I don't know what happened to the people who made the first two Spider-Man movies but I want them to come back. Spider-Man 1 & 2 were two of the best comic book movies I've ever seen but this third movie I can barely stand talking about. Nothing, besides the action and the effects, appealed to me in this movie. The story was so poorly conveyed that the movie felt rushed at the same time that it felt very drawn out and boring - and it wasn't hard to feel that it was drawn out considering that at almost 2 and a half hours, this was the longest Spider-Man yet. There were too many characters, too many storylines, emotions, thoughts and feelings from every character to be taken in at once. Not that it was impossible to keep everything straight, but this overload of info took a lot away from the pacing of the movie. Also, I've stomached Kirsten Dunst's performances as Mary Jane Watson throughout the rest of the series, but I've about had it with her mediocre acting of one of the biggest comic book hotties of all time. But perhaps one of the most annoying things about this third movie is it's almost purposeful inability to stay faithful to the source material.
Ok before I get into any kind of long winded nerd rant about the movie, let me say that this post is practically going to be built on spoilers of the movie so if you haven't seen it and don't want any of the (horrible) plot points ruined, please avert your eyes. I might be a cynical, opinionated jerk but one thing I'm not is a douchebag who ruins movies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still reading? Ok cool. Since I already stated the general things I have problems with about this movie, don't be expecting any kind of sane order to the next set of ramblings because, frankly, I'm so amazed at how much they missed the mark with this movie, that I can barely keep my rants about it in any kind of sensible order in my head, let alone written in a blog post.
First off, one of the most annoying and ponderous things about Spider-Man 3 was the way Peter Parker was portrayed after coming into contact with the symbiote. I don't know if the makers of the movie ever bothered to open a Spider-Man comic before they made these movies or not, but where in the hell did they come up with Parker's personality for that section of the movie? Last time I checked, the symbiote amplified the wearer's original personality traits, most specifically aggression, and gave the wearer new abilities (such as increased strength and in the comics, the ability for Parker to generate his own webbing). So where and more importantly why did they get the idea to turn Parker into an emo dressing, John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" rip-off douchebag that was portrayed in the movie? Other than a hastily thrown together plot point for Parker to instigate Mary Jane, I can't see a reason for this wholly different personality change in Parker. The way he acted once he found the suit was just totally unnecessary and a waste of time. They did a similar thing to this in Spider-Man 2 when he "lost" his powers and became normal but that was well done and no where near as trite and downright stupid as it was in Spider-Man 3.
Next, keeping in line with my complaints about the symbiote, is how they handled Eddie Brock and Venom. Right off the bat, Topher Grace shouldn't have been Eddie Brock. Yes, he did play Brock's personality pretty well, but in the comics Brock is supposed to be a big, aggro, jock meathead, not a skinny little dude no bigger than Parker. Granted they did bulk him up some once he got the symbiote and became Venom, but since he wasn't a huge guy to begin with, theres really no explanation as to why Brock is jacked after he gets the suit. But perhaps the biggest question I have, well maybe second biggest only compared to the last point I'm going to make, is why the decided to make Venom and Spider-Man's symbiote outfit look different than they did in the comics. I really can't come up with a clear explanation to this quandary. In the comics, Venom's suit is flat black with a big white spider emblem on his chest - not basically Spider-Man's symbiote outfit like it was in the movie. And Spider-Man's symbiote outfit wasn't right either - his outfit his supposed to be flat black as well. Plus, one of the things that makes Venom is that in the comics, he always had strange green gooey saliva that was constantly dripping out of his mouth, which made he look even more vicious and sinister but this ooze was strangely absent from the movie version. I honestly don't know why it would've been such a hassle, considering all the money they spent on this movie, to make Venom and Spider-Man's symbiote outfits look right. But my last gripe with Venom is that they (apparently) killed him off. I just don't see any kind of reason for them to have killed off Venom and Eddie Brock. Brock is perfect for a recurring arch-nemesis to Spider-Man but what do they do instead? They have Venom show up, fight Spider-Man and subsequently killed in the span of about 30-45 minutes.
And while we're on the subject of villains, why bring back Harry as the new Goblin? It just seemed to pointless and unnecessary to me. Granted at first I didn't realize Harry actually had been one of the Goblins in the comics, that still doesn't explain why they needed to introduce him as one in the movies. I mean, they strayed from the source material so much already, why not just keep on doing it? This movie would've been sooo much better had they introduced Brock and Venom earlier and kept him and Sandman as the main villains without even worrying about Harry and the New Goblin and all the stupid, boring crap that came of him being the New Goblin. What stupid, boring crap you ask? Don't worry...I'll get to it later. Right now, I'm talking about the Goblin. Now if you don't know, the Goblin is the real perennial Spider-Man arch-nemesis. I know there is a common misconception that Venom actually is Spider-Man's biggest enemy but the truth is that the Green Goblin has been around basically since the comic was created back in the 60s while Venom has only been around since the late 80s. But why is this important? Well, since they killed off Norman Osbourne in the first movie and now they've killed off Harry in the third...theres practically no chance for any kind of Hobgoblin storyline later in the series (because I've heard they want to do Spider-Man 4, 5, and 6 and why wouldn't they considering the huge bank these movies bring in). The last problem I have with this New Goblin is again, with his outfit and his equipment. Now, it would've been perfectly fine had Harry just showed up to bug Spider-Man with his father's Goblin suit and glider...but instead he shows up with some crazy outfit no one's ever seen before, a snowboard-esque glider that he apparently pulled out of his ass since they never explain where it came from, and odd almost lightsaber-ish green sword contraptions. I really just don't know what they were thinking when they added some of this stuff.
Now, onto the problems with the plot. First, since it's relatively fresh in your mind, is the point I made earlier about the boring, stupid crap that came about because of Harry being the New Goblin. Once Harry becomes the Goblin, has his memory knocked out him by Spider-Man and subsequently regains it and remembers he hates Parker, he starts to blackmail MJ, for some reason, into leaving Parker. But surprisingly, this isn't the part I had the problem with. What I had a problem with was...MJ goes along with it! Why in the hell, when she knows her boyfriend is f'n Spider-Man for god's sake, would she go along with Harry's plan?? Why wouldn't she just tell Parker about it and let him handle Harry? But this was only one plot point I had a problem with. The next one has to do with Sandman, who I genuinely didn't have a problem with in the movie. I thought the part was acted well, his character made sense in terms of the whole story (he's a normal guy who kinda gets pushed into a life of crime because his daughter is ill and needs to find a way to pay for her treatments until one night during a job gone bad he gets stuck in some kind of crazy experiment where his cells are infused with sand, hence he can turn his body into all sorts of objects). The only part of the Sandman I thought was pointless was having it turn out the Sandman was actually the guy who killed Uncle Ben (for some reason) and not the guy who Parker accidentally killed in the first movie. I really feel like they only added this plot point to try and compensate for the other ridiculous plot themes they created (where Parker has to battle with his inner violent self thanks to the symbiote bringing that part of his personality out). I suppose it sort of makes sense, but I still feel it wasn't necessary. But perhaps the biggest plot point that annoys me comes from Bernard. "Bernard?" you ask? Yes, Bernard - Harry's butler. You see, apparently...somehow....Bernard found out about Norman Osbourne being the Goblin the night Norman died. Don't ask how cause they really don't explain it. But now that Bernard knows, he doesn't tell anyone. And why would he want to tell anyone, especially Harry who only obsesses over the fact that Spider-Man unjustly killed his father because (dun, dun, dun) Harry didn't know his father was the Goblin. (Couldn't you just smell the sarcasm in that last sentence?) So Bernard, who doesn't have more than two lines in the whole two first movies, drops this bomb on Harry out of no where that Norman was the Goblin and he accidentally killed himself. I mean, for all the money they spent on this movie, you think they could've spent just a little more time to come up with something more creative than just the random butler revealing a huge plot point.
Phew...now that I've gotten all that off my chest, I'm sure there's plenty of other problems I could find in this movie but to be honest, I'm tired of talking about why this movie sucked because I wanted it not to suck sooo badly. Theres this little nerd voice inside me that hopes all comic book movies they make will rock balls so that maybe someday comics will be taken seriously and not just viewed as kiddie stuff, much the same way video games are. But alas, this isn't the case as Spider-Man 3 let me down big. I guess all I have left to say is this - if they make a Spider-Man 4, Gwen Stacy needs to be Parker's new lady. Not only because Kirsten Dunst has overstayed her welcome as MJ, but also because Bryce Dallas Howard was soooo smoking hot as Gwen Stacy it was almost unbelievable.
Oh yeah...last point.
Bruce Campbell=best part of Spider-Man 3.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment