![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.144.46.246
Just ok.Plot development is predictable.
Actors are phoning it in....sonambulism has set in.
Once or twice you can see Mcguire acting during a closeup, but the impulse quickly passes. The downside of his closeups are that it is clear that he is too old to believably play someone just a few years out of high school.
Oh and Kirsten Dunst sings, not once, but twice.
'Nuff said.
Action secquencies are ok- lots of CGI, but quality is getting better.
At almost 2hr30min running time, it's about 30-40min too long. Better editing would have made a more cohesive film.
It will generate a big domestic box office and end up very profitable for the studio and producers.
#4 will definately be made, beyond that, who knows (or cares).
Sorry for the negative review.
Best,
Follow Ups:
Sure, it should have been edited down by another 30 minutes, but overall, I felt III to be a much better film than I or II.No profundity, but it's a Hollywood CGI action flick based on a comic for God's sake...
![]()
This film is NOT full of insight into the human condition. This film does NOT contain a fully logical plot line. This film does NOT contain a proper timeline.BUT it IS based on a comic!
I enjoyed what was on the screen enough to take my family, and some friends, to see it twice; more than SM 1 or 2.
This film does contain:
Some great special effects; Some great action sequences; Enough character development to actually get involved and know the characters who are maimed or killed - and care.
I think part of the issue for this, and most comic book films, is that they are a hiding to nothing trying to satisfy the character fan-base.
Equally there are enough weaknesses in this film that I would normally be happily be pulling it to pieces, but the film's positive elements meant that I could skate over them rather than dwelling on them.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, two hours of mindless entertainment - well, what do you expect of a comic!
![]()
> > > "Equally there are enough weaknesses in this film that I would normally be happily be pulling it to pieces, but the film's positive elements meant that I could skate over them rather than dwelling on them." < < <
No offense, but I couldn't skate over the glaring faults as did you and Jon.
> > > "I thoroughly enjoyed it, two hours of mindless entertainment - well, what do you expect of a comic!" < < <
I've been a fan of the Spidey comics since the earliest days. There's mindless and then there's brain-dead; the third film has FAR too many precious coincidences to be entertaining for anyone who cares about logic in a film or even a broadly drawn comic book. Sadly, the problems with Raimi's third effort boils down to sloppy screen writing and complacent direction.
I realize that you don't especially care for the social relevance stuff ("insight into the human condition"), but it's what contributed to the first two films success at suspending disbelief and I would assume the resultant popularity of those films. Note: Suspension of disbelief is essential to the appreciation of character driven cinema, and the Spiderman series is unequivocally character-driven even if not "high art" cinema.
Cheers,
AuPh
AuPh,
Yep - I was reading the Spidey comics in the early 70s.
As I point out to my girls Spiderman, Buffy et al are build on the premise that someone through some twist of fate becomes a superhero - we can all dream, but I can't get too strung up about it.
I can fully understand anyone shredding this film - but to be honest I could pull the other films to pieces too.
Martin
make me see it. There's a shelf life on that quantification, too...
![]()
that doesn't do it for me. I never found her very attractive.Best,
ag
![]()
asdf
![]()
.
![]()
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: