We watched this week's Ebert & Roeper review of Spider-Man 3 tonight, and it received 2 Thumbs Down. What struck me about their reviews, as well as some others I've read, is just how much they compared it to its predecessor! Spider-Man 2 is generally considered to be one of, if not, the greatest comic book movies of all time! So what are the odds of topping, or even matching, that the next time out? I went into S-M 3 expecting that it wouldn't be as good as S-M 2, and it wasn't. But that didn't really detract from my enjoyment, because it was still a very good movie based on a comic book character. It was better than Superman Returns, and better than the third X-Men movie. It was light years better than Ang Lee's Hulk nightmare, as well as Daredevil, the first Fantastic Four film, and either of Joel Schumacher's Batman bombs. Maybe all of the bad comic movies over the years have lowered the bar, in my mind, but that's no worse than comparing it to the last movie in the franchise, when that film's considered the top of its genre.
The other criticism I've heard repeated is that there were too many villains. Perhaps that didn't bother me because I know who they are, why they're there, and tons of backstory that wasn't even in the movie. It's possible that, coming in cold, having that many characters was too confusing to some. But I guess I struggle with understanding why three is "too many." What if they'd decided to adapt the story from Amazing Spider-Man # 1, which is the introduction of the Sinister Six? Oh. My. God. Six. Villains!!! There'd be so many that we couldn't even count them, to know if it really was the Sinister Six or not! That just seems like a silly complaint to me. Will Watchmen - if it ever gets made - flop because the audience will be expected to follow - and tell apart - Nite Owl (both of them), Silk Spectre (two, again), Rorschach, Dr Manhattan, Ozymandias, Molloch, and the Comedian... not to mention Dollar Bill and the Hangman, if they manage to include them? Are people that limited in their ability to follow multiple characters? (I follow about 40 monthly comic titles, and manage to keep their stories straight from issue to issue. Does that make me superhuman?)
Granted, there were some flaws to be found in S-M 3. I mentioned the comedy being over-the-top, and some of the more comic book-ish moments, involving Harry in particular, may turn people off who weren't raised on the genre like I was. But all things considered, the experience was way in the positive for me, and I'm looking forward to buying it on DVD in six months, and watching it many more times. It'll never compare to the genius of Doc Ock vs Spidey in the 2nd one, but who expected it to?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I wasn't expecting it to be as good as #2 (which I agree, was amazing) but the franchise has proven itself to be light years ahead of regular comic book movies, so of course we hold it to a higher standard. Just like if a proven math genius got a B+ on a math test, he would probably be disappointed.
Frankly I thought it was terrible. It made a mockery of itself, almost feeling like a satirical version of its predeccesors; what "Scary Movie" was to "Scream". The tone was all over the place with the comedy/drama/sheer bizarre (the jazz club scene), causing none of the dramatic scenes to have any impact. I don't understand how it could have been made by the same team who did the first two!
So, by "terrible" you mean as bad as "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" or Ang Lee's "Hulk"? Your argument that you hold it to a higher standard is flawed, as a movie critic (in my opinion) because that's a sliding scale. It means that, essentially, no comic book movie could ever again be considered "really, really good" unless it was AT LEAST as good as Batman Begins or Spider-Man 2. That's just silly, if you ask me. You could say "It wasn't as good as..." or "Compared to _____, it seemed inferior" but every film (or book, or comic, or song/CD) deserves to be evaluated on its own merits, not how it compares to came before.
The Jazz club scene, for example, for all its admitted awkwardness, had the amazing moment when Gwen realized that she was simply being used to make MJ jealous, and she reacted by apologizing to MJ, which is one of the truly heart-breaking moments of the film. If it didn't affect you, well... I guess you just don't care.
Personally, I'm looking forward to watching Spider-Man 3 a 2nd time more than I'm looking forward to watching Spider-Man a 3rd time. The first movie had some cringe-inducing scenes in it, just like this one did (the 2nd one was pretty much free of those)... but # 3 has Gwen in it! ;-)
Chacun à son goût, vraiment, but I think I'm in Tammy's corner on this one. I gave #3 two stars over on my blog; in other words, it had some redeeming qualities but it still pretty much failed. Two stars makes it about the equivalent of "Superman Returns" and one or maybe 1-1/2 star more than I'd have given "Hulk". I didn't bother to see any of the others you listed, but historically two stars is well below what I'd give the first two Christopher Reeve Superman movies (including either cut of "Superman II").
I don't really remember much of the first two Spider-Man movies other than that I liked #2 more than #1, so I don't think there's a "higher standard" at work here. And going out of the genre, two stars is about equal to the 1967 "Casino Royale" (the most recent movie I've seen that garners that rating), superior to the last two Matrix movies, and vastly inferior to "Run Lola Run", "Garden State" and "Citizen Kane".
In the context of the franchise, #1 was good enough to make me want to see a second one; #2 was better, and raised my hopes for #3; and #3 was enough to undo the goodwill garnered by #1 and #2 and rid me of the desire to see any further sequels. So using that scale, I completely agree with "terrible". Had this been the first movie in the franchise I don't think there'd have been any call for a second or third, except for Parker/Stacy fans like yourself who'd hold it up as proof that MJ is the devil. :)
Of course, I'm not planning to watch any of the Spider-Man movies again---thought they were fine as popcorn, but now that I've licked the butter and salt from my fingers all that's left is packing material and old maids.
Wow.. "had some redeeming qualities but it still pretty much failed" equals "terrible"! And "2 stars" equals "terrible"! I guess that means there's a whole set of scathing labels you employ that are worse than "terrible"? Maybe "really, totally beyond terrible" or "pure excrement"? That seems a bit strange to me, since I'd reserve terrible for things like LXG, Plan 9 From Outer Space, Batman and Robin or Superman III, just to name a few. Those were terrible movies because they really had no redeeming qualities for me, and were a complete waste of hours of my life that I'll never get back. Even Superman Returns wasn't terrible, in my book, because there were a handful of really, really good moments in it.
But to each their own. I would love to know your "beyond terrible" labels, though...
On the plus side, I did really like Gwen!
The worst part of the Gwen angle, as noted by many critics and which got a snort out of me as it played out onscreeen, was the compounding of coincidences around her. She's Petey's lab partner and then ends up being endangered when the crane goes wacky - ok, so far. She's dating Eddie Brock, who just happens to be outside the building she's in when the crane strikes - uhhh, starting to seem a little thin. And her dad, the police captain, also happens to be there at the same time - jeez, what are we, stupid? Now, the reality is that things like that happen in comics all the time, but in a film they really stick out like sore thumbs.
I think you missed the phrase "in the context of the franchise", or perhaps I should clarified that I was switching frames of reference. I thought Spider-Man 3 was near the middle of the road when compared to the majority of other films I've seen, but not among the very worst; but I thought it was a terrible Spider-Man movie when compared to the others that it was theoretically building upon, and in conjunction with them as a unit. Two stars as a standalone movie isn't "terrible"; .5 stars (maybe one if I'm feeling charitable because of Gwen/Bryce) is. To look at it another way, the duo of S-M1 and S-M2 was probably in my 3-star range for movies in general, but the trilogy drops to a (still relatively solid) 2.5.
(And since I'm comparing apples and architecture, all three S-Ms are even worse Hulk movies than "Hulk"---Big Green/Grey didn't even show up once! They suck as westerns, too.)
No, the scales and terms aren't completely objective, but that's because I can't reboot my entire life and start fresh---my judgment is coloured by my experience. It's entirely possible I'd think S-M3 was the best comic book movie ever made if it was the first I'd seen, but it wasn't, so it has to stand against S-M1 and S-M2 and Batman Begins as well as Hulk and Captain America.
Anyway, isn't objectivity completely counter to the whole idea of sequels? Why would the movie industry bother making followups if people didn't go based on how much they liked the last one? Wasn't a prime selling point of S-M3 the appeal of seeing the stories and characters and events set up in S-M1 and S-M2 continued?
"Terrible" compared to the first 2 movies in the series, I can understand (though I'd certainly disagree with it). Thanks for the clarification, PeterJ.
I personally wouldn't do a review of a film from that context, because I think even sequels deserve to be evaluated on their own merits. Where I think it's fair to bring their prequels into consideration would be in areas like, "Do they contradict what was already established?" or "Was it essentially a bait and switch?" An example of the latter might be Halloween 3: Season of the Witch, as I'm sure some fans of the first two films felt quite cheated when the third one had almost nothing to do with Michael Myers or the events from I or II. As it happened, I remember watching that third installment many years ago when it came out, and really liking it, because it broke away and told what I thought was a much more interesting story than simply re-hashing more Michael Myers slash-and-gash. As is so often the case, I suspect I was out-of-step with how most people reacted to it, but that's a place I'm always happy to live in! :-)
Post a Comment