Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · May 3, 2007, 08:16 AM

Rotten Tomatoes: 67% Overall / 53% Cream
Metacritic: 59 out of 100

Chicago Sun-Times (Roeper): It’s as if director Sam Raimi felt he had to give us more of everything, and in the process lost sight of what made the first two films so enjoyable.

Globe & Mail (Groen): The main flaw is an over-abundance of villains, a bout of narrative greediness that sees them marching out of their lairs like so many evil-doers-on-parade.

Damn. I was really looking forward to this movie.

Then again, when I go see it I won't be overly disappointed, because I'm not expecting much from it now.

smacintush · May 3, 2007, 08:21 AM

Don't let the opinions of those who get paid to be critical get you down.

I read Roeper's full review and it won't discourage me one bit. It's just a super-hero movie.

Dakarʒ · May 3, 2007, 08:21 AM

Well, I'll tell you if I agree tomorrow morning.

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 08:31 AM

Howard Stern gave it 7 out of 4 stars. I'm a little worried about seeing it in the theater because I'm afraid I'll puke when I watch ugmo Dunst sing.

Eug · May 3, 2007, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

I read Roeper's full review and it won't discourage me one bit. It's just a super-hero movie.

That's just it. I enjoyed the previous Spider-Man movies because they weren't quite as mindless and disjointed as many summer hero/action flicks.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Howard Stern gave it 7 out of 4 stars.

Hmmm... That's definitely a bad sign, considering I disagree with just about everything Howard Stern says.

design219 · May 3, 2007, 08:50 AM

Now wait, was that a review by Howard Stern the shock jock, or the "I slept with Anna Nicole" attorney?

Laminar · May 3, 2007, 08:52 AM

I have a friend that wants to go see it tonight...I'm not sure if I want to see it with the type of people that would see it on opening night... * </presumptions looking down on others>

smacintush · May 3, 2007, 08:56 AM

Just watch it and don't pay attention to the stupid reviews.

Jawbone54 · May 3, 2007, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Chicago Sun-Times (Roeper): It’s as if director Sam Raimi felt he had to give us more of everything, and in the process lost sight of what made the first two films so enjoyable.

The first two films were enjoyable? Just my opinion, but I thought the first two were pretty average, maybe slightly above average. I have issues with Tobey Maguire being Spidey.

Batman Begins is the best superhero movie of all time.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 3, 2007, 09:14 AM

Honestly I knew it was going to be "meh" before they even started filming once I heard what and how many enemies was going to be in it.

Sandman, Venom, Goblin the Second and Eddie Brock. Quantity over quality as it worked so well for batman 3 and 4 right?

Not to mention it also has the original idea of the public believing that Spiderman is now "bad" when Venom goes out **** disturbing.

If that all wasn't enough Peters and Mary's relationship encounters some troubles and Kursten sings twice. Can't wait.

The only comic book movie that got away with 2 enemies in the same movie was Batman begins as the baddies weren't buddy buddy making jokes on how they are going to rid the world of the flying rat together.

I will still see spider-man 3 but my expectations are really low.

smacintush · May 3, 2007, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Batman Begins is the best superhero movie of all time.

Spidey 2 was awesome, it'd be a toss-up for me.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 3, 2007, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Batman Begins is the best superhero movie of all time.

I agree, it is also one of my top fav movies of all time.

The movie is so well written and directed I really wouldn't change anything at all if given the chance.

smacintush · May 3, 2007, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

The only comic book movie that got away with 2 enemies in the same movie was Batman begins as the baddies weren't buddy buddy making jokes on how they are going to rid the world of the flying rat together.

You're forgetting Batman Returns, it had 3 villains and it was fairly well accepted if I recall.

Eug · May 3, 2007, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

I agree, it is also one of my top fav movies of all time.

The movie is so well written and directed I really wouldn't change anything at all if given the chance.

The only issue I had is that the friendly cop came off like a pedophile in the movie, in that one scene with Batman as a kid.

Gary Oldman does well in the rest of the movie though.

Originally Posted by smacintush

You're forgetting Batman Returns, it had 3 villains and it was fairly well accepted if I recall.

Yeah, but that had Michelle Pfeiffer in a skin-tight cat suit. (I'm ignoring the Catwoman movie debacle for the time being.

)

analogue SPRINKLES · May 3, 2007, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

You're forgetting Batman Returns, it had 3 villains and it was fairly well accepted if I recall.

Only because catwoman rocked so much people forgot about the penguins with rocket launchers on their back.

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

The only issue I had is that the friendly cop came off like a pedophile in the movie, in that one scene with Batman as a kid.

I don't think I know the scene you're describing.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 3, 2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I don't think I know the scene you're describing.

Right after bruce's parents are shot they take him to the station and Gorden tries to comfort him. Never got that vibe myself though.

pooka · May 3, 2007, 10:04 AM

Oh, no, he is 100% right. Everyone I was with in the theater started smirking during the entire scence. Especially when the chief came in.

"Gordon! Gawt damnit, how many times have I told you? Stay away from stray young boys."

mdc · May 3, 2007, 10:31 AM

We were looking for tickets for this weekend at the IMAX but they're all sold out. We found tickets for tonight's midnight showing though.

I don't think it'll be all tthat good. I'm just excited for the Venom scenes.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 3, 2007, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by pooka

Oh, no, he is 100% right. Everyone I was with in the theater started smirking during the entire scence. Especially when the chief came in.

"Gordon! Gawt damnit, how many times have I told you? Stay away from stray young boys."

Perverts.

Eug · May 3, 2007, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by pooka

Oh, no, he is 100% right. Everyone I was with in the theater started smirking during the entire scence. Especially when the chief came in.

"Gordon! Gawt damnit, how many times have I told you? Stay away from stray young boys."

Yeah, my GF told me after the movie that she found that scene quite creepy.

olePigeon · May 3, 2007, 10:52 AM

I might enjoy the film better if they hadn't showed Venom in the trailer.

Jawbone54 · May 3, 2007, 11:07 AM

I don't remember being creeped out by the supposed pedophile scene, and I watched the movie about 5 times.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 3, 2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I might enjoy the film better if they hadn't showed Venom in the trailer.

So far the trailers haven't really shown the full fanged out Venom so at least we have something to look forward to.

Rumor has it the movie cost $300-320 MILLION to make with almost another 200 million spent on advertising. That would make it one of the most expensive movies ever so it better pay off for poor sony.

RAILhead · May 3, 2007, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I might enjoy the film better if they hadn't showed Venom in the trailer.

QFT!!!! That totally SUCKED when I saw it -- even though I knew EB would be going Venom. Of course, I assumed (and still do until told otherwise), that that's probably one of the last scenes in the movie.

BRussell · May 3, 2007, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

That's just it. I enjoyed the previous Spider-Man movies because they weren't quite as mindless and disjointed as many summer hero/action flicks.

Well, even if that is true, it's not saying much is it.

Rumor · May 3, 2007, 12:56 PM

I have tickets for the showing tonight at 12:01am, along with four or five friends. I'll post a review either late tonight or tomorrow morning.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 3, 2007, 01:03 PM

The thing I didn't like that much about the last 2 spidermans is that it was a bit to cute for my taste. It also didn't really create a unique universe of its own or distinctive style... it was just a bright happy, clean NY city with regular people. Peters relationship with what's her face never really clicked with me as she didn't even know he was alive (even though they lived next to one another for years) until she suspected he was spiderman which makes her kinda shallow. Heck she even dated his best friend!

Batman Begins on the other hand had a very unique and distinct look (yellow and dark) and the whole story wasn't about constantly rescuing his bitch or whining about his responsibility as a superhero.

Oneota · May 3, 2007, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

Only because catwoman rocked so much people forgot about the penguins with rocket launchers on their back.

"All I want is some sharks with frickkin' laserbeams on their backs...is that too much to ask?"

Eug · May 3, 2007, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well, even if that is true, it's not saying much is it.

No, but I never said Spider-Man was Oscar Best Picture material either.

residentEvil · May 3, 2007, 04:09 PM

I will be going to see it in a few hours at the midnight IMAX premier. I'm looking forward to it no matter what the critics are saying. I'm not looking forward to the 140 minute run time though...goodness.

starman · May 3, 2007, 05:22 PM

Joel Sigel in NY just reviewed it. He couldn't stop sayng how much fun it was.

Jawbone54 · May 3, 2007, 05:30 PM

I really want to hear what everyone has to say about it. I'd like to see it, but I have enough patience to hear from you guys if I should waste my money or not.

Chuckit · May 3, 2007, 06:12 PM

Mediocre would be a GIGANTIC ****ing step up from the first two. The commercials look good, so I'm going to see it tomorrow, but I'm not getting my expectations up too much.

Big Mac · May 4, 2007, 05:27 AM

It was good. I don't know yet how I rate it in comparison to the previous films, though. Definitely way too much MJ.

Kevin · May 4, 2007, 06:35 AM

Eric is venom.

Wes · 07:35 AM

I just got back from a midnight showing, and would put it at least on par with the first two films - both of which I enjoyed quite a bit. I didn't leave saying, "OMFG that was amazing" (as I had with Batman Begins), but I think it certainly deserves more credit then many of the critics are giving it.

Going into it I was worried that there would simply be too many villains. By the end I was quite happy there was more then one this time around, and I could have easily sat in the theater another 20 minutes had they been developed a bit more. Not that I think they were wholly undeveloped, I just would have enjoyed seeing more of their story, as we had with Doctor Octopus in the second film.

The action sequences were far superior to both I and II. I honestly had trouble suspending disbelief sometimes during both of those as the transition from "real" spidey to CG spidey was far to jarring. It would seem the third time around the effects team nailed it - or at least had more money to spend.

There were bits I would have changed (I could have done without the flippy hair), but there were parts I would have changed in the first two as well.

Perhaps it's just because I'm a Spider-Man fanboy, but given the opportunity I would more then likely see it again.

Dakarʒ · May 4, 2007, 07:23 AM

I saw it last night. I'll post some type of review like post when I ingest a Breakfast of Champions and come back to coherency.

Eug · May 4, 2007, 08:15 AM

Breakfast (drink) of champions?

residentEvil · May 4, 2007, 08:44 AM

i too just woke up from my midnight showing.

rants first (not about the movie itself):

wait 2 hours in line so i could get a good seat (already had tickets but it is obviously GA); seated us at 11pm so we had to all sit another hour to kill. then a 2 h 20 m movie? ugh...long night.

apparently some thought they needed to keep checking the basketball score for GS and Dallas...and then talk about it.

the IMAX theater has no leg room

movie (no spoilers):

pretty good, lots of new/unique special effect sequences but a few looked rushed and could have been done better; they just stood out as being bad. i thought the movie started out slow, but then got going pretty fast...lots of action sequences. some hard to watch in IMAX cause you had to move your head back and forth so quick. overall, a fun movie.

Eug · May 4, 2007, 08:58 AM

So, would you recommend watching it in IMAX or not?

I have the option at my local theatre: 1 IMAX theatre, and 3 non-IMAX.

I'm thinking IMAX, but not sitting too close to the front.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 4, 2007, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

I'm thinking IMAX, but not sitting too close to the front.

I'm thinking IMAX as well as long as we get a good seat.

Does anyone know if they re-mastered it for the IMAX ratio?

residentEvil · May 4, 2007, 09:09 AM

no; my movie didn't fill our screen. course, our imax is bigger then the few other ones in michigan. here is the blurb from our theater's website:

SPIDER-MAN 3: THE IMAX EXPERIENCE, the third installment of the phenomenally successful Spider-Man® franchise, will be digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience®.

too me, our imax screen is pretty damn close to being the same width as height; whatever that imax ratio is. the movie didn't fill the screen; had more of a widescreen feel to it. there was unused screen at the top.

the imax trailer before hand, filled the entire screen.

Dakarʒ · May 4, 2007, 09:20 AM

Alright my attempt at a review:

The movie clocks in at around 2.30. This is one of the first things you realize as the beginning is paced like a leisurely walk. I suppose its refreshing that they didn't rush to set-up their busy storyline, but with only one somewhat awkwardly interjected fight, you may get impatient to see where things are going.

Once things evolving its much more enjoyable. What really seems to have fallen off this movie, though, is the dialogue. Spiderman movies have always had a somewhat irreverent tone, but this one suffered from some cliché, obvious, or forced one-liners and dialogue. I wasn't suffering, but I was distracted.

In the last half-hour things suddenly pick-up speed (like 4 times faster paced than the beginning). Without giving too much away, at the climax Mary Jane will put somewhere high, in danger, and she will scream a lot. Noticeably absent from the movie was a scene where Dunst gets wet and we get pokies.

The movie does a favorable job of wrapping things up. Some friends I attended the movie with felt it was forced but I felt it was fluid, if not somewhat predictable.

Overall, I approve. In light of last years X3, which I found to be a huge disappointment, I strongly recommend this. Spiderman 3 packs a lot in, without being too ambitious for its own good.

Kenneth · May 4, 2007, 11:37 AM

I only watched the first one and didn't bother for Spider-Man 2. Am I missing out?

Dakarʒ · May 4, 2007, 11:38 AM

I thought Spiderman 2 was better than 1.

Rumor · May 4, 2007, 11:44 AM

Not bad. The effects were ok. It gets a little sappy at times. A little slow to begin, but finishs alright. Again, a bit sappy. I can see why they cast Topher Grace as Brock, since him and what's his face are very similar in size.

The critics were wrong.

Chuckit · May 4, 2007, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

I thought Spiderman 2 was better than 1.

I agree. But I hated the first movie.

Dakarʒ · May 4, 2007, 11:46 AM

I find its the first X-Men movie that hasn't withstood the test of time.

Kenneth · May 4, 2007, 11:52 AM

On the other hand, I watched all 3 X-Men. Love them.