DuckThor Evil
Legend
Batman Begins was pretty good for a superhero movie, but if you remove the Batman from it... What remains are not much. I think X-Men 2 is by far the best superhero movie. Spiderman 2 is also quite good.
Spiderman 3
- Thread starter NocturnDragon
- Start date
Batman Begins was pretty good for a superhero movie, but if you remove the Batman from it... What remains are not much. I think X-Men 2 is by far the best superhero movie. Spiderman 2 is also quite good.
So what would remain if you removed Wolverine from Xmen 2 and even Xmen 1 and Xmen 3...not much at all. Him and Magneto are the main attractions. Lets apply that to Spiderman 2...if he was removed from it......
I generally agree with most of the opinions. The patchy-ness was very evident. But I couldn't be too critical cos, well, it was a Spiderman flick and I'm a big fan.
One thing I thought that was done quite well was the failing relationship. Ok, I admit it wasn't cinematic genius. Guess it's cos the way Dunst played it reminded me of an ex
.
One thing I thought that was done quite well was the failing relationship. Ok, I admit it wasn't cinematic genius. Guess it's cos the way Dunst played it reminded me of an ex
.2 good action sequences in the film, the rest is excrement.
They should rename him to vagina man or marshmellow man (referencing the fact that Toby is rather pudgy to play a superhero). Seriously, who wants to see Peter Parker crying for half the movie. Even when he was trying to act cool when he was in the black suit, the cheese factor was so extreme I had to vomit.
The acting was bad, the script boring, the editing hooey. Just not a good flic. Two thumbs down.
They should rename him to vagina man or marshmellow man (referencing the fact that Toby is rather pudgy to play a superhero). Seriously, who wants to see Peter Parker crying for half the movie. Even when he was trying to act cool when he was in the black suit, the cheese factor was so extreme I had to vomit.
The acting was bad, the script boring, the editing hooey. Just not a good flic. Two thumbs down.
TBH, I don't quite understand why a lot of these type of films are criticized for "bad acting, poor screenplay, lousy dialogue, etc. etc" (eg. "Fantastic Four" is 10x worse than Spidey3 IMO).
I enjoyed Spidey3. For me to get emotional when Harry died wasn't something I expected of a movie of this type so that was a bonus.
I enjoyed Spidey3. For me to get emotional when Harry died wasn't something I expected of a movie of this type so that was a bonus.
For me it's because I want escapist action movies to be brilliant, to let them work (for me it's all about forgetting reality for 2 hours and having good fun). And that small fact that I paid a lot of money for the privilege, so it's nice to feel like it was money well spent.
The shitty acting, dialogue and premises you're asked to believe in just ruin it for me, personally. I got nothing out of it, sadly.
"a lot of money" can be subjective, so perhaps that's one of the main reasons why you don't like Spidey3.
The other reason would would be your expectation or reasoning for such an expectation, or "benchmark movie" as it is, since there must be one for you have such an expectation.
There wasn't any reality in the 2.5 hours I spent watching Spidey3, and I had fun watching it because I wasn't expecting anything more from this movie.
Would love to hear what many here have to say about "escapist" or non-reality movies like "Shrek 3" or "POTC3" (the later of which I 'll never understand why Depp got so much credit -- an Oscar nomination -- for something I or he can do everyday, acting tipsy).
Hehe
Many millions poured into the "top" movie should justify some expectations, I think. We expected this to movie to wipe the floor with everything else out there thoroughly. And that's not only about CG and such.
Why should that be a valid comparison, it's a totally different genre.
That aside, Johnny Depp beaten up, drunk and high will play any role better than McGuire (or pretty much anyone else besides the few big guns) ever will on his best day.
I pretty much agree with Nesh.
I quite liked it. It had some flaws, but at nearly 2.5 hours, I don't think they could have packed in much more without getting criticized for it. Not quite on the scale of "batman begins", but certainly a very enjoyable, entertaining and good Spiderman movie IMO.
I quite liked it. It had some flaws, but at nearly 2.5 hours, I don't think they could have packed in much more without getting criticized for it. Not quite on the scale of "batman begins", but certainly a very enjoyable, entertaining and good Spiderman movie IMO.
Enjoyed the action sequences, better than the other 2 and really well done. Otherwise... as stated by many, too cheesy. I guess they have to write to the younger audience but to me that stage of spiderman with Venom and then Carnage was very dark and brutal. Unfortunately with the target age group, you can't really do that so we'll never see Carnage, and they had to express the dark side of the symbiote in the more pathetic way they did.
In the sense that it's £6 for 2.5 hours of pretty much one-shot, no return entertainment, it is a lot of money, especially if your time for such things is limited.
The other reason would would be your expectation or reasoning for such an expectation, or "benchmark movie" as it is, since there must be one for you have such an expectation.[/B]
Nope, there's no movie I hold up and go, "well, no, that one wasn't as good as movie X".
That's your prerogative, but it wasn't mine! I really enjoyed 1 and 2, so I was expecting to enjoy 3.
It's a good job these things are personal preference
Similar threads
