list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Spider-Man 3 on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Spider_Man_3/243982/default.aspx Title: Spider-Man 3
Year: 2007
Director: Sam Raimi
Plot: Your friendly neighborhood web-slinger is back, only this time his sunny outlook has become partially overcast in the third chapter of director Sam Raimi's Spider-Man saga. Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco return to reprise their roles from the previous two installments, with Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, and Bryce Dallas Howard making their first appearances in the series as Flint Marko (aka Sandman), Eddie Brock (aka Venom), and Gwen Stacy, respectively. Peter Parker (Maguire) has finally leaned to walk the middle ground between being the superhero that his city needs, and the man that Mary Jane (Dunst) loves. All is well in New York City until one night, as Peter and M.J. set gazing at the stars, a falling comet streams across the sky and crashes into the ground close by. But this isn't any ordinary shooting star, and upon impact the mysterious space rock is split open to reveal a shape-shifting symbiote with the power to overtake anything that it comes into contact with. Later, as Harry Osborn acquires his late father's flying board, engineers a powerful new Goblin outfit, and takes to the sky to avenge dad's death, the mysterious space sludge infects both Peter's Spider Man suit and ambitious street photographer Eddie Brock (Grace). His strange new suit giving him a newfound sense of power as it gradually overpowers his personality, Peter discovers that escaped convict Flint Marko was in fact the man responsible for the death of Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson). Unfortunately for Peter, Marko has recently acquired the power to morph at will and quickly completes his transformation into the dreaded Sandman. As the Sandman gives in to his darkest criminal instincts and the slithering space symbiote transforms Eddie Brock into the nightmarish fanged villain known as Venom, the citizens of New York City must once again call on Spider Man to fend off destructive forces that are far too powerful for the likes of mortal man. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 63
Number of Lists: 83
Number of blog posts: 68
Number of discussion threads: 9
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:47:36 GMTSpider-Man 32007Sam RaimiYour friendly neighborhood web-slinger is back, only this time his sunny outlook has become partially overcast in the third chapter of director <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___107427/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sam Raimi</a>'s <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/205724/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Spider-Man</a> saga. <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___196872/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tobey Maguire</a>, <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____20669/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kirsten Dunst</a>, and <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___299361/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Franco</a> return to reprise their roles from the previous two installments, with <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___195520/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Thomas Haden Church</a>, <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___242491/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Topher Grace</a>, and <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___367460/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bryce Dallas Howard</a> making their first appearances in the series as Flint Marko (aka Sandman), Eddie Brock (aka Venom), and Gwen Stacy, respectively. Peter Parker (Maguire) has finally leaned to walk the middle ground between being the superhero that his city needs, and the man that Mary Jane (Dunst) loves. All is well in New York City until one night, as Peter and M.J. set gazing at the stars, a falling comet streams across the sky and crashes into the ground close by. But this isn't any ordinary shooting star, and upon impact the mysterious space rock is split open to reveal a shape-shifting symbiote with the power to overtake anything that it comes into contact with. Later, as Harry Osborn acquires his late father's flying board, engineers a powerful new Goblin outfit, and takes to the sky to avenge dad's death, the mysterious space sludge infects both Peter's Spider Man suit and ambitious street photographer Eddie Brock (Grace). His strange new suit giving him a newfound sense of power as it gradually overpowers his personality, Peter discovers that escaped convict Flint Marko was in fact the man responsible for the death of Uncle Ben (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___108502/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cliff Robertson</a>). Unfortunately for Peter, Marko has recently acquired the power to morph at will and quickly completes his transformation into the dreaded Sandman. As the Sandman gives in to his darkest criminal instincts and the slithering space symbiote transforms Eddie Brock into the nightmarish fanged villain known as Venom, the citizens of New York City must once again call on Spider Man to fend off destructive forces that are far too powerful for the likes of mortal man. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide63Tag Target (>10)836893http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s243982.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Spider_Man_3/243982/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/laurenbailey63/archive/2009/9/23/44003.aspx Post By: laurenbailey63
Post To: laurenbailey63 Blog
Post Date: 9/23/2009 10:14:00 PM
Body: the filme was the best one ever. i hope they make a nother one. but with a cuter spider man next time.
]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:14:00 GMTlaurenbailey63laurenbailey63 Blog9/23/2009 10:14:00 PMthe filme was the best one ever. i hope they make a nother one. but with a cuter spider man next time. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/7/42150.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 8:47:36 PM
Body: "Peter Parker" (Tobey Maguire) has finally found balance in his less than normal life. He is finally able to manage his devotion to the love of his life, "Mary Jane 'MJ' Watson" (Kirsten Dunst). But something happens to him that gives him the biggest fight of his life -- the fight of his sanity. A oily-black symbiote has taken over his personality, and it changes his personality in a negative way. It even changes his relationship with "MJ", and his famous blue, red and black outfit to a jet-black one. To complicate things even more, he has to deal with an escaped convict whose molecular structure is merged with sand that was being tested on, and a major competitor for a staff job at the "Daily Bugle" who later becomes even more of the problem. And to complicate things even further, his best friend, "Harry Osborn" (James Franco) is even more obsessed with killing him to avenge his father's death that he believes "Parker's" alter-ego, "Spider-Man" caused. The first problem with this movie is that there is just too much going on in "Parker's" life. We get some great action with not one, but three villains, but not a lot of subplot with these three bad guys. However, one of the bad guys has his story fleshed out a bit more in the previous films. In the comic books, the villains are a lot more evil, and all are more criminally insane than they are depicted in the film. Another problem with the film is that they focus a little more on the relationship between "Parker" and "MJ" than the battle between "Spidey" and the villains. In fact, when two of the villains team-up near the end of the film, it's nothing spectacular. All these subplots are a bit too much in my opinion, and they were not developed well at all. Another big problem is that the three new characters were poorly introduced. In fact, the film goes away from the comic book history and introduces two characters that were introduced decades before the most popular villain in the movie. Because I know of the history of "Spidey", I had a little problem with these two being introduced in this movie -- especially the one who is introduced before "MJ" is in the comic book. What this movie does right is the action, the cast performances and especially the special effects. To steal a phrase from one of the numerous "Spider-Man" titles published by Marvel Comics, the special effects are simply "amazing". Even though I've had some production training and I am able to tell when CGI is on the screen, the visual effects are very well done. In my opinion, the symbiote animation and "Spidey" swinging on his web through the streets of the "Big Apple" were the best special effects. The "Sandman" (Thomas Haden Church) effects were also pretty impressive, but not as much. One special effect I wasn't impressed with was when the characters were fighting at a break-neck speed. I think it was way too fast for the camera, and the audience. Also a disappointment was the fact that two of the villains lacked that certain edge to get the audience to boo them, especially when battling the "Web-Head". And what was up with the "NYPD" in this movie? Why did they mostly stand there and let "Spider-Man" do most of the work? The performances, like the previous two movies, were very good. I still enjoy how well the on-screen chemistry between Maguire and Dunst work. Just watching those two makes the movie pretty watchable. One thing my mother hated in this film were some of the camera movements. Many shots were fast pans, which made her fill dizzy according to her. In my opinion, I would wait until this movie comes out on DVD. The first two films in the trilogy were more impressive, with better introductions of characters and better subplot development.
]]>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:47:36 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/7/2009 8:47:36 PM"Peter Parker" (Tobey Maguire) has finally found balance in his less than normal life. He is finally able to manage his devotion to the love of his life, "Mary Jane 'MJ' Watson" (Kirsten Dunst). But something happens to him that gives him the biggest fight of his life -- the fight of his sanity. A oily-black symbiote has taken over his personality, and it changes his personality in a negative way. It even changes his relationship with "MJ", and his famous blue, red and black outfit to a jet-black one. To complicate things even more, he has to deal with an escaped convict whose molecular structure is merged with sand that was being tested on, and a major competitor for a staff job at the "Daily Bugle" who later becomes even more of the problem. And to complicate things even further, his best friend, "Harry Osborn" (James Franco) is even more obsessed with killing him to avenge his father's death that he believes "Parker's" alter-ego, "Spider-Man" caused. The first problem with this movie is that there is just too much going on in "Parker's" life. We get some great action with not one, but three villains, but not a lot of subplot with these three bad guys. However, one of the bad guys has his story fleshed out a bit more in the previous films. In the comic books, the villains are a lot more evil, and all are more criminally insane than they are depicted in the film. Another problem with the film is that they focus a little more on the relationship between "Parker" and "MJ" than the battle between "Spidey" and the villains. In fact, when two of the villains team-up near the end of the film, it's nothing spectacular. All these subplots are a bit too much in my opinion, and they were not developed well at all. Another big problem is that the three new characters were poorly introduced. In fact, the film goes away from the comic book history and introduces two characters that were introduced decades before the most popular villain in the movie. Because I know of the history of "Spidey", I had a little problem with these two being introduced in this movie -- especially the one who is introduced before "MJ" is in the comic book. What this movie does right is the action, the cast performances and especially the special effects. To steal a phrase from one of the numerous "Spider-Man" titles published by Marvel Comics, the special effects are simply "amazing". Even though I've had some production training and I am able to tell when CGI is on the screen, the visual effects are very well done. In my opinion, the symbiote animation and "Spidey" swinging on his web through the streets of the "Big Apple" were the best special effects. The "Sandman" (Thomas Haden Church) effects were also pretty impressive, but not as much. One special effect I wasn't impressed with was when the characters were fighting at a break-neck speed. I think it was way too fast for the camera, and the audience. Also a disappointment was the fact that two of the villains lacked that certain edge to get the audience to boo them, especially when battling the "Web-Head". And what was up with the "NYPD" in this movie? Why did they mostly stand there and let "Spider-Man" do most of the work? The performances, like the previous two movies, were very good. I still enjoy how well the on-screen chemistry between Maguire and Dunst work. Just watching those two makes the movie pretty watchable. One thing my mother hated in this film were some of the camera movements. Many shots were fast pans, which made her fill dizzy according to her. In my opinion, I would wait until this movie comes out on DVD. The first two films in the trilogy were more impressive, with better introductions of characters and better subplot development. http://www.spout.com/blogs/09za0/archive/2008/8/26/34411.aspx Post By: 09za0
Post To: 09za0 Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2008 5:14:53 PM
Body: SPIDERMAN 3 had phenomenel special effects, wonderful acting and so-so music. But the storyline phenomenally.... sucked.
]]>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:14:53 GMT09za009za0 Blog8/26/2008 5:14:53 PMSPIDERMAN 3 had phenomenel special effects, wonderful acting and so-so music. But the storyline phenomenally.... sucked. http://www.spout.com/blogs/scswngr/archive/2008/7/19/32757.aspx Post By: scswngr
Post To: Film Obsessed
Post Date: 7/19/2008 8:41:12 AM
Body: The Dark Knight is everything it has been advertised to be: exciting, captivating, and enthralling. It is the first major category Oscar worthy movie I have seen in 2008, and not just for the gripping and chilling final performance of Heath Ledger, who certainly deserves a Best Supporting Actor nod. This Batman movie bests all of its predecessors. It is the best Super-Hero sequel movie i have ever seen, and may just be worthy of a Best Picture nomination come January 2009. Sequel success is not a new thing in Hollywood, but more often then not Super-Hero follow ups fall short of their first chapters. Not only does The Dark Knight up the ante, it takes the whole pot, which is a relief considering one of the last Super-Hero franchises, Spider-Man, which showed early success, has trailed off into mediocrity. Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker is everything Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus could only dream of being in Spider-Man 2. Maniacal, sadistic, and calculating, Ledger's Joker even makes Jack Nicholson's 1989 Batman performance seem like Bozo the Clown. Even my fear of Batman falling into the same trap as Spider-man 3, by writing in too many villains (and therefore too many plotlines), were quelled by Christopher Nolan and brother John's brilliant script. Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face was fresh and unexpected, adding more depth and emotion to The Dark Knight. The Nolan's succeeded where the Spider-man 3 writers failed with Sandman, Venom, and Green Goblin II, not by keeping it simple, but by creating a truly intertwined story-line for their villians. This film certainly has it all, doing everything right for both the die-hard comic book fanboy and the pedestrian blockbuster movie-goer. The casting for every character is dead-on, including the replacement of love interest Rachel Dawes with actress Maggie Gyllenhaal who provides a much more believable peformance than her predecessor Katie Holmes. Many people will come to the theater to see Ledger at his absolute best, and he certainly is, but they will also leave the theater raving about the amazing action sequences and the engaging story-line. They will leave thirsting for more, and wondering how in the world another Super-Hero sequel, let alone another Batman sequel could possibly top this.
]]>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:41:12 GMTscswngrFilm Obsessed7/19/2008 8:41:12 AMThe Dark Knight is everything it has been advertised to be: exciting, captivating, and enthralling. It is the first major category Oscar worthy movie I have seen in 2008, and not just for the gripping and chilling final performance of Heath Ledger, who certainly deserves a Best Supporting Actor nod. This Batman movie bests all of its predecessors. It is the best Super-Hero sequel movie i have ever seen, and may just be worthy of a Best Picture nomination come January 2009. Sequel success is not a new thing in Hollywood, but more often then not Super-Hero follow ups fall short of their first chapters. Not only does The Dark Knight up the ante, it takes the whole pot, which is a relief considering one of the last Super-Hero franchises, Spider-Man, which showed early success, has trailed off into mediocrity. Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker is everything Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus could only dream of being in Spider-Man 2. Maniacal, sadistic, and calculating, Ledger's Joker even makes Jack Nicholson's 1989 Batman performance seem like Bozo the Clown. Even my fear of Batman falling into the same trap as Spider-man 3, by writing in too many villains (and therefore too many plotlines), were quelled by Christopher Nolan and brother John's brilliant script. Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face was fresh and unexpected, adding more depth and emotion to The Dark Knight. The Nolan's succeeded where the Spider-man 3 writers failed with Sandman, Venom, and Green Goblin II, not by keeping it simple, but by creating a truly intertwined story-line for their villians. This film certainly has it all, doing everything right for both the die-hard comic book fanboy and the pedestrian blockbuster movie-goer. The casting for every character is dead-on, including the replacement of love interest Rachel Dawes with actress Maggie Gyllenhaal who provides a much more believable peformance than her predecessor Katie Holmes. Many people will come to the theater to see Ledger at his absolute best, and he certainly is, but they will also leave the theater raving about the amazing action sequences and the engaging story-line. They will leave thirsting for more, and wondering how in the world another Super-Hero sequel, let alone another Batman sequel could possibly top this. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/26/31749.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/26/2008 5:00:43 PM
Body: Over the weekend, Wanted had a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com. It’s since gone down to 81% (at the time of this writing — and with top critics it’s down to 67%), though that’s still pretty good for a movie that initially looked like just another Matrix knockoff. But will the good reviews make for great box office? Last night, while viewing the latest trailer in a theater with some friends, I mentioned that Wanted was receiving great reviews. Nobody believed me at first, and then they didn’t care; they still thought it looked terrible. Good reviews rarely help an action movie, and bad reviews rarely deter audiences from seeing them. However, if we look at the top 5 most critically acclaimed action movies, it’s clear that people do often prefer a good action film to a bad one. The next 5, on the other hand… The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 98%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #9 ($377 million) Sample Critic Quote: “The film event of the millennium.” (Richard Corliss, Time) My Analysis: In terms of both reviews and gross, it is possible that, yes, this final LOTR film was the film event of the millennium only three years in. It even won the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as ten other Academy Awards. However, we do have a few hundred years left, and Corliss’ assessment is likely to be challenged one of these centuries. Casino Royale (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #133 ($167.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “This is the best James Bond film in at least 17 years, and Daniel Craig might be the best 007 … ever.” (Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com) My Analysis: Most critics and audiences agreed that this was one of the best 007 films ever and that Craig was at least the best Bond since Connery. Still, it only grossed a mere $7 million more than Die Another Day, which was certified rotten by RT. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 97%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #62 ($227.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “It is probably the best action films to date that doesn’t involved so much special effects.” (Wilson Morales, BlackFilm.com) My Analysis: I agree that it’s the best of the series and one of the best action movies in years, maybe even best to date not involving special effects, as Morales says. But really the only reason that Ultimatum is higher up on the b.o. charts than The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy is because people took awhile to get into the series, with many of Ultimatum’s audience having seen the previous two for the first time on DVD. Still, along with both Return of the King and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s one of the rare threequels that earned the highest gross of its series. Considering Return, that says one thing, while considering Indy, that says something else. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #10 ($373.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “[It's sure to] join the upper echelons of action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, and Die Hard.” (Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer) My Analysis: If this sequel were switched in ranking with its predecessor (see below), it might say something more about reviews equaling revenue, but otherwise between the two installments, there is evidence that good superhero movies will perform better than bad ones. Just don’t pay any attention to Spider-Man 3, which is also pretty close on the b.o. charts, but which is pretty far below in RT ranking (62%, whole; 44%, top critics). Iron Man (2008) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #26 ($305.9 million and counting) Sample Critic Quote: “It’s the best movie of its kind since the second Spider-Man movie four years ago.” (Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle) My Analysis: Fitting to LaSalle’s quote that Iron Man is just behind Spider-Man 2, and with only another $70 million to go in order to be just behind it on the b.o. chart. Unfortunately, as far as ticket sales show, it’s really only the best movie of its kind since the third Spider-Man movie one year ago. Spy Kids (2001) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 96%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #309 ($112.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “To sum up, if you want your children to someday appreciate the true art of cinema, Spy Kids is a terrific movie to start with.” (Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News) My Analysis: If by “true art of cinema” Strauss means the kind of action movies that receive good reviews, then he’s right. Film critics love the well-directed spy movies (see #2 and #3). As for kids, they don’t care about reviews, which explains why Alvin and the Chipmunks made almost double what Spy Kids grossed. Out of Sight (1998) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 90%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #1,395 ($37.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “In a summer filled with mega-hyped disappointments, Out of Sight proves the undeniable value of story, characterization, and — most of all — intelligence.” (Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat) My Analysis: The mega-hyped disappointments of that summer include Godzilla, which made about $100 million more than this film. Of course, Out of Sight isn’t really an action-packed action movie, and it only starred George Clooney, who despite being a huge movie star has never really been that big a box office draw. Meanwhile, 1998’s biggest box office winner, the more-action-packed Saving Private Ryan (which RT apparently doesn’t consider to be an action movie), was also one of the five best-reviewed films of the year. Hot Fuzz (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #2,029 ($23.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Hot Fuzz is everything an action-comedy should be. It achieves through parody what most films in the genre can’t accomplish straight.” (Nathan Rabin, The Onion A.V. Club) My Analysis: The best action buddy comedy in ten years, yet it’s gross is hardly comparable to the box office success of the Rush Hour movies, Bad Boys II, Lethal Weapon 4 and … Starsky & Hutch? Even Jimmy Fallon’s Taxi performed better domestically. Rescue Dawn (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 88%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #3,970 ($5.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “A potentially commercial audience-pleaser that retains all of the characteristic Herzog complexity and nuance, Rescue Dawn is an electrifying action adventure that clamps your nerves with jaws of steel.” (Rex Reed, New York Observer) My Analysis: Too bad more moviegoers don’t read Rex Reed, because that’s a mighty good sell. Unfortunately, Rescue Dawn suffered a double blow because of who directed it. Critics certainly overpraised it, just because it’s an Herzog film; audiences likely avoided it because of the same reason (not by name, but had it opened bigger right away, audiences wouldn’t have even noticed the art house connection and might have gone to see the new action movie starring “Batman”). Spider-Man (2002) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 85%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #7 ($403.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Let the gauntlet be thrown: Spider-Man may be the best comic adaptation of all time.” (Todd Gilchrest, FilmStew.com) My Analysis: In terms of box office receipts, it is indeed the best comic adaptation of all time. But as we see by two titles above, it’s since been beat in terms of critical acclaim, just in this decade alone (and from earlier, at least Superman: The Movie has a better RT score). Still, it would almost be evidence that critics and box office can sometimes go hand in hand if it weren’t for that certified rotten movie that ranks just above it on the box office chart: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/26/2008 5:00:43 PMOver the weekend, Wanted had a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.com. It’s since gone down to 81% (at the time of this writing — and with top critics it’s down to 67%), though that’s still pretty good for a movie that initially looked like just another Matrix knockoff. But will the good reviews make for great box office? Last night, while viewing the latest trailer in a theater with some friends, I mentioned that Wanted was receiving great reviews. Nobody believed me at first, and then they didn’t care; they still thought it looked terrible. Good reviews rarely help an action movie, and bad reviews rarely deter audiences from seeing them. However, if we look at the top 5 most critically acclaimed action movies, it’s clear that people do often prefer a good action film to a bad one. The next 5, on the other hand… The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 98%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #9 ($377 million) Sample Critic Quote: “The film event of the millennium.” (Richard Corliss, Time) My Analysis: In terms of both reviews and gross, it is possible that, yes, this final LOTR film was the film event of the millennium only three years in. It even won the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as ten other Academy Awards. However, we do have a few hundred years left, and Corliss’ assessment is likely to be challenged one of these centuries. Casino Royale (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 94% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #133 ($167.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “This is the best James Bond film in at least 17 years, and Daniel Craig might be the best 007 … ever.” (Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com) My Analysis: Most critics and audiences agreed that this was one of the best 007 films ever and that Craig was at least the best Bond since Connery. Still, it only grossed a mere $7 million more than Die Another Day, which was certified rotten by RT. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 97%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #62 ($227.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “It is probably the best action films to date that doesn’t involved so much special effects.” (Wilson Morales, BlackFilm.com) My Analysis: I agree that it’s the best of the series and one of the best action movies in years, maybe even best to date not involving special effects, as Morales says. But really the only reason that Ultimatum is higher up on the b.o. charts than The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy is because people took awhile to get into the series, with many of Ultimatum’s audience having seen the previous two for the first time on DVD. Still, along with both Return of the King and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it’s one of the rare threequels that earned the highest gross of its series. Considering Return, that says one thing, while considering Indy, that says something else. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 95%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #10 ($373.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “[It's sure to] join the upper echelons of action movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, and Die Hard.” (Jeffrey Overstreet, Looking Closer) My Analysis: If this sequel were switched in ranking with its predecessor (see below), it might say something more about reviews equaling revenue, but otherwise between the two installments, there is evidence that good superhero movies will perform better than bad ones. Just don’t pay any attention to Spider-Man 3, which is also pretty close on the b.o. charts, but which is pretty far below in RT ranking (62%, whole; 44%, top critics). Iron Man (2008) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 93% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #26 ($305.9 million and counting) Sample Critic Quote: “It’s the best movie of its kind since the second Spider-Man movie four years ago.” (Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle) My Analysis: Fitting to LaSalle’s quote that Iron Man is just behind Spider-Man 2, and with only another $70 million to go in order to be just behind it on the b.o. chart. Unfortunately, as far as ticket sales show, it’s really only the best movie of its kind since the third Spider-Man movie one year ago. Spy Kids (2001) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 96%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #309 ($112.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “To sum up, if you want your children to someday appreciate the true art of cinema, Spy Kids is a terrific movie to start with.” (Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News) My Analysis: If by “true art of cinema” Strauss means the kind of action movies that receive good reviews, then he’s right. Film critics love the well-directed spy movies (see #2 and #3). As for kids, they don’t care about reviews, which explains why Alvin and the Chipmunks made almost double what Spy Kids grossed. Out of Sight (1998) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 92% (top critics: 90%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #1,395 ($37.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “In a summer filled with mega-hyped disappointments, Out of Sight proves the undeniable value of story, characterization, and — most of all — intelligence.” (Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat) My Analysis: The mega-hyped disappointments of that summer include Godzilla, which made about $100 million more than this film. Of course, Out of Sight isn’t really an action-packed action movie, and it only starred George Clooney, who despite being a huge movie star has never really been that big a box office draw. Meanwhile, 1998’s biggest box office winner, the more-action-packed Saving Private Ryan (which RT apparently doesn’t consider to be an action movie), was also one of the five best-reviewed films of the year. Hot Fuzz (2007) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 92%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #2,029 ($23.6 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Hot Fuzz is everything an action-comedy should be. It achieves through parody what most films in the genre can’t accomplish straight.” (Nathan Rabin, The Onion A.V. Club) My Analysis: The best action buddy comedy in ten years, yet it’s gross is hardly comparable to the box office success of the Rush Hour movies, Bad Boys II, Lethal Weapon 4 and … Starsky & Hutch? Even Jimmy Fallon’s Taxi performed better domestically. Rescue Dawn (2006) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 88%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #3,970 ($5.5 million) Sample Critic Quote: “A potentially commercial audience-pleaser that retains all of the characteristic Herzog complexity and nuance, Rescue Dawn is an electrifying action adventure that clamps your nerves with jaws of steel.” (Rex Reed, New York Observer) My Analysis: Too bad more moviegoers don’t read Rex Reed, because that’s a mighty good sell. Unfortunately, Rescue Dawn suffered a double blow because of who directed it. Critics certainly overpraised it, just because it’s an Herzog film; audiences likely avoided it because of the same reason (not by name, but had it opened bigger right away, audiences wouldn’t have even noticed the art house connection and might have gone to see the new action movie starring “Batman”). Spider-Man (2002) Rotten Tomatoes’ “T-Meter” score: 90% (top critics: 85%) All Time Domestic Box Office Rank: #7 ($403.7 million) Sample Critic Quote: “Let the gauntlet be thrown: Spider-Man may be the best comic adaptation of all time.” (Todd Gilchrest, FilmStew.com) My Analysis: In terms of box office receipts, it is indeed the best comic adaptation of all time. But as we see by two titles above, it’s since been beat in terms of critical acclaim, just in this decade alone (and from earlier, at least Superman: The Movie has a better RT score). Still, it would almost be evidence that critics and box office can sometimes go hand in hand if it weren’t for that certified rotten movie that ranks just above it on the box office chart: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/9/30902.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 11:53:34 AM
Body: Only three other comic book-turned-movie franchises have as many or more installments than "Spider-Man": "Batman" and "Superman" (each with five theatrical films total) and "X-Men" (three entries). Whereas each of those series were run into the ground with a virtual revolving door of creative talent-directors and writers coming and going on all of them, "Spider-Man" has been relatively quiet behind the scenes. Sam Raimi directed all three, and the main stars remained constant through the films. With a group on board who created arguably the best comic-book movie ever ("Spider-Man 2"), why does the third entry in the web-slinger series not live up to expectations? Raimi and crew carried the weight of lofty expectations on their shoulders. The first movie out of the summer gate, "Spider-Man 3" introduces new allies and new villains, yet is a rehash of the previous two films. Everything is coming up roses for Peter Park (Tobey Maguire) and MJ Watson (Kirsten Dunst): She is starring in a new Broadway play, and he has fully embraced his responsibility. Peter's former best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), continues to hold a grudge for the perceived death of his father at the hands of Spider-Man. While on a romantic getaway, a black goo attaches itself to Peter and MJ's scooter, unknowingly transforming Peter into "Black Spider-Man" later in the film. Concurrently, convicted felon Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) escapes from prison and finds himself mutated through the same sort of experiment that turned Parker into Spider-Man. His mutation allows his body to turn into sand, thus leading to the moniker "Sandman." Somewhere along the way, a staff photographer job opens at the Daily Bugle and… Know what? Forget it. At an astounding 140 minutes, I could spend the rest of the review explaining the plot. Suffice to say buildings are attacked, people's lives are put in danger, and we get another obligatory shot of Spider-Man in front of the American flag. Perhaps it is the endless hype we've been subject to over the last five months for the film or the expectations based on the previous installments, but "Spider-Man 3" doesn't quite deliver what it promises. Sure, the action set pieces are expansive and the characters all do what they're supposed to do; they just don't do anything new or fresh. How many times have we seen Mary Jane taken captive by the big bad guy and Spidey have to save her? How many scenes did we have with Peter coming to grips with his powers? And how much more destruction can the city of New York REALLY go through in these movies before they tell Spider-Man to take his merry bunch of mutated villains somewhere else? "Spider-Man 3" suffers from the same things last summer's deeply flawed "X-Men: The Last Stand" did: the theory that bigger equals better. Bigger fights, bigger explosions, better CGI, longer run time, more villains, more story lines. Honestly, this film is crowded to the point it almost feels rushed. Two new origin stories (Sandman and Venom); thankless roles for James Cromwell and Bryce Dallas Howard; and territory that's been covered previously. Peter vs. Harry, Peter and MJ troubled romance, Peter figuring out how to live a normal life and be Spider-Man, Aunt May's Words of Wisdom. There's even a bit of retro-continuity from the first movie about who really killed Uncle Ben. Ostensibly, this film is about forgiveness. Oh, everyone's forgiving everyone else for every little thing they do. And they make dramatic productions out of it. On this note, it truly feels like the end of a series. Every storyline is wrapped up with a bow (some nicer than others), and, frankly, it's a bit too neatly done. The only person who doesn't receive forgiveness is…wait, that would a spoiler, now wouldn't it? Let's just say the forgiveness theme is played with all the subtlety of a dump truck running into a nitroglycerine plant. That is to say, not very subtle. There's the promise of a new day at the end, even before the ill-advised epilogue. Just as every "Star Trek" movie needs to end with the Enterprise warping away to their next adventure, "Spider-Man" films need to end with the web slinger patrolling the streets of the city. Why? It's one last moment for the audience to stand up and cheer, to know someone is there (however fictional) to watch over all of us, and to see our hero in action for what could be the last time. It doesn't happen here, sadly. (Watch for a jaw-droppingly convenient revelation by the "Houseman" at the Osborn estate at the end of the film. Of course, he couldn't say anything previously. Why, exactly? And, again, of course, this moment of truth is so ridiculously dictated by the plot and not the characters, someone should have caught it somewhere in the script process.) MJ and Peter's problem this time is his absorption into Spider-Man. He has a police scanner in his run-down apartment. While trying to comfort MJ, he starts talking about his experience as a hero. She never tells him she's been fired from the musical. Communication plays an even bigger part in their relationship problems than the Spidey suit does. MJ runs to Harry, they kiss, he remembers his history with Peter following an early movie battle and memory loss...it's all very comic bookish. None of the characters act remotely in the ways they did in the first two films. MJ turns into a jealous caricature of herself, and Peter takes his duty too seriously. However, when lives are at risk, is there such a thing as "too seriously"? Topher Grace, as the newly-hired Daily Bugle staff photographer Eddie Brock, Jr. is so intent on landing the job and making something of himself (I assume to prove to "girlfriend" Gwen Stacey he's worth her time) that he doctors a photo of Spidey stealing money. When Peter calls him out on it, he acts offended and sets up the inevitable Brock-as-Venom vs. Spider-Man finale. Why shouldn't Peter have turned him in? Anyone with an ounce of integrity would have done it. And since this encounter enraged Brock to the point of needing the black goo to turn into Venom, his entire reason for being is flimsy at best. Let's address this goo for a second and what it does to Peter. Supposedly, it allows him to unleash his true feelings and desires. He's aggressive and arrogant and frivolous, buying a new suit while he lives in the same apartment he did in the last film. His escapade in the bar with Gwen--really all about rubbing MJ's nose in his newfound "confidence"--in which he performs more moves than Tom Cruise in "Cocktail" is laughable out of place. It's actually embarrassing to watch Maguire playing the piano while dancing and constantly looking at his former squeeze for a reaction. What makes him want to be the old Peter again? Is it the act of throwing MJ to the floor? Does he feel so badly he wants to get rid of the goo? The story allows him to have a moment of clarity which is never gives to Eddie during the final battle. It's terribly convenient, also, that in this film the police realize they made a mistake as to Uncle Ben's murderer. The spiky haired blonde guy who fell to his death in the first film was just an accomplice; the real killer was Marko, who was really only stealing the car to get money for his sick daughter. Sweet and noble…but still illegal and criminal. Why is it every villain has to have a heart of gold? Are there no pure bad guys left in comic book land? Besides that, it's taken two years (in movie time) for the cops to fess up to fingering the wrong guy? As if to tell the audience "Yeah, we know you don't believe it, but if you see it enough, you will," we're treated to seemingly endless flashback sequences to Marko killing Uncle Ben. Over and over again. Didn't buy it the first time, not buying it the fifth. So what's good, you're probably asking? A good deal, actually. As mentioned before, the action pieces are well done, if a bit dizzying to follow. Especially awe-inspiring is the first sequence between the New Goblin and Spider-Man as they twist through alleys and try to avoid one another's weapons. The entire supporting cast is back, including J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), Dylan Baker (Curt Connors) and Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson). Hands down the funniest scene in any of the three films occurs early in "Spider-Man 3" in Jameson's office. After the opening drama and action, it was a welcome (and well done) respite. The effects, of particular note Sandman's transformations, look real. As the wind blows, grains of sand fly off him in his granular form. If you watch closely, you can see each grain of sand. And the acting, for all the story rehashes I've lamented above, is solid enough to carry most of the film. In a vacuum, "Spider-Man 3" might have wowed all of us. But movies aren't made in a vacuum, which is to this one's detriment. On the scale of 1 to 10, "Spider-Man 3" rates a solid 6. It's a noteworthy bookend to the franchise (if this is where it does end) and an enjoyable diversion from the norm. But as good as the previous two? Not likely.
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:53:34 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/9/2008 11:53:34 AMOnly three other comic book-turned-movie franchises have as many or more installments than "Spider-Man": "Batman" and "Superman" (each with five theatrical films total) and "X-Men" (three entries). Whereas each of those series were run into the ground with a virtual revolving door of creative talent-directors and writers coming and going on all of them, "Spider-Man" has been relatively quiet behind the scenes. Sam Raimi directed all three, and the main stars remained constant through the films. With a group on board who created arguably the best comic-book movie ever ("Spider-Man 2"), why does the third entry in the web-slinger series not live up to expectations? Raimi and crew carried the weight of lofty expectations on their shoulders. The first movie out of the summer gate, "Spider-Man 3" introduces new allies and new villains, yet is a rehash of the previous two films. Everything is coming up roses for Peter Park (Tobey Maguire) and MJ Watson (Kirsten Dunst): She is starring in a new Broadway play, and he has fully embraced his responsibility. Peter's former best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), continues to hold a grudge for the perceived death of his father at the hands of Spider-Man. While on a romantic getaway, a black goo attaches itself to Peter and MJ's scooter, unknowingly transforming Peter into "Black Spider-Man" later in the film. Concurrently, convicted felon Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) escapes from prison and finds himself mutated through the same sort of experiment that turned Parker into Spider-Man. His mutation allows his body to turn into sand, thus leading to the moniker "Sandman." Somewhere along the way, a staff photographer job opens at the Daily Bugle and&hellip; Know what? Forget it. At an astounding 140 minutes, I could spend the rest of the review explaining the plot. Suffice to say buildings are attacked, people's lives are put in danger, and we get another obligatory shot of Spider-Man in front of the American flag. Perhaps it is the endless hype we've been subject to over the last five months for the film or the expectations based on the previous installments, but "Spider-Man 3" doesn't quite deliver what it promises. Sure, the action set pieces are expansive and the characters all do what they're supposed to do; they just don't do anything new or fresh. How many times have we seen Mary Jane taken captive by the big bad guy and Spidey have to save her? How many scenes did we have with Peter coming to grips with his powers? And how much more destruction can the city of New York REALLY go through in these movies before they tell Spider-Man to take his merry bunch of mutated villains somewhere else? "Spider-Man 3" suffers from the same things last summer's deeply flawed "X-Men: The Last Stand" did: the theory that bigger equals better. Bigger fights, bigger explosions, better CGI, longer run time, more villains, more story lines. Honestly, this film is crowded to the point it almost feels rushed. Two new origin stories (Sandman and Venom); thankless roles for James Cromwell and Bryce Dallas Howard; and territory that's been covered previously. Peter vs. Harry, Peter and MJ troubled romance, Peter figuring out how to live a normal life and be Spider-Man, Aunt May's Words of Wisdom. There's even a bit of retro-continuity from the first movie about who really killed Uncle Ben. Ostensibly, this film is about forgiveness. Oh, everyone's forgiving everyone else for every little thing they do. And they make dramatic productions out of it. On this note, it truly feels like the end of a series. Every storyline is wrapped up with a bow (some nicer than others), and, frankly, it's a bit too neatly done. The only person who doesn't receive forgiveness is&hellip;wait, that would a spoiler, now wouldn't it? Let's just say the forgiveness theme is played with all the subtlety of a dump truck running into a nitroglycerine plant. That is to say, not very subtle. There's the promise of a new day at the end, even before the ill-advised epilogue. Just as every "Star Trek" movie needs to end with the Enterprise warping away to their next adventure, "Spider-Man" films need to end with the web slinger patrolling the streets of the city. Why? It's one last moment for the audience to stand up and cheer, to know someone is there (however fictional) to watch over all of us, and to see our hero in action for what could be the last time. It doesn't happen here, sadly. (Watch for a jaw-droppingly convenient revelation by the "Houseman" at the Osborn estate at the end of the film. Of course, he couldn't say anything previously. Why, exactly? And, again, of course, this moment of truth is so ridiculously dictated by the plot and not the characters, someone should have caught it somewhere in the script process.) MJ and Peter's problem this time is his absorption into Spider-Man. He has a police scanner in his run-down apartment. While trying to comfort MJ, he starts talking about his experience as a hero. She never tells him she's been fired from the musical. Communication plays an even bigger part in their relationship problems than the Spidey suit does. MJ runs to Harry, they kiss, he remembers his history with Peter following an early movie battle and memory loss...it's all very comic bookish. None of the characters act remotely in the ways they did in the first two films. MJ turns into a jealous caricature of herself, and Peter takes his duty too seriously. However, when lives are at risk, is there such a thing as "too seriously"? Topher Grace, as the newly-hired Daily Bugle staff photographer Eddie Brock, Jr. is so intent on landing the job and making something of himself (I assume to prove to "girlfriend" Gwen Stacey he's worth her time) that he doctors a photo of Spidey stealing money. When Peter calls him out on it, he acts offended and sets up the inevitable Brock-as-Venom vs. Spider-Man finale. Why shouldn't Peter have turned him in? Anyone with an ounce of integrity would have done it. And since this encounter enraged Brock to the point of needing the black goo to turn into Venom, his entire reason for being is flimsy at best. Let's address this goo for a second and what it does to Peter. Supposedly, it allows him to unleash his true feelings and desires. He's aggressive and arrogant and frivolous, buying a new suit while he lives in the same apartment he did in the last film. His escapade in the bar with Gwen--really all about rubbing MJ's nose in his newfound "confidence"--in which he performs more moves than Tom Cruise in "Cocktail" is laughable out of place. It's actually embarrassing to watch Maguire playing the piano while dancing and constantly looking at his former squeeze for a reaction. What makes him want to be the old Peter again? Is it the act of throwing MJ to the floor? Does he feel so badly he wants to get rid of the goo? The story allows him to have a moment of clarity which is never gives to Eddie during the final battle. It's terribly convenient, also, that in this film the police realize they made a mistake as to Uncle Ben's murderer. The spiky haired blonde guy who fell to his death in the first film was just an accomplice; the real killer was Marko, who was really only stealing the car to get money for his sick daughter. Sweet and noble&hellip;but still illegal and criminal. Why is it every villain has to have a heart of gold? Are there no pure bad guys left in comic book land? Besides that, it's taken two years (in movie time) for the cops to fess up to fingering the wrong guy? As if to tell the audience "Yeah, we know you don't believe it, but if you see it enough, you will," we're treated to seemingly endless flashback sequences to Marko killing Uncle Ben. Over and over again. Didn't buy it the first time, not buying it the fifth. So what's good, you're probably asking? A good deal, actually. As mentioned before, the action pieces are well done, if a bit dizzying to follow. Especially awe-inspiring is the first sequence between the New Goblin and Spider-Man as they twist through alleys and try to avoid one another's weapons. The entire supporting cast is back, including J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), Dylan Baker (Curt Connors) and Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson). Hands down the funniest scene in any of the three films occurs early in "Spider-Man 3" in Jameson's office. After the opening drama and action, it was a welcome (and well done) respite. The effects, of particular note Sandman's transformations, look real. As the wind blows, grains of sand fly off him in his granular form. If you watch closely, you can see each grain of sand. And the acting, for all the story rehashes I've lamented above, is solid enough to carry most of the film. In a vacuum, "Spider-Man 3" might have wowed all of us. But movies aren't made in a vacuum, which is to this one's detriment. On the scale of 1 to 10, "Spider-Man 3" rates a solid 6. It's a noteworthy bookend to the franchise (if this is where it does end) and an enjoyable diversion from the norm. But as good as the previous two? Not likely. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28701.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 9:38:09 PM
Body: It is a testament to Sam Raimi and his collaborators that the Spider-man series did not run out of material after a few installments, like the Batman and Superman movies did. Although the end of the film leaves room for another adventure, I think that the series should retire after the third installment- all the loose ends with the characters are tied up, and any subsequent film would probably be just a long wrestling match through the skies of New York. All three films have the same pluses and minuses. On the plus side, there is a sympathetic and atypical hero in Toby Maguire's Peter Parker, who, unlike Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne, is close to an average guy. There is also the epic story the Osborn family, with both father and son being infected by mental illness, revenge, but ultimately reaching and a kind of redemption. The drawbacks, however, are what keep the series from being a great superhero film, like Donner's Superman or Mark Steven Johnson's Daredevil. Many of the character scenes are melodramatic and rather silly, at times verging on soap opera. During a particularly painful scene in 3, I wondered whether I was watching a superhero movie or an episode of Dawson's Creek. And none of the films have very convincing special effects- the CGI looks fake, and that prevents their from being any real suspense through the endless shots of Spider-Man falling and climbing skyscrapers. Part Three is never boring, but much of the beginning is not going to leave you biting your nails in anticipation either. A new villain played by Thomas Hayden Church is introduced, who due to a freak accident has the power to change himself into sand, but still cares about his sick daughter. It might be moving if it wasn't so ridiculous. The other plotlines involves the increasingly arrogant Parker as he stupidly and unintentionally offends his girlfriend, the beautiful Mary Jane (Kristen Dunst). I saw the movie with K.R. Gorlitz, and she felt that these were evocative of a real relationship, but I disagree. The problem is that Parker is forced to act out of character – he is such a nice guy that he probably wouldn't have offended Mary Jane in the first place, or once he does, he should know that it would probably help to apologize. But then a strange thing happens. Peter gets infected by some kind of weird black thing that makes him, for all intents and purposes, go over to the dark side. Unlike the Star Wars series, I felt that this concept was prevented in a much deeper way. We have all gotten angry when we know he shouldn't, just because it feels good, and this movie made me think about that. If we had the power to get what we wanted at any time, with no consequences, wouldn't we sometimes beat up that guy who annoys us? And then an even stranger thing happened- I began to care about the characters, and the movie, especially the tormented Harry Osborn (James Franco), who is capable of such goodness, and such evil. By the end, I had watched a rather shallow film grow into something rather evocative, and I wanted to watch all three films again to get the full arc of the Osborn family. The movie still isn't perfect (it certainly did not deserve to break the one day record it did), but is a good way to bring closure to the series, which I hope it does. All three of Spider-man films are good to almost great, and it would be shame for the series to go downhill with unnecessary future installments. The story has ended here, and I fear a Spider-man 4 wouldn't even be interesting. Spider-Man 3 (2007)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 01:38:09 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 9:38:09 PMIt is a testament to Sam Raimi and his collaborators that the Spider-man series did not run out of material after a few installments, like the Batman and Superman movies did. Although the end of the film leaves room for another adventure, I think that the series should retire after the third installment- all the loose ends with the characters are tied up, and any subsequent film would probably be just a long wrestling match through the skies of New York. All three films have the same pluses and minuses. On the plus side, there is a sympathetic and atypical hero in Toby Maguire's Peter Parker, who, unlike Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne, is close to an average guy. There is also the epic story the Osborn family, with both father and son being infected by mental illness, revenge, but ultimately reaching and a kind of redemption. The drawbacks, however, are what keep the series from being a great superhero film, like Donner's Superman or Mark Steven Johnson's Daredevil. Many of the character scenes are melodramatic and rather silly, at times verging on soap opera. During a particularly painful scene in 3, I wondered whether I was watching a superhero movie or an episode of Dawson's Creek. And none of the films have very convincing special effects- the CGI looks fake, and that prevents their from being any real suspense through the endless shots of Spider-Man falling and climbing skyscrapers. Part Three is never boring, but much of the beginning is not going to leave you biting your nails in anticipation either. A new villain played by Thomas Hayden Church is introduced, who due to a freak accident has the power to change himself into sand, but still cares about his sick daughter. It might be moving if it wasn't so ridiculous. The other plotlines involves the increasingly arrogant Parker as he stupidly and unintentionally offends his girlfriend, the beautiful Mary Jane (Kristen Dunst). I saw the movie with K.R. Gorlitz, and she felt that these were evocative of a real relationship, but I disagree. The problem is that Parker is forced to act out of character &ndash; he is such a nice guy that he probably wouldn't have offended Mary Jane in the first place, or once he does, he should know that it would probably help to apologize. But then a strange thing happens. Peter gets infected by some kind of weird black thing that makes him, for all intents and purposes, go over to the dark side. Unlike the Star Wars series, I felt that this concept was prevented in a much deeper way. We have all gotten angry when we know he shouldn't, just because it feels good, and this movie made me think about that. If we had the power to get what we wanted at any time, with no consequences, wouldn't we sometimes beat up that guy who annoys us? And then an even stranger thing happened- I began to care about the characters, and the movie, especially the tormented Harry Osborn (James Franco), who is capable of such goodness, and such evil. By the end, I had watched a rather shallow film grow into something rather evocative, and I wanted to watch all three films again to get the full arc of the Osborn family. The movie still isn't perfect (it certainly did not deserve to break the one day record it did), but is a good way to bring closure to the series, which I hope it does. All three of Spider-man films are good to almost great, and it would be shame for the series to go downhill with unnecessary future installments. The story has ended here, and I fear a Spider-man 4 wouldn't even be interesting. Spider-Man 3 (2007) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/2/28111.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/2/2008 4:00:25 PM
Body: When I saw the title of Olly Richardson’s rant on The Empire Blog asking if CG has killed our imaginations, I presumed he meant filmmakers’ imaginations and how special effects are less creative when done with the ease of computer graphics. But no, he’s really talking about our imaginations, meaning me and you and everyone we know. I’d never given it too much thought, but maybe modern audiences are really losing their ability to believe at the movies: We never used to be so picky. If somebody watches the original King Kong or any of the works of Ray Harryhausen, you will never hear them complain about how the skeletons were a bit jerky or that the big ape’s fur didn’t blow realistically when he was climbing the Empire State Building (if they do complain, however, you should feel free to shoot them on the grounds of wrongness and philistinism). You just watch the film, acknowledge that what you are seeing couldn’t possibly exist, admire the artistry it took to create it and choose to believe it anyway. That’s what suspension of disbelief is: ignoring the protests of your eyes and more logical parts of your brain in order to enjoy a good story. Yet I don’t think most complaints regarding the realism or believability of a film like The Incredible Hulk (which sparked Olly’s piece) is really focused on acceptance of the Hulk’s existence or even how realistic he looks in CG. It’s about believing a creature’s existence and tangibility within the world of the film and within the context of the filmmakers’ intentions. Ray Harryhausen effects were featured in a lot of movies that weren’t supposed to be taken seriously. Today’s blockbusters, however, come with the pretense that they contain more realistic effects. Otherwise, they would just use cell animation and puppets like they did in the old days. Speaking of which, part of the problem is that characters like Yoda and the Gremlins (look at that BT ad to see how puppets are still excellent) were already truly realistic more than 20 years ago, because they were made from real, tangible substances, and were able to be accepted within the worlds of their films. Meanwhile, a film like Labyrinth, in which the puppets and animatronics look more like puppets and animatronics than real breathing creatures, is still fine because it makes no claim to be anything but what it is. But ever since Jurassic Park, we’ve come to put up with a Hollywood that wants us to buy every little CG thing as photo-realistic. At least Olly acknowledges the present conditions: We’ve now arrived at a place where technology is capable of producing something so photo-realistic that if we can detect a small patch of skin that doesn’t fold in the right way or an eye that fails to glint with emotion, we cry foul and declare what’s on screen to be ridiculous and unbelievable. I’ve done it myself, huffing through Spider-Man 3 about the fact that the giant man made of sand just didn’t look like a real giant man made of sand. I base this complaint on precisely no experience of giant men made of sand, just a belief in what he should look like. Apparently my vision contrasted with those of the vastly more talented and able people at ILM (or whomever created it). So, why have we become so demanding? Why have our eyes taken over the job of filmic enjoyment from our brains? The issue is not with our visions not coinciding with ILM’s, though. That kind of thing was happening more than a 100 years ago to Verne fans watching a Melies film (and in 1902, they were believing everything on screen was real). And the belief of what a man made of sand looks like shouldn’t really vary too far from what an effects technician believes. Complaints about the detail and realism behind Spider-Man 3’s Sandman likely have more to do with where the effects guys cut corners and ended up failing to deceive our eyes. There is no way that Universal or director Louis Leterrier mean for the Hulk in their movie to not look realistic and tangible. Not after the criticisms against Ang Lee’s The Hulk. So, yes, fans do have a right to scrutinize the reboot for not looking any better, and it has nothing to do with a lack of imagination or ability to suspend disbelief. They could easily just go and read another Hulk comic or even watch the ’70s TV show, which may have been totally cheesy but at least had a palpable character in simply using a green-painted bodybuilder. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 02 May 2008 20:00:25 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/2/2008 4:00:25 PM When I saw the title of Olly Richardson’s rant on The Empire Blog asking if CG has killed our imaginations, I presumed he meant filmmakers’ imaginations and how special effects are less creative when done with the ease of computer graphics. But no, he’s really talking about our imaginations, meaning me and you and everyone we know. I’d never given it too much thought, but maybe modern audiences are really losing their ability to believe at the movies: We never used to be so picky. If somebody watches the original King Kong or any of the works of Ray Harryhausen, you will never hear them complain about how the skeletons were a bit jerky or that the big ape’s fur didn’t blow realistically when he was climbing the Empire State Building (if they do complain, however, you should feel free to shoot them on the grounds of wrongness and philistinism). You just watch the film, acknowledge that what you are seeing couldn’t possibly exist, admire the artistry it took to create it and choose to believe it anyway. That’s what suspension of disbelief is: ignoring the protests of your eyes and more logical parts of your brain in order to enjoy a good story. Yet I don’t think most complaints regarding the realism or believability of a film like The Incredible Hulk (which sparked Olly’s piece) is really focused on acceptance of the Hulk’s existence or even how realistic he looks in CG. It’s about believing a creature’s existence and tangibility within the world of the film and within the context of the filmmakers’ intentions. Ray Harryhausen effects were featured in a lot of movies that weren’t supposed to be taken seriously. Today’s blockbusters, however, come with the pretense that they contain more realistic effects. Otherwise, they would just use cell animation and puppets like they did in the old days. Speaking of which, part of the problem is that characters like Yoda and the Gremlins (look at that BT ad to see how puppets are still excellent) were already truly realistic more than 20 years ago, because they were made from real, tangible substances, and were able to be accepted within the worlds of their films. Meanwhile, a film like Labyrinth, in which the puppets and animatronics look more like puppets and animatronics than real breathing creatures, is still fine because it makes no claim to be anything but what it is. But ever since Jurassic Park, we’ve come to put up with a Hollywood that wants us to buy every little CG thing as photo-realistic. At least Olly acknowledges the present conditions: We’ve now arrived at a place where technology is capable of producing something so photo-realistic that if we can detect a small patch of skin that doesn’t fold in the right way or an eye that fails to glint with emotion, we cry foul and declare what’s on screen to be ridiculous and unbelievable. I’ve done it myself, huffing through Spider-Man 3 about the fact that the giant man made of sand just didn’t look like a real giant man made of sand. I base this complaint on precisely no experience of giant men made of sand, just a belief in what he should look like. Apparently my vision contrasted with those of the vastly more talented and able people at ILM (or whomever created it). So, why have we become so demanding? Why have our eyes taken over the job of filmic enjoyment from our brains? The issue is not with our visions not coinciding with ILM’s, though. That kind of thing was happening more than a 100 years ago to Verne fans watching a Melies film (and in 1902, they were believing everything on screen was real). And the belief of what a man made of sand looks like shouldn’t really vary too far from what an effects technician believes. Complaints about the detail and realism behind Spider-Man 3’s Sandman likely have more to do with where the effects guys cut corners and ended up failing to deceive our eyes. There is no way that Universal or director Louis Leterrier mean for the Hulk in their movie to not look realistic and tangible. Not after the criticisms against Ang Lee’s The Hulk. So, yes, fans do have a right to scrutinize the reboot for not looking any better, and it has nothing to do with a lack of imagination or ability to suspend disbelief. They could easily just go and read another Hulk comic or even watch the ’70s TV show, which may have been totally cheesy but at least had a palpable character in simply using a green-painted bodybuilder. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/B_Movies/Re_7_Champagne/588/27758/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: B Movies
Post Date: 4/24/2008 1:05:27 PM
Body: [quote user="porcupine"] Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg. What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. I just watched the first Spider-Man the other day, man that is a bad movie. You talked about Star Wars Episode I, go back and watch Spider-Man, the dialogue is just as bad. [/quote] Well I've still always wondered what Spielberg might do with a challenge to make a movie now on an extremely limited budget. I think the result might be something I would prefer to what he's able to make with his seemingly unlimited wealth. I wonder if sometimes we are more forgiving to a movie when we know it had to work with limitations, which makes it more impressive. I actually thought about mentioning Raimi as well. Sometimes he still seems to use B-movie techniques in his huge budget Spider-man films. Which leads me to believe he might almost still feel more comfortable in that role. And I agree with you that the first Spider-man ain't THAT great. And I heard the third was was the worst.
]]>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:27 GMTRisseladaB Movies4/24/2008 1:05:27 PM[quote user="porcupine"] Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg. What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. I just watched the first Spider-Man the other day, man that is a bad movie. You talked about Star Wars Episode I, go back and watch Spider-Man, the dialogue is just as bad. [/quote] Well I've still always wondered what Spielberg might do with a challenge to make a movie now on an extremely limited budget. I think the result might be something I would prefer to what he's able to make with his seemingly unlimited wealth. I wonder if sometimes we are more forgiving to a movie when we know it had to work with limitations, which makes it more impressive. I actually thought about mentioning Raimi as well. Sometimes he still seems to use B-movie techniques in his huge budget Spider-man films. Which leads me to believe he might almost still feel more comfortable in that role. And I agree with you that the first Spider-man ain't THAT great. And I heard the third was was the worst. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/16/27362.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/16/2008 2:02:00 PM
Body: The internet is an evil construct that’s causing us to submissively open our arms to totalitarianism! No, this isn’t another one of my posts about how our society is entering the world of The Matrix. This is the belief and fear of Barry Sonnenfeld, the director of Men in Black, Men in Black II and Wild Wild West, clearly a fan of lighter sci-fi than of the Orwellian sort. Speaking this week at the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Vegas, he lashed out against the internet, because of how it’s threatening democracy: Sonnenfeld fears that children today will grow up with “no concept of the right to privacy and in fact not understand the need for it. Because the Facebook generation is not concerned with what people know about them . . . they will have no problem with additional governmental supervision, spying and intervention. They will be thrilled that the Internet will be able to follow their every move. Bonnenfeld’s main issue, of course, may be with his claim that kids are on the internet all day long and may not take a break this summer to go see Space Chimps, which he produced. Or that one day we’ll no longer have the freedom to choose which dumb comedic Will Smith sci-fi movies we go to see. But he does have a point, nonetheless. And the point does in fact support my writings about the plugged in generation and its Matrix-like passivity. There is, however, the other way of looking at the internet, as actor Tim Robbins addressed, also at the NAB Show: “just when we were close to a national news media providing a general consensus on what the truth is,” he added, “along comes the Internets [sic] that allows its users a choice on the kind of news it watches and the YouTube. My God, we’ve got to stop them.” Obviously we’re at a crossroads, where some people are using the force of the internet for good and others are letting it take them over. But for movie fans, the horizon looks mighty cool, with its combination of The Matrix, Star Wars, Spider-Man 3, Equilibrium and other geeky delights (Robbins also claimed: “We are at an abyss as an industry and as a country.” That’s cool, I love The Abyss, too). Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:02:00 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/16/2008 2:02:00 PMThe internet is an evil construct that’s causing us to submissively open our arms to totalitarianism! No, this isn’t another one of my posts about how our society is entering the world of The Matrix. This is the belief and fear of Barry Sonnenfeld, the director of Men in Black, Men in Black II and Wild Wild West, clearly a fan of lighter sci-fi than of the Orwellian sort. Speaking this week at the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Vegas, he lashed out against the internet, because of how it’s threatening democracy: Sonnenfeld fears that children today will grow up with “no concept of the right to privacy and in fact not understand the need for it. Because the Facebook generation is not concerned with what people know about them . . . they will have no problem with additional governmental supervision, spying and intervention. They will be thrilled that the Internet will be able to follow their every move. Bonnenfeld’s main issue, of course, may be with his claim that kids are on the internet all day long and may not take a break this summer to go see Space Chimps, which he produced. Or that one day we’ll no longer have the freedom to choose which dumb comedic Will Smith sci-fi movies we go to see. But he does have a point, nonetheless. And the point does in fact support my writings about the plugged in generation and its Matrix-like passivity. There is, however, the other way of looking at the internet, as actor Tim Robbins addressed, also at the NAB Show: “just when we were close to a national news media providing a general consensus on what the truth is,” he added, “along comes the Internets [sic] that allows its users a choice on the kind of news it watches and the YouTube. My God, we’ve got to stop them.” Obviously we’re at a crossroads, where some people are using the force of the internet for good and others are letting it take them over. But for movie fans, the horizon looks mighty cool, with its combination of The Matrix, Star Wars, Spider-Man 3, Equilibrium and other geeky delights (Robbins also claimed: “We are at an abyss as an industry and as a country.” That’s cool, I love The Abyss, too). Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hilarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhilarious
Number of films tagged: 222

Number of people who tagged: 165

Number of times used: 331

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:04 GMT222165331Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/the/MemberTagFilms.aspxthe
Number of films tagged: 124

Number of people who tagged: 131

Number of times used: 150

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT124131150Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 363

Number of people who tagged: 114

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:09:46 GMT363114187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 317

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 458

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:42:37 GMT317111458Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crime/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrime
Number of films tagged: 401

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 303

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:32 GMT40170303Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lame/MemberTagFilms.aspxlame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT14065162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tragic/MemberTagFilms.aspxtragic
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 68

]]>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:19:35 GMT494168Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/long/MemberTagFilms.aspxlong
Number of films tagged: 53

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 62

]]>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:10:04 GMT533562Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/loveit/MemberTagFilms.aspxloveit
Number of films tagged: 38

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 46

]]>Sat, 24 May 2008 23:13:16 GMT383546Tag