futher thoughts on SM3
May. 6th, 2007 08:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerNot to belabor the point, but I have a riddle for you. What do you get when you take Conor Oberst:
And combine him with:
The answer really, really, really shouldn't be:
And yet, there you are.
Now, some people seem to think I hated SPIDER-MAN 3 (and why not, my posts were needlessly snarky, in an attempt to make an in-joke to those who remember the "gin and coke" debacle).
No, this wasn't an out-and-out disaster like BATMAN AND ROBIN, nor a pitiful waste like CATWOMAN, nor (most maddening of all) wallowing in tepid mediocrity like X-MEN 3. I've rarely been mixed like this on a movie before, because dear lord, so much of it is awesome. So, so much. Sure, in the first half, there are goofy moments, there are flaws and leaps in logic, but these are forgivable by and large.
Then something happens in the second half. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it.
Now, some people liked this. Nick from CHUD.com said, "There’s a moment in Spider-Man 3 over halfway through the film where it becomes obvious that all involved parties realize they have nothing else to prove and simply let their figurative hair down and had some fun. Real fun. This isn’t a spoiler, but when the film enters Superman III territory and showcases a Peter Parker/Spider-Man that isn’t wholesome and the quintessential chunk of Americana, there’s a playful vibe that is much more engaging than the numerous fast-paced set pieces could hope to be."
I, however, felt a bit more like Massawyrm over at aintitcool.com, who said, "And then the unthinkable happens. For five minutes – five gut wrenching, heartbreaking minutes – the movie becomes epically awful. I mean terrible. Worst case scenario bad. You see, for two minutes the film suddenly becomes Saturday Night Fever. Peter Parker is dancing in the streets, strutting like a sweat hog, and genuinely making an ass out of himself. It’s funny. For all of seven seconds. Then the movie all of a sudden becomes THE MASK. Yes, that THE MASK. There is this jaw dropping dance number in a club that will blow your fucking mind. In the shotgun sort of way. You won’t believe for a second that you’re watching the same movie.
"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."
To tie it all together, I saw the film with my own mother, who, at this fateful moment, remarked, "Oh God, this is just painful."
Now, I actually want to see this again. With![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
spacechild, sober, and either on IMAX or at the Uptown. Because I want to savor and pick out those dizzying highs within this film. There's a great film in here, somewhere. Actually, no, you know what it is? There are THREE half-baked films in here. Each of the three or so storylines could have, nay, NEEDED a whole movie to breathe. Characters came and went as the "plot" raced forward, with little regard to development or interaction, and the result is one of the most overblown, underdeveloped film I've seen in recent memory.
(Bear in mind, I'm the one guy who preferred PIRATES 2: DEAD MAN'S CHEST to the first, and the complaints I have for SM3 pretty well echo the critics over POTC2)
As the comic reviewer "Ambush Bug" at aintitcool put it, "And the audience I saw it with wasn’t too thrilled with the film either. There were a few serious moments where the audiences burst out in laughter at how bad it was. As a fan of Spidey, I felt embarrassed. Any time Emo Pete appeared, the audience couldn’t help but giggle at his Fallout Boy haircut. But it wasn’t until the close up shot of Tobey McGuire at the end where he cries and winces as if he had eaten something that I ate and dropped from my @$$ that the audience roared out in laughter. This was supposed to be one of the most dramatic scenes in the film. A character of great significance to Pete had just died. It was not a good moment for the audience to be guffawing, but it happened.
"What pisses me off the most about this film is that a ga-jillion people will be seeing it. This is what people think a comic book is like. People will notice the sloppiness and shallow characters and Swiss Cheese-like continuity and plot, and shrug their shoulders and say “Well, it is a comic book movie.” And that pisses me the hell off. I’ve read comic books since I was eight years old. And during that time, Spidey has always been in my pull, so I guess I qualify as some type of aficionado. Although Marvel’s current line of Spidey comics are pretty darn awful these days, Spider-Man has been the star of some of the richest and most well told stories in comics history. I understand that the Cliff Notes version of a comic book story has to be used to fit it all into a nice two-hour package. But this movie plays like the Cliff Notes version of SPIDER-MAN stories rewritten by the cast of THE OTHER SISTER."
And don't that just sum up a good deal of frustration right there.
I've already started reading people excusing a lot of this film because it's a comic book movie, and as such, is supposed to be campy. And that really, really gets under my skin right there.
And yet, for all that, there was indeed a lot to like in this movie. And that's the thing that kills me: you could have spent some of that bloated screentime on actually showing the darker side of Peter's nature through actions other than dance, maybe? Or hey, what about devoting a bit more time to certain storylines and characters, like Sandman, Brock, Gwen (who, in her, like, five minutes of screen time, proved more attractive, talented, charming and charismatic than Kirsten Dunst*), or even J. Jonah Jameson. Instead, we got this:
For now, anyway, and probably after I see it again, I thinkjustcomeinalone summed up my feelings best:
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.
*In a recent interview with EW, Dunst said, and I quote: "Audiences aren't stupid. It'd be a big flop without me, Tobey or Sam." My brain just sorta broke when I read that. I could (attempt to) comment, but I sincerely hope that comment can speak for itself.
EDIT: The runaway box office success of this film is making headlines everywhere, and many people will argue what this means. Fans of SPIDER-MAN 3 will likely take it as validation of their movie, while critics may take it as further proof that movie audiences are dumb. For me, it's about two things and two things only:
1.) Excellent and all-encompassing marketing
and 2.) because SPIDER-MAN 2 was simply brilliant.
I think it's very, very important to remember and realize that second part above all.
And combine him with:
The answer really, really, really shouldn't be:
And yet, there you are.
Now, some people seem to think I hated SPIDER-MAN 3 (and why not, my posts were needlessly snarky, in an attempt to make an in-joke to those who remember the "gin and coke" debacle).
No, this wasn't an out-and-out disaster like BATMAN AND ROBIN, nor a pitiful waste like CATWOMAN, nor (most maddening of all) wallowing in tepid mediocrity like X-MEN 3. I've rarely been mixed like this on a movie before, because dear lord, so much of it is awesome. So, so much. Sure, in the first half, there are goofy moments, there are flaws and leaps in logic, but these are forgivable by and large.
Then something happens in the second half. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it.
Now, some people liked this. Nick from CHUD.com said, "There’s a moment in Spider-Man 3 over halfway through the film where it becomes obvious that all involved parties realize they have nothing else to prove and simply let their figurative hair down and had some fun. Real fun. This isn’t a spoiler, but when the film enters Superman III territory and showcases a Peter Parker/Spider-Man that isn’t wholesome and the quintessential chunk of Americana, there’s a playful vibe that is much more engaging than the numerous fast-paced set pieces could hope to be."
I, however, felt a bit more like Massawyrm over at aintitcool.com, who said, "And then the unthinkable happens. For five minutes – five gut wrenching, heartbreaking minutes – the movie becomes epically awful. I mean terrible. Worst case scenario bad. You see, for two minutes the film suddenly becomes Saturday Night Fever. Peter Parker is dancing in the streets, strutting like a sweat hog, and genuinely making an ass out of himself. It’s funny. For all of seven seconds. Then the movie all of a sudden becomes THE MASK. Yes, that THE MASK. There is this jaw dropping dance number in a club that will blow your fucking mind. In the shotgun sort of way. You won’t believe for a second that you’re watching the same movie.
"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."
To tie it all together, I saw the film with my own mother, who, at this fateful moment, remarked, "Oh God, this is just painful."
Now, I actually want to see this again. With
spacechild, sober, and either on IMAX or at the Uptown. Because I want to savor and pick out those dizzying highs within this film. There's a great film in here, somewhere. Actually, no, you know what it is? There are THREE half-baked films in here. Each of the three or so storylines could have, nay, NEEDED a whole movie to breathe. Characters came and went as the "plot" raced forward, with little regard to development or interaction, and the result is one of the most overblown, underdeveloped film I've seen in recent memory. (Bear in mind, I'm the one guy who preferred PIRATES 2: DEAD MAN'S CHEST to the first, and the complaints I have for SM3 pretty well echo the critics over POTC2)
As the comic reviewer "Ambush Bug" at aintitcool put it, "And the audience I saw it with wasn’t too thrilled with the film either. There were a few serious moments where the audiences burst out in laughter at how bad it was. As a fan of Spidey, I felt embarrassed. Any time Emo Pete appeared, the audience couldn’t help but giggle at his Fallout Boy haircut. But it wasn’t until the close up shot of Tobey McGuire at the end where he cries and winces as if he had eaten something that I ate and dropped from my @$$ that the audience roared out in laughter. This was supposed to be one of the most dramatic scenes in the film. A character of great significance to Pete had just died. It was not a good moment for the audience to be guffawing, but it happened.
"What pisses me off the most about this film is that a ga-jillion people will be seeing it. This is what people think a comic book is like. People will notice the sloppiness and shallow characters and Swiss Cheese-like continuity and plot, and shrug their shoulders and say “Well, it is a comic book movie.” And that pisses me the hell off. I’ve read comic books since I was eight years old. And during that time, Spidey has always been in my pull, so I guess I qualify as some type of aficionado. Although Marvel’s current line of Spidey comics are pretty darn awful these days, Spider-Man has been the star of some of the richest and most well told stories in comics history. I understand that the Cliff Notes version of a comic book story has to be used to fit it all into a nice two-hour package. But this movie plays like the Cliff Notes version of SPIDER-MAN stories rewritten by the cast of THE OTHER SISTER."
And don't that just sum up a good deal of frustration right there.
I've already started reading people excusing a lot of this film because it's a comic book movie, and as such, is supposed to be campy. And that really, really gets under my skin right there.
And yet, for all that, there was indeed a lot to like in this movie. And that's the thing that kills me: you could have spent some of that bloated screentime on actually showing the darker side of Peter's nature through actions other than dance, maybe? Or hey, what about devoting a bit more time to certain storylines and characters, like Sandman, Brock, Gwen (who, in her, like, five minutes of screen time, proved more attractive, talented, charming and charismatic than Kirsten Dunst*), or even J. Jonah Jameson. Instead, we got this:
For now, anyway, and probably after I see it again, I think
justcomeinalone summed up my feelings best: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.
*In a recent interview with EW, Dunst said, and I quote: "Audiences aren't stupid. It'd be a big flop without me, Tobey or Sam." My brain just sorta broke when I read that. I could (attempt to) comment, but I sincerely hope that comment can speak for itself.
EDIT: The runaway box office success of this film is making headlines everywhere, and many people will argue what this means. Fans of SPIDER-MAN 3 will likely take it as validation of their movie, while critics may take it as further proof that movie audiences are dumb. For me, it's about two things and two things only:
1.) Excellent and all-encompassing marketing
and 2.) because SPIDER-MAN 2 was simply brilliant.
I think it's very, very important to remember and realize that second part above all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 02:14 am (UTC)Can't comment on Spider-Man 3, as I have not had the pleasure, dubious though it sounds. I just hope the Spidey dance sequence isn't an overt reference to that Internet meme. Or maybe that would be an improvement...
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 02:34 am (UTC)The Sandman WAS awesome.
The stage is set for another Spider-sequel; hopefully, something bad will happen to Kirsten Dunce, and she won't be able to make it. Can't we get the girl a date with Phil Spector or something? She killed so much of the fun this time around...just like she did the first two times. Now, I'm not likening her to Halle Berry's oak-a-palooza take on Storm, but she kinda sucked.
(The reviews of her onscreen character were oddly apropos for her actual performance. Psychics?)
A solid 75% of this movie was well worth the price of admission...and I am willing to call that a passing grade.
About 13% was nearly flawless, utter Raimiosity at its finest (BZZT!)
That leaves 12% of fluff.
Beats the PANCAKES out of SUPERMAN RETURNS TO FIND LOIS IS BULIMIC...
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 02:45 am (UTC)But yeah, I cannot emphasize enough that I loved a good chunk of this film. Which makes my ultimate feelings all the more frustrated.
And dear lord, SUPERMAN RETURNS just broke my heart. Broke my fucking heart, man. It's taken me a long time to admit that. (they had Spacey as Lex. SPACEY. LEX. And they still fucking got it completely ass-backwards!)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 02:53 am (UTC)Damn kids today, I tell ya.
It's a richly dubious experience, because dear lord, there is some GREAT GREAT stuff in there too. Like, every second with the Sandman, for example. And BRUCE.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 03:03 am (UTC)The first was "Lois doesn't have to be played by a human female."
It went downhill from there, Hef.
SM3: Also too many statements.
The first one was "Peter's lab partner is Death On Two Legs, but he's still hung up on Wet Blanket Numero Uno, who is played by a girl who has not moved me emotionally since she and her babysitter got sunburned by Antonio Banderas' hard boys in INTERVIEW WITH A FUCKING WHINER."
Again, downhill from there, at least in that department. Spider-Man does not kiss strange wimmins. Guthrie does that, Human Torch does that. Spider-Man? Nope. Spider-Man was never an asshat during the ORIGINAL Black Costume days, except for one needless falling-out with Daredevil, over in Marvel Team-Up.
Also, what are the odds that Pete will pick the same church as Eddie? NYC has 11 million people in it; the numbers are kinda thick, like Sara Rue when she was hot.
That's just me, though. I'm picky.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 03:04 am (UTC)I never really doubted, but it was nice to see the writers pitching to him. It would have been really easy to make him Sandass, and they didn't.
Props.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 03:16 am (UTC)Ock is tops, and Schillinger is an awesome JJJ, but props must be given to Rosemary Harris' Aunt May.
I think Sandman OR Venom would have made great (maybe even epic, in Venom's case) foils while Harry REALLY messed with Pete's head, so I guess I kinda agree.
More would have been nice on ALL fronts.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 05:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 11:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-09 04:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-14 05:22 pm (UTC)that being said, you and i shall go and a catch a matinee at an imax or the uptown, depending on price, and then dissect it over beers.
tuesdays and wednesdays are my days off. anything work for you?
no subject
Date: 2007-05-14 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-14 06:07 pm (UTC)