Poor Spidey:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...q_taep3ElI

applekisses said:

right, so let's make the characters like they were when they were interesting, usable characters, and not make MJ a top fashion model/actress, dating super-dork Peter Parker.

RZR said:

Even when MJ was interesting, she was still a knockout. That was the joke that Peter avoided meeting her for years (real time) because he thought she must be boring and plain because Aunt May insisted he date her.

sextonseven said:

Part of this might be that I don't particularly like Kirsten Dunst.

sextonseven said:

Yeah, that's true. And I don't have a problem with her being a struggling model or actress in the films. And I think Dunst is quite pretty. It's just that some people are calling for her to be the super-model type that she's been portrayed as for the last 20 or so years in the comics that I disagree with for the movie version. I think Dunst is actually perfect for the part. Cute, perky, bubbly personality, witty, but not overdoing the looks thing, which is unbelievable and not right for the pathos of the Parker/Spider-man thing.

applekisses said:

Yeah, I never have been a fan of her's. Her teeth should have been fixed, it's hard not to stare at them.

PaisleyPark5083 said:

OMG, I was totally staring at her teeth throughout the entire movie. Sometimes it almost looks like she has fangs.

applekisses said:

Yeah, I finally got your point about four hours later.

Hey,
I may be slow, but eventually,
Ill get there.

sextonseven said:

It's worse in the IMAX. Her teeth and Venom's teeth looked very similar.

applekisses said:

First one was great and I loved the second one about as much. The third kind of left me feeling empty--some parts were just wrong(like the Saturday Night Fever/Bonedaddy Jazz Breakdown & Mary Jane's songs). Too much crying, too many characters. The only parts I loved were the landlord and his daughter and JJ Jameson. But you really can't lose with them. Seemed like Harry Osborne couldn't be killed until the movie decided, finally, to do it. Why is there always a nuclear reactor kinda thing close to the city? And why didn't it destroy Sandman's locket with his daughter's pic? It was an odd film. It seemed bereft of good ideas and the action stuff felt like I'd already seen it in the other films, but better. I didn't care bout Gwen Stacy at all and they even gave her MJ's job. Eddie Brock was cooler in the comics and I feel like he had more of a backstory although I don't remember it. Venom wouldn't need Sandman to do anything. Kirsten Dunst is looking a little haggard--I remember when she lit up the first film. meh.

Tonylover said:

That's pretty much how I feel about it. The sandman should have been left out.

Although i actually like Tobey.... he's a bit of a cutie.

the one thing I didnt like was not enough Venom, but I understand cause sadly a lot of Venom wouldnt have gotten the pg-13 rating cause he could scare kids

sextonseven said:

Well, seeing it on IMAX is totally different from seeing it in cable or even in a regular theatre . I agree that the fight scenes were great. I think the direction of the movie was awesome. the WRITING is what sucked rocks


Smooches;)

pretty disappointin'

DiminutiveRocker said:

My only real issue with SM3 is Venom himself. In the marvel comic series, Eddle Brock/Venom was way more of a bodybuilder type of a man (see above). The Eddie/Venom in the film was no way close to that size.

But other than that, the action sequences were great (especially both of the Peter VS. Harry scenes). I hope Sony Pictures can do an even better job at the production of SM4.
[Edited 5/12/07 0:07am]
[Edited 5/12/07 12:15pm]

missfee said:

That's kinda the point though. Peter Parker is supposed to be a huge fucking dork. Who better to cast than a huge fucking dork?

Overall I liked it but there were some points that left me feeling a little...meh. 3 Villians was too many for this movie. They should've been divided between two films instead of all crammed together, so that each could have the storyline and attention they deserved. I also felt introducing Gwen into the plot was pointless.

But I like the EmoPeter sequence.

meow85 said:

There were 4 villains including M dimples J

the dance scene was extremely stupid

They should 've left the goblin out, not have made a giant out of the sandman, halfed the role of mj and done a better job with venom
[Edited 5/12/07 13:11pm]

I liked the battles between Peter and Harry Osborn. At times, I felt the movie was dragging, but i thought the jazz club scene was fun despite the fact that Peter could suddenly play the piano and dance.

I think they should have focused on the conflicts with Harry Osborn and Sandman. Venom should have been saved for the next movie.

The climatic battle managed to grab me, although it's a little too much that all three of the movies end with Mary Jane being held captive by the villain(s). And Spider-Man's secret identity was as usual not much of a secret for the villains. They all got to see him unmasked.

All in all, I was entertained. But I still think the first movie is the best. I saw that many times. I don't think I'll be seeing Spider-Man 3 again until it's out on DVD.

thedribbler said:

The Goblin is the only villain that works in the movie as it is, though.

RZR said:

I agree--they've had two other movies to flesh out his motivation.

I thought it was decent.

I wasn't actually crazy about the first two, but this last one was the only one I've seen on the big screen. That's obviously the way to watch them.

There's just enough story & acting to keep it interesting beyond the amazing CGI stuff. But only just enough. It's not actually a great film, like Batman Begins.

NDRU said:

yes, batman begins was maybe the best superhero moive ever made.
It's a shame that they're messing it up with spiderman. maybe like the batman series, after a few years a director will come back with a good spidey film.

Neither Sandman nor Venom had enough time to become real enough characters.
The goblin had a lot of time, due to the first film, still the goblin was never an interesting villain in the comics.
The film was a rushed job. And the best spiderman stories never revolved around MJ.

All in all, the hollywood spiderman is much too powerful, he's not human/vulnerable enough.

thedribbler said:

That's why the final battle with the Green Goblin in the first movie was so great. Spider-Man really took a beating and seemed very vulnerable.

thedribbler said:

I didn't like Batman Begins. I thought Christian Bale was a bad choice to play Batman in that he didn't look right at all. His chin was too pointy and he spoke out of the side of his mouth with almost a lisp. The story wasn't bad, but Bale ruined it for me.

I thought the first two were ok and I haven't seen this one yet but everyone I know that has seen it said it was VERY disappointing except for one fight scene that they all said was very cool.

sextonseven said:

Yeah, I don't get the extreme love for Batman Begins. While I love Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale, it's not a great superhero movie or even a great movie, period. It's good(but features a glaringly weak performance from Katie Holmes) and it in no way approaches the first two Supermans, Spidermans or Batmans.

thedribbler said:

that's funny, too, because on the surface he's vulnerable, playing the nerd role. But you're right, he is like superman in these movies. He practically can't be hurt.

sextonseven said:

I thought he was fine

Batman Begins was great because it was so believable. It took a pretty unlikely story and put it in the real (or almost real) world. Spiderman is obviously in the comic book (completely impossible) world.

Some people like special effects or staying true to the original comics, but to me (I don't know comics very well) Batman Begins worked far better than any other superhero movie.