Hmmm, I didn't think it was particularly good. Certainly, I found the second film is superior in every respect.
The whole plot is chaotic and disjointed. There are a ton of different stories starting and stopping abruptly, in the end crashing together in a really messy ending.
Peter & Mary Jane's relationship is even more turgid than it was in the first film, to the point where I really got sick of them. Particularly as the pair of them spend their time whining or ego-tripping. The whole "emo" thing is also irritating, as are the numerous children in the film screaming nonsense like "WICKED AWESOME, SPIDERMAN!".
Personally I thought they could have just removed Sandman completely. The only reason he's there, plot-wise, is to get Peter Parker all pissed off about the death of his uncle. Frankly, between the grief provided by Harry Osbourne, Eddie Brock and Mary Jane, there are more than enough reasons for Peter to go off the rails. No, the only real reason for putting Sandman in there I suspect is because of the impressive special effects his character brings to the table.
Ask more or less any critic who has seen the film and I'm sure they'll say that there are just too many things going on in the film that have no relation to each other.
The action sequences are still great, (particularly the first one) but after 2+ hours they start to get a little grating too. I just started to wish the whole thing would hurry up and finish off - which it did! After what seems like an eternity there is a big fight at the end where everything finishes up in a most unsatisfying way.
So in the end, you've got bad acting, bad dialogue, awful plot, too many villains and a quite boring film.
I agree that it is a bit "choatic", but disjointed? Not at all.
I just think that Rami tried to fit too much story into the film while trying to keep it under three hours.
There will probably be a Spider-Man 4, but without Rami directing. I think he was trying to tie everything up in this one and I'm sure they had to cut out a lot of scenes to get it down to the 2 hours and 36 minutes runtime.
I'll bet the extended cut will clock in at well over 3 hours and be a lot more satisfying from a character/plot stand point than the theatrical version.
I liked it and the dark Peter Parker was hilarious (especially during the James Brown montage).
I agree that it is a bit "choatic", but disjointed? Not at all.
I just think that Rami tried to fit too much story into the film while trying to keep it under three hours.
Really? I felt kinda like I was watch four separate films, jumping between them every 20 minutes or so. The plot threads only really came together in the end, but they did so in a very rushed way. I'm sure if they extended the run of the film they could make things a bit more coherent, but then it would be OVER 3 HOURS long That is just way too much for an action movie.
Personally, I think they should have followed the structure of the second film. Have one main bad guy (Doc Oc) and a sub-villain lurking in the background (Harry) who only comes out of the shadows right at the end of the film. So for Spideman 3, concentrate on Harry as the big bad guy, only introduce Venom right at the end (so he can be the star of Spideman 4) and ditch Sandman completely.
Personally I thought they could have just removed Sandman completely. The only reason he's there, plot-wise, is to get Peter Parker all pissed off about the death of his uncle. Frankly, between the grief provided by Harry Osbourne, Eddie Brock and Mary Jane, there are more than enough reasons for Peter to go off the rails. No, the only real reason for putting Sandman in there I suspect is because of the impressive special effects his character brings to the table.
I haven't seen it yet myself, but I read a piece in the newspaper that said that the reason Sandman was necessary is that most Hollywood types can't imagine people doing something heroic unless they have some sort of vested interest in mind. Doing the right thing only because it's the right thing to do is unthinkable to them.
Certainly divisive, but there's probably a grain of truth in there somewhere.
I haven't seen it yet myself, but I read a piece in the newspaper that said that the reason Sandman was necessary is that most Hollywood types can't imagine people doing something heroic unless they have some sort of vested interest in mind. Doing the right thing only because it's the right thing to do is unthinkable to them.
Certainly divisive, but there's probably a grain of truth in there somewhere.
Interesting stuff. I totally agree that this is a Hollywood attitude designed for what is now perceived to be an extremely cynical audience. This is why I prefer Japanese movies where people will be nice purely for the sake of being nice. After all, there is no weapon more potent than pure kindness!
Sandman's role in the film isn't to make Spiderman do heroic things though - in fact Sandman is what causes Spidey to go down the distinctly un-heroic, emo path.
Hmmm, I didn't think it was particularly good. Certainly, I found the second film is superior in every respect.
The whole plot is chaotic and disjointed. There are a ton of different stories starting and stopping abruptly, in the end crashing together in a really messy ending.
Peter & Mary Jane's relationship is even more turgid than it was in the first film, to the point where I really got sick of them. Particularly as the pair of them spend their time whining or ego-tripping. The whole "emo" thing is also irritating, as are the numerous children in the film screaming nonsense like "WICKED AWESOME, SPIDERMAN!".
Personally I thought they could have just removed Sandman completely. The only reason he's there, plot-wise, is to get Peter Parker all pissed off about the death of his uncle. Frankly, between the grief provided by Harry Osbourne, Eddie Brock and Mary Jane, there are more than enough reasons for Peter to go off the rails. No, the only real reason for putting Sandman in there I suspect is because of the impressive special effects his character brings to the table.
Ask more or less any critic who has seen the film and I'm sure they'll say that there are just too many things going on in the film that have no relation to each other.
The action sequences are still great, (particularly the first one) but after 2+ hours they start to get a little grating too. I just started to wish the whole thing would hurry up and finish off - which it did! After what seems like an eternity there is a big fight at the end where everything finishes up in a most unsatisfying way.
So in the end, you've got bad acting, bad dialogue, awful plot, too many villains and a quite boring film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
One bad guy too many. They should have chosen Venom or Sandman and stuck with one.
Venom was completely wasted.
Bingo. So it was not just me. 8). Both of you totally summed up what I felt about the movie. Especially it was trying to be "cool" with the "wicked" stuff the kid said and the "emo" stuff. But like 2 years too late. In other words, I guess it was pretty hip when they started making the movie.
Flying snowboard/hoverboard? That's like 10 years (okay, mayyybe 5) years too late in being "hip".
Admittedly I will be 29 in September and I didn't know what the hell EMO was (in fact never heard of it) until 3-6 months ago.
Just one more imbecilic sub-catagory of music which has become a description for anything involving "emo"tion. I think people have gone completely nuts buying into these descriptors, but then again, it's music aimed at immature kids with an incomplete grasp of emotion. I'm repulsed by this micro-catagorization.
Just one more imbecilic sub-catagory of music which has become a description for anything involving "emo"tion. I think people have gone completely nuts buying into these descriptors, but then again, it's music aimed at immature kids with an incomplete grasp of emotion. I'm repulsed by this micro-catagorization.
"Just as many bands of the early-to-mid 1990s were unwillingly lumped under the umbrella of "grunge", some record labels wanted to be able to market a new sound under the word emo..
I'm not too flustered, as it mentioned, the whole Grunge thing during the 90's.... I kinda bought into that, though my favourite music at the time was a bit of Metallica (heavy metal), Pearl Jam (seattle "grunge"), M-People, Snap (mainstream "dance" music)...
Nonetheless yeah I understand what you're saying, SpamSwich. In any case I remain confused about "emo" and especially, "web 2.0". ...I swear, if and when I have kids, I will probably have no idea what they would be into. Hell, some of my friends/ co-workers, I have no friggin' *clue* what they're into.
Good Charlotte. Found it. That was the look Emo Spidey really reminded me of:
...Surprisingly their look is very non-Emo at the moment, AFAIK.
Kinda back to "punk"...
Look pretty solidly emo to me. The punk look is harder. I feel like I could go in that room sporting a board with a nail in the end of it and beat the hell out of all of them, no problem.
No spoilers yet, comments welcome.
Comments
The whole plot is chaotic and disjointed. There are a ton of different stories starting and stopping abruptly, in the end crashing together in a really messy ending.
Peter & Mary Jane's relationship is even more turgid than it was in the first film, to the point where I really got sick of them. Particularly as the pair of them spend their time whining or ego-tripping. The whole "emo" thing is also irritating, as are the numerous children in the film screaming nonsense like "WICKED AWESOME, SPIDERMAN!".
Personally I thought they could have just removed Sandman completely. The only reason he's there, plot-wise, is to get Peter Parker all pissed off about the death of his uncle. Frankly, between the grief provided by Harry Osbourne, Eddie Brock and Mary Jane, there are more than enough reasons for Peter to go off the rails. No, the only real reason for putting Sandman in there I suspect is because of the impressive special effects his character brings to the table.
Ask more or less any critic who has seen the film and I'm sure they'll say that there are just too many things going on in the film that have no relation to each other.
The action sequences are still great, (particularly the first one) but after 2+ hours they start to get a little grating too. I just started to wish the whole thing would hurry up and finish off - which it did! After what seems like an eternity there is a big fight at the end where everything finishes up in a most unsatisfying way.
So in the end, you've got bad acting, bad dialogue, awful plot, too many villains and a quite boring film.
I agree that it is a bit "choatic", but disjointed? Not at all.
I just think that Rami tried to fit too much story into the film while trying to keep it under three hours.
There will probably be a Spider-Man 4, but without Rami directing. I think he was trying to tie everything up in this one and I'm sure they had to cut out a lot of scenes to get it down to the 2 hours and 36 minutes runtime.
I'll bet the extended cut will clock in at well over 3 hours and be a lot more satisfying from a character/plot stand point than the theatrical version.
I liked it and the dark Peter Parker was hilarious (especially during the James Brown montage).
Venom was completely wasted.
Disagree to a point, yama.
I agree that it is a bit "choatic", but disjointed? Not at all.
I just think that Rami tried to fit too much story into the film while trying to keep it under three hours.
Really? I felt kinda like I was watch four separate films, jumping between them every 20 minutes or so. The plot threads only really came together in the end, but they did so in a very rushed way. I'm sure if they extended the run of the film they could make things a bit more coherent, but then it would be OVER 3 HOURS long
I think Haque sums up the film pretty well:
(spoliers, kinda...)
http://www.applegeeks.com/lite/strips/aglite142.jpg
Personally, I think they should have followed the structure of the second film. Have one main bad guy (Doc Oc) and a sub-villain lurking in the background (Harry) who only comes out of the shadows right at the end of the film. So for Spideman 3, concentrate on Harry as the big bad guy, only introduce Venom right at the end (so he can be the star of Spideman 4) and ditch Sandman completely.
Personally I thought they could have just removed Sandman completely. The only reason he's there, plot-wise, is to get Peter Parker all pissed off about the death of his uncle. Frankly, between the grief provided by Harry Osbourne, Eddie Brock and Mary Jane, there are more than enough reasons for Peter to go off the rails. No, the only real reason for putting Sandman in there I suspect is because of the impressive special effects his character brings to the table.
I haven't seen it yet myself, but I read a piece in the newspaper that said that the reason Sandman was necessary is that most Hollywood types can't imagine people doing something heroic unless they have some sort of vested interest in mind. Doing the right thing only because it's the right thing to do is unthinkable to them.
Certainly divisive, but there's probably a grain of truth in there somewhere.
I haven't seen it yet myself, but I read a piece in the newspaper that said that the reason Sandman was necessary is that most Hollywood types can't imagine people doing something heroic unless they have some sort of vested interest in mind. Doing the right thing only because it's the right thing to do is unthinkable to them.
Certainly divisive, but there's probably a grain of truth in there somewhere.
Interesting stuff. I totally agree that this is a Hollywood attitude designed for what is now perceived to be an extremely cynical audience. This is why I prefer Japanese movies where people will be nice purely for the sake of being nice.
Sandman's role in the film isn't to make Spiderman do heroic things though - in fact Sandman is what causes Spidey to go down the distinctly un-heroic, emo path.
Hmmm, I didn't think it was particularly good. Certainly, I found the second film is superior in every respect.
The whole plot is chaotic and disjointed. There are a ton of different stories starting and stopping abruptly, in the end crashing together in a really messy ending.
Peter & Mary Jane's relationship is even more turgid than it was in the first film, to the point where I really got sick of them. Particularly as the pair of them spend their time whining or ego-tripping. The whole "emo" thing is also irritating, as are the numerous children in the film screaming nonsense like "WICKED AWESOME, SPIDERMAN!".
Personally I thought they could have just removed Sandman completely. The only reason he's there, plot-wise, is to get Peter Parker all pissed off about the death of his uncle. Frankly, between the grief provided by Harry Osbourne, Eddie Brock and Mary Jane, there are more than enough reasons for Peter to go off the rails. No, the only real reason for putting Sandman in there I suspect is because of the impressive special effects his character brings to the table.
Ask more or less any critic who has seen the film and I'm sure they'll say that there are just too many things going on in the film that have no relation to each other.
The action sequences are still great, (particularly the first one) but after 2+ hours they start to get a little grating too. I just started to wish the whole thing would hurry up and finish off - which it did! After what seems like an eternity there is a big fight at the end where everything finishes up in a most unsatisfying way.
So in the end, you've got bad acting, bad dialogue, awful plot, too many villains and a quite boring film.
One bad guy too many. They should have chosen Venom or Sandman and stuck with one.
Venom was completely wasted.
Bingo. So it was not just me. 8). Both of you totally summed up what I felt about the movie. Especially it was trying to be "cool" with the "wicked" stuff the kid said and the "emo" stuff. But like 2 years too late. In other words, I guess it was pretty hip when they started making the movie.
Flying snowboard/hoverboard? That's like 10 years (okay, mayyybe 5) years too late in being "hip".
Admittedly I will be 29 in September and I didn't know what the hell EMO was (in fact never heard of it) until 3-6 months ago.
Just one more imbecilic sub-catagory of music which has become a description for anything involving "emo"tion. I think people have gone completely nuts buying into these descriptors, but then again, it's music aimed at immature kids with an incomplete grasp of emotion. I'm repulsed by this micro-catagorization.
Update: Looks like I'm not the only one who is disgusted with this marketing of an utterly vacuous concept.
Just one more imbecilic sub-catagory of music which has become a description for anything involving "emo"tion. I think people have gone completely nuts buying into these descriptors, but then again, it's music aimed at immature kids with an incomplete grasp of emotion. I'm repulsed by this micro-catagorization.
Update: Looks like I'm not the only one who is disgusted with this marketing of an utterly vacuous concept.
"Just as many bands of the early-to-mid 1990s were unwillingly lumped under the umbrella of "grunge", some record labels wanted to be able to market a new sound under the word emo..
I'm not too flustered, as it mentioned, the whole Grunge thing during the 90's.... I kinda bought into that, though my favourite music at the time was a bit of Metallica (heavy metal), Pearl Jam (seattle "grunge"), M-People, Snap (mainstream "dance" music)...
Nonetheless yeah I understand what you're saying, SpamSwich. In any case I remain confused about "emo" and especially, "web 2.0".
...Surprisingly their look is very non-Emo at the moment, AFAIK.
Kinda back to "punk"...
Good Charlotte. Found it. That was the look Emo Spidey really reminded me of:
...Surprisingly their look is very non-Emo at the moment, AFAIK.
Kinda back to "punk"...
Look pretty solidly emo to me. The punk look is harder. I feel like I could go in that room sporting a board with a nail in the end of it and beat the hell out of all of them, no problem.
Look pretty solidly emo to me. The punk look is harder.
Yeah, the picture I posted was their EMO stage. Now they are a bit more "back" to punk-ish.
I feel like I could go in that room sporting a board with a nail in the end of it and beat the hell out of all of them, no problem...