Look, I'm just sayin' that I'm glad I was there with my mother, and that I had a Corona w/ lime, two shots of tequila, and a Cap'n and Coke in me already.
I may not be adverse to seeing the movie again sober, but only as long as I'm with my geekiest of friends (top of the list is spacechild, who's on honeymoon) and I see it at an IMAX. But otherwise... I don't expect it'll be much improved. Even if I don't exactly remember a fraction of the film.
To be honest I wasn't planning on seeing it anyway. I've just been...apathetic I suppose? Towards this one. And I say this as someone who went on opening night to see the last two. I wonder if this is some weird trade off due to me getting all excited over the new Harry Potter movie coming out (and I didn't even see the last one until it had been out on DVD for months). Granted that may be because the guy responsible for one of the best British TV dramas I've ever seen is directing the Potter movie (and they went ahead and signed him up for the sixth movie, which is a good sign).
Mmm, it's kinda worth seeing, just because it's so overblown that at least some of it's bound to resonate with you. That's the thing: this movie could EASILY have been two, maybe three, movies. But instead, we have way too many underdeveloped characters with at least three undercooked storylines. Gwen, Capt. Stacy, Harry, Flint, and Eddie could so easily have entire movies devoted to them! Sigh.
Me, I'm weighing the options of whether or not to see 28 WEEKS LATER. The only things in its favor is that it's directed by the guy who did INTACTO and it stars man-god Robert Carlyle (who may or may not become the Bub of his generation, depending on some of the reviewers I've read).
It's too bad they couldn't get Michael Chabon back. The problem with the Raimis is that they tend to get too wrapped up in enjoying their own weirdness. I bet Chabon would have cut back one of the story lines and made for a much better movie.
No, didn't hate it. It's worse than that. I loved parts of it. Which made it all the more heartbreaking when stuff like Peter's SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER scenes happened.
I'm afraid I kinda agree with what one reviewer said here:
"It’s like having awesome, perfect, mind blowing sex with that girl that moved in next door that you’ve been rubbing off to for the last six months, and just as you’re about to reach that special moment, just as your eyes are about to roll into the back of your head as you cry out, she looks up with those big brown eyes of hers and with her pursed bee stung lips asks “Did you remember to call your mother today?” HUH? WHAT? WHAT THE…? No! No, no! Don’t think about mom, don’t think about mom, don’t think about mom! Stay hard, stay hard, stay hard! But it won’t. The moment’s over. Even as you get back in game mode, it’s never the same. You never quite get as excited as you were before. And for some reason your mind keeps wandering back to that awful moment. Over and over again that image pops into your mind. Mom. THAT’S what the second half of Spider-Man 3 is like."
That said, I wouldn't be adverse to seeing it again. Sober. On IMAX. And only with my biggest geek friends.
I'd rather a movie be good or just ALL-bad. If a movie is generally bad but has two or three great parts, it offends me. I find myself going "You had gems here! you had potential! WHy didn't you utilize them?!"
At least if something is ALL-bad, you can laugh and shrug and either forget about it entirely or rewatch it with friends and beers for the express purpose of making fun of it.
And I don't know if I've ever seen a movie that elicited such strong reactions both ways as SPIDER-MAN 3 did for me. I'm working on a new post expanding my thoughts on the movie.
No, absolutely not. See above, perhaps that shall clarify things.
Sometimes, I don't know what's worse. An out-and-out SUPERMAN IV/BATMAN AND ROBIN travesty, or a movie with so much potential that's either wasted or outweighed by the bad. Know what I mean?
Once again, I wouldn't be adverse to seeing it again. Sober. On IMAX. And only with my biggest geek friends. Man, when the hell's Danny getting back?
Close, but better, in that the good was actually way, way better than the middlingly painfull mediocrity that X3 was. Which, in a way, almost made the flaws all the more painful.
I dare say this required in-depth discussion with Danny, and maybe seeing it with sober eyes.
Another thing: in the five or so minutes that Bryce Dallas Howard appeared as Gwen Stacy (who was a smart student AND a fashion model AND daughter of the police captain... that right there is a microcosm of how overblown and underdeveloped the whole movie was) she was more appealing, dynamic, sexy, and interestng that Dunst was in the entire trilogy.
such a shame.. enough people saw it last night and were displeased with it that i had fairly low expectations, and honestly, up until the halfway point, I thought people were being too harsh. they set up a lot of meat that should've made for a great story and then... well, it's not just that there was too much -- it's like they didn't realize it until halfway through and rushed the hell out of things.
also, there was a lot of bad acting from supporting players. even if it's just a little kid with two lines, if their timing sucks it detracts way more than it should.
better than x3/batman&robin, but still a huge dropoff from #2..
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 05:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 05:29 am (UTC)I may not be adverse to seeing the movie again sober, but only as long as I'm with my geekiest of friends (top of the list is
no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 06:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 06:05 am (UTC)Me, I'm weighing the options of whether or not to see 28 WEEKS LATER. The only things in its favor is that it's directed by the guy who did INTACTO and it stars man-god Robert Carlyle (who may or may not become the Bub of his generation, depending on some of the reviewers I've read).
no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 06:42 am (UTC)I may or may not be drunk right now.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 03:04 pm (UTC)(Or so I hear. I haven't seen it yet.)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 05:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 05:45 am (UTC)I'm afraid I kinda agree with what one reviewer said here:
"It’s like having awesome, perfect, mind blowing sex with that girl that moved in next door that you’ve been rubbing off to for the last six months, and just as you’re about to reach that special moment, just as your eyes are about to roll into the back of your head as you cry out, she looks up with those big brown eyes of hers and with her pursed bee stung lips asks “Did you remember to call your mother today?” HUH? WHAT? WHAT THE…? No! No, no! Don’t think about mom, don’t think about mom, don’t think about mom! Stay hard, stay hard, stay hard! But it won’t. The moment’s over. Even as you get back in game mode, it’s never the same. You never quite get as excited as you were before. And for some reason your mind keeps wandering back to that awful moment. Over and over again that image pops into your mind. Mom. THAT’S what the second half of Spider-Man 3 is like."
That said, I wouldn't be adverse to seeing it again. Sober. On IMAX. And only with my biggest geek friends.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 08:55 pm (UTC)I'd rather a movie be good or just ALL-bad. If a movie is generally bad but has two or three great parts, it offends me. I find myself going "You had gems here! you had potential! WHy didn't you utilize them?!"
At least if something is ALL-bad, you can laugh and shrug and either forget about it entirely or rewatch it with friends and beers for the express purpose of making fun of it.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 12:14 am (UTC)And I don't know if I've ever seen a movie that elicited such strong reactions both ways as SPIDER-MAN 3 did for me. I'm working on a new post expanding my thoughts on the movie.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 05:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 05:47 am (UTC)Sometimes, I don't know what's worse. An out-and-out SUPERMAN IV/BATMAN AND ROBIN travesty, or a movie with so much potential that's either wasted or outweighed by the bad. Know what I mean?
Once again, I wouldn't be adverse to seeing it again. Sober. On IMAX. And only with my biggest geek friends. Man, when the hell's Danny getting back?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 05:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 06:00 am (UTC)I dare say this required in-depth discussion with Danny, and maybe seeing it with sober eyes.
Another thing: in the five or so minutes that Bryce Dallas Howard appeared as Gwen Stacy (who was a smart student AND a fashion model AND daughter of the police captain... that right there is a microcosm of how overblown and underdeveloped the whole movie was) she was more appealing, dynamic, sexy, and interestng that Dunst was in the entire trilogy.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 06:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-05 06:45 am (UTC)yeah...
Date: 2007-05-05 08:22 am (UTC)also, there was a lot of bad acting from supporting players. even if it's just a little kid with two lines, if their timing sucks it detracts way more than it should.
better than x3/batman&robin, but still a huge dropoff from #2..
no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 03:28 pm (UTC)