(Because my university has currently blocked YouTube and all other media viewing websites, here's the link to the preview of today's film)
Another blockbuster release, another midnight showing, another highly anticipated film...and another more than slight let down. Spiderman 3, I'll say right off the bat, was not what it was cracked up to be.
The critics are giving this movie a B- on yahoo, and the viewers are giving it a B. One of the rare times that critics and moviegoers are so very close in their "grading" scale for such a film. And there are more than a few reasons for such an event.
The acting, while still in conjunction with every other Spiderman film, was disappointing at times. Kirsten Dunst stepped it up for once, actually becoming a character instead of an actress playing a part. Suddenly, her emotions were real and the audience could sympathize with Mary Jane Watson instead of listening to Dunst. Tobey Maguire has never been a let down when it comes to the Spiderman movies, and he didn't let me down this time either. His character, now that's a different story, but I digress. Topher Grace, on the other hand, has seen better days. And much better characters. Playing Venom was simply not the role for him. A scrawny photographer who is overly emotional, and not nearly as intimidating as he should have been, Eddie Brock wasn't the Venom he should have been. An avid reader of the Spiderman comics and aware of the villians, I was more than disappointed. Brock was a burly man, intimidating and quite butch. Not the push over that was depicted. A better choice could have been made. Gwen Stacey, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, was decent. Although the character was all wrong, Howard did more than a good enough job portraying the blonde competition of Mary Jane. And Sandman, Thomas Haden Church, although not really a villian in my opinion, was appealing as well. It was the rest of the movie that left something to be desired.
Now, the storyline. Come on. I understand Raimi's goal and his twisted sense of humor, but the absolutely ludicrous depiction of both Spiderman and Parker's infection by the Simbiote were laughable when they should have left the audience confused and perturbed with the situation. For example, when the suit begins to "infect" Parker, I really don't need to see him dancing down the streets, pointing and winking at everybody, walking like a clown, and dancing on the bar during a jazz performance. It doesn't really portray what the entire idea of the simbiote was.
Spiderman 3, while well intentioned, just didn't live up to the hype. The storyline was fair, the villians (although lacking a certain Mysterio that was promised) were well chosen (just not the actors), the idea was good. But the product left much to be desired.
It's still worth seeing for those Spiderman fans, either of the comic or of the films. But don't be expecting too much. You'll leave disappointed. And in my case, wishing you had waited a few days and spent the hours from 12 a.m. until 2:30 sleeping.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For me the highlight of the film was James Franco. I thought out of all the actors, he was by fair the best. To me, the rest of the film just did not fit with what the first two were. There was too much of an emphasis on "funny" parts and it felt completely different from the first two.
I pretty much on;ly liked it for the action scenes, and venom actually looked about right.
n the other hand, they made peter emo. EMO!!!
Post a Comment