“Spider Man 3″ — A FilmCritic Review
Universally considered the worst superhero sequel ever, Joel Schumacher’s bloated monstrosity temporarily derailed Warner’s lucrative Dark Knight franchise when it tried in vain to fill gaping plot holes with a multitude of C-list villains and unnecessarily whiny sidekicks.
Spider-Man 3 never balloons to B&R proportions, though director Sam Raimi’s third installment in Columbia’s cash-cow definitely appears overstuffed. Three villains, two love interests, and one venomous drop of black alien goo compete for screen time in the longest (by 20 minutes) and most disjointed of the Spidey films. Factor in a costume change, multiple musical numbers for a warbling Kirsten Dunst, and an embellished dance routine in a seedy jazz joint and you’re guaranteed plenty for your money, though in this case that’s not for the best.
Check out the rest of this Sean O’Connell review at FilmCritic.com.
Netflix it is!
Looks like Michael’s fears were well founded.
I never got the impression that the movie was disjointed. I think they did a fairly good job of weaving the storylines together.
Sorry Kyle, definitely disjointed.
Many of the scenes trying to portray him as falling under the darker influence of the symbiote were cheesy and overdone. The only one that was well-done was when he confronted Eddie in the Bugle offices about the photo.
But overall, those moments didn’t fit well with the pacing and styling of the other scenes.
it’s still a good movie, but the writing is sloppy. not only is there too much but the transitions between the different storylines aren’t as smooth as in the previous two. Definitely not as good as Spider-man I & II
wlg
I liked the movie….I felt the script did a good job of balancing the various plot threads and weaving them into a good story. That said, it’s not nearly as nirvana for me as Spider-Man 2 was…but then again, few movies are .
Yeah, I’m going to see it. And I expect to be thoroughly entertained.
But it’s a shame that Spidey 3 will break box office records dispite critical distain, while Serenity…well…you know.
Personally I couldn’t stand it… the largess, the bad script, the singing, the dance numbers… all combined to really destroy the film for me. And to top it off with all the crying at the end… well, what can I say?
I thought this movie was horrendous. It was so contrived. The climactic battle was something I would expect to see from a six-year old playing from actions figures and the whole plot was ill contrived. (The worst was the “I never said anything before now but…” line). And don’t even get me started on the romantic melodrama they called a plot
I swear, I think some of the people who hated this movie only do so because the critics told them too.
Sorry Brian - I saw it opening day and my opinion has nothing to do with what critics say. I truly hated the film and am not afraid to say so… Conversely I believe that many ppl are seeing this film and “enjoying” it because they feel they need to due to the amount of money spent on it. Same thing happens in theatre… ppl give a standing ovation to medicore and bad productions simply because they paid so much for the ticket.
Supporting this kind of filmmaking (and I’m a huge Raimi fan) will only cause Hollywood to make more disjointed, non-sensical, contrived and over-long films - instead of just telling a frickin story.
I feel like we were watching two different movies. I’m not saying I didn’t have any problems with it but there were some logical leaps and bad dialouge choices in the first two as well, but I really did enjoy it. I even got a litle choked up towards the end. I have an opposite concenr. I think movies are being unecceasrily shortened just to cram in more screenings so Hollywood can make hitter money back quicker and if we want to see the filmmakers true vision we have to wait for the inevitable extended cut DVD. I sometimes wonder if any of these stuido execs even actually LIKE movies.