DiMola]

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Badump-Bump! Finally saw it.

Yeah, I think taking Sandman out would have helped the movie a lot. Parts of the movie felt so crammed together, like it was two movies editied down to one script.

I couldn't pinpoint exactly what I didn't like about the movie, but that definitely explains it well. It was cramped. They had two Spiderman films happening at once and really should've split them up into their own scripts. I just hope they learn from their mistakes for the next movie and return to the glory of Spiderman 2.  

[UncleBob]

I did like the movie, but I have to say I feel it is coming closer to what the Batman franchise did.  In the next movie, Spidey will have nipples.