Silverfish Wrote:Marc et al.: They are making 4, 5, and 6 for sure, but they are not sure yet that all the actors will come back after this one.
I've heard this too. Both actors have changed their stories: first it was no more, then it was only if Sam directs it, then well... if the story is good. You know their publicists are pressuring them to be more diplomatic.
And Maggers... don't let my opinion sway you. See what others say and way the pros and cons. You may like it.
Marc B. Wrote:And Maggers... don't let my opinion sway you. See what others say and way the pros and cons. You may like it.Thanks, Marc, but I'm not a big fan of Spidey et al. The first two were tolerable, sort of. I'm in no rush for this one.
Reading is freedom.
The mind soars, no earthly cares,
no limitations.
A Maggers Haiku, 2005
Years ago my mother used to say to me... "In this world, Elwood, you can be oh so smart or oh so pleasant."
Well, for years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.
You may quote me.
Elwood P. Dowd
Maggers Wrote:Thanks, Marc, but I'm not a big fan of Spidey et al. The first two were tolerable, sort of. I'm in no rush for this one.
I really enjoyed the first two. But this was the first let down of the summer. I have no interest in Fantastic Four, Die Hard 4 is being forced (by the studio) to be a PG-13 movie, last year Pirates 2 was horribly long and bored the hell out of me but because of its success I can see Pirates 3 being even longer...
I think this is going to be a disappointing summer.
Plan to see S3 as soon as attendance wanes. Don't want to end up in Marc's position.
Just a few notes.
S3 has gotten generally bad reviews, echoing Marc's view. But as long as I see it on a double-feature, I won't be too disappointed.
Re the Spidey movies butchering the Marvel Universe Spidey: Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson, Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village & Lady in the Water) as Gwen Stacy, and Topher Grace as Eddie Brock are poor casting choices. Alfred Molina was excellent for Dr. Octavius, and Thomas Haden Church for the Sandman. Captain Stacy, as played by James Cromwell,...well, I'll have to wait and see if he can add depth to the role (he was a scene stealer in The Queen).
Jack O Lantern was the first prototype for a "Green Goblin" character reprise, but Hobgoblin was more in line with the original character; he stayed and Jack O disappeared from the series. I think he had a cameo in the Gang Wars saga in the Spidey series of the early 90s.
AC
P.S. Bruce Campbell keeps getting cameos in the Spidey flicks. I'd like to see him in the Frederick Foswell part. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see more Peter Parker and less Spidey if there is a part 4. That's why the Silver Age of Marvel Comics worked so well--character development.
Just a few notes.
S3 has gotten generally bad reviews, echoing Marc's view. But as long as I see it on a double-feature, I won't be too disappointed.
Re the Spidey movies butchering the Marvel Universe Spidey: Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson, Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village & Lady in the Water) as Gwen Stacy, and Topher Grace as Eddie Brock are poor casting choices. Alfred Molina was excellent for Dr. Octavius, and Thomas Haden Church for the Sandman. Captain Stacy, as played by James Cromwell,...well, I'll have to wait and see if he can add depth to the role (he was a scene stealer in The Queen).
Jack O Lantern was the first prototype for a "Green Goblin" character reprise, but Hobgoblin was more in line with the original character; he stayed and Jack O disappeared from the series. I think he had a cameo in the Gang Wars saga in the Spidey series of the early 90s.
AC
P.S. Bruce Campbell keeps getting cameos in the Spidey flicks. I'd like to see him in the Frederick Foswell part. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see more Peter Parker and less Spidey if there is a part 4. That's why the Silver Age of Marvel Comics worked so well--character development.
Marc B. Wrote:I really enjoyed the first two. But this was the first let down of the summer. I have no interest in Fantastic Four, Die Hard 4 is being forced (by the studio) to be a PG-13 movie, last year Pirates 2 was horribly long and bored the hell out of me but because of its success I can see Pirates 3 being even longer...
I think this is going to be a disappointing summer.
What does PG-13 mean?
Is that equivalent to the UK's 15 rating (no one under the age of 15 is allowed to see it, with or without an adult accompanying them) or is it equivalent to the UK's PG (Parental Guidance, anyone is allowed in to see it, but parental discretion is advsied due to content that's adult but not graphic enough to be a 12 or 15)?
I don't think Die Hard needs another sequel, really. Despite Die Hard #1 being one of my all time favourite films, I'm not a fan at all of the series and I will wait til this one comes out on DVD. By now it's just gonna be another action film, who's main character happens to be called John McClane.
To make Spider-Man 3 an enjoyable film bring in your favorite bottle of hard liquor and everytime a character cries take 2 shots. Within one hour you will swear it is the best movie ever. The next morning though you will feel the same as you would have if you didn't play the drinking game. Depressed, a little sick to your stomach and wondering where your money went.
Everything enjoyable about the first two films is stripped away in this long and boring sequel that is incomprehensible. It doesn't make sense and it tries too hard to be something it is not. With 3 villains in this film one would expect wall to wall action. Instead, the title character gets only minimal screen time, Spidey takes a back seat to Mary Jane and her career troubles and the film feels more like a Dawson's Creek rerun than a summer blockbuster.
The running time at almost 2 and a half hours is filled with schtick and glitz but very little story. There is hardly any webslinging and the introduction of Venom to the silver screen is lackluster.Instead of scary and threatening he came across like BANE from Batma and Robin. A disposable character. The black baddie deserved better than that.
Spider-Man 3 takes a step into Batman territory by having a majority of the film take place at night so that what little action there is on the screen is barely visible.
Spidey is not supposed to be dark and brooding, even with the symbiote.
Overall, it was just okay. It was absolutely not a Spider-Man movie, it was not smart or hip. Instead it took itself as a joke complete with musical and dance numbers and a decidedly mysoginistic Peter Parker.
The worst insult though is to the viewers and the lack of concern Raimi had towards those who put money in his pocket. His script is pathetic, full of holes and poorly constructed sap.
People will still rush to this film because it's Spider-Man and it will make a boatlaod of cash guaranteeing more films to follow. I just hope that the following films get back to what made the first 2 so enjoyable and we can leave his sad, sandy venemous film behind us.
Everything enjoyable about the first two films is stripped away in this long and boring sequel that is incomprehensible. It doesn't make sense and it tries too hard to be something it is not. With 3 villains in this film one would expect wall to wall action. Instead, the title character gets only minimal screen time, Spidey takes a back seat to Mary Jane and her career troubles and the film feels more like a Dawson's Creek rerun than a summer blockbuster.
The running time at almost 2 and a half hours is filled with schtick and glitz but very little story. There is hardly any webslinging and the introduction of Venom to the silver screen is lackluster.Instead of scary and threatening he came across like BANE from Batma and Robin. A disposable character. The black baddie deserved better than that.
Spider-Man 3 takes a step into Batman territory by having a majority of the film take place at night so that what little action there is on the screen is barely visible.
Spidey is not supposed to be dark and brooding, even with the symbiote.
Overall, it was just okay. It was absolutely not a Spider-Man movie, it was not smart or hip. Instead it took itself as a joke complete with musical and dance numbers and a decidedly mysoginistic Peter Parker.
The worst insult though is to the viewers and the lack of concern Raimi had towards those who put money in his pocket. His script is pathetic, full of holes and poorly constructed sap.
People will still rush to this film because it's Spider-Man and it will make a boatlaod of cash guaranteeing more films to follow. I just hope that the following films get back to what made the first 2 so enjoyable and we can leave his sad, sandy venemous film behind us.
This post was last modified: 05-14-2007, 12:08 AM by Tony H.
“I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum.”
Certified 100% Serious
bones weep tedium Wrote:What does PG-13 mean?
Basically, no one under the age of 13 will be permitted into the movie without being accompanied by an adult. In theory. In reality it means that parents are cautioned the material may not be suitable for anyone under 13 but the theaters still let them in without a parent.
bones weep tedium Wrote:What does PG-13 mean?All PG 13 means is that there is enough swearing, violence, or sex that it may be inappropriate for twelve-year olds and below. It does not mean the parents have to go with children under 13 to see the movie, or anything like that. It is just a quide to help parents decide what is appropriate for their children to view, that's all.
Spiderman 3:
Lots of FX, but little tension and drama. As a character, Venom did not "work" on the movie screen. If you've seen one Spiderman movie, then you can anticipate the ending on this one. And sappy? Yes, it was sappy. Sappy in ways that didn't make it seem very much like Spiderman.
Hmmm....................
In this thread, seems I'm the only one who praised enthusiastically Spider-Man 3. It's my bad habit, sometimes I exaggerate about movie....:o
In this thread, seems I'm the only one who praised enthusiastically Spider-Man 3. It's my bad habit, sometimes I exaggerate about movie....:o
Kenji Wrote:Hmmm....................
In this thread, seems I'm the only one who praised enthusiastically Spider-Man 3. It's my bad habit, sometimes I exaggerate about movie....:o
You were one of the first to be able to go and see it, probably added to the excitement.
Sorry to have to agree with everyone else Kenji but S3 sucked something awful. I took my 3 oldest phews to it this morning 8,10,12 and they didn't like it all that much either. Venom scared the 8 year old (then again he was scared to drive over a bridge when we were coming home so he might not be Captain Lionheart just yet
) The cast was as good as can be, it was all Raimi's fault. He's made some good flicks over the years but this wasn't one of them.I agree with every critique I've read about this film.