Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

I wasn’t a huge fan of the first two spiderman films; I enjoyed them but didn’t LOVE them. They were good, solid entertainment. Two was probably a little better, though I may feel that way because I recently rewatched it when it was shown on the telly a few weeks ago. This one isn’t so good. It is too long. There are too many characters. And worst of all, unlike the second, it has no heart to it.

It felt stop-start, as though they had too many characters and story-lines and couldn’t figure out to make then all work together properly, nothing seemed to fit.

I’ve never been a huge fan of Spiderman, or of Peter Parker for that matter, and in this film I just couldn’t care less what happened him. James Franco was more interesting as Harry. There was nothing to grip the viewer, and while the special effects were excellent you really need a good story to hang them on. This was all pretty curtains and no foundation.

And the cocky version of Peter Parker? That was just weird and stupid. Yes at first it was a little entertaining to see him strut, but after 2 seconds it became creepi-fing, and disturbing. And the dancing! wtf!

There is nothing hideous and terrible about the film. You’ll watch, you’ll be entertained and maybe a little bored, I do recall checking my watch and thinking with a sinking heart that there was still an hour to go, but it picked up a little, so I wasn’t eyeing the exit all the way through. Totally worthy of a meh. Too many storyiideas with not enough development

I also took issue with the amount of time Parker wandered about in his Spidey outfit, only with the mask off. Either he has a secret identity or he doesn’t. Half the city should know who he really is if he has as little care as that.

IMDb | I.P. | SSD | Billie Doux | Joe Blade| Thu Tu’s blog

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. alan says:

    Your opinions mirror those of a lot of other people. Mine included. Way too much going on in one film.

  2. blueyes says:

    See, I never liked Toby McQuire begin with and I actually saw the first one reluctantly but I will not watch 2 or 3 or 4 which is in production now. Now don't get me wrong, I like the movies from the comics but some of them need to get rethinked with the actors. Like Hulk 2 is coming out and they are gonna have Edward Norton as Bannerman/Hulk. HELLO?!? WTH man.

  3. Harlequin says:

    Not a fan of Spidey/Parker either but can't quite believe that JAMES FRANCO was more interesting than him. WTFFFFFFF?

    And how about the Nedster? Was he good/bad/meh?

    Basically, I reckon you're saying bring a big bag of popcorn, a large drink and a packet of Minstrels or Maltesers to this, because it might get you through the boring parts?

  4. heather anne says:

    Yup, right on. The first one was solid. The second one was better. But this one just lacked the soul and charm of the others. There was no really good villain, either. And everyone knows you can't have a good superhero movie without a seriously evil villain!

  5. Fence says:

    Way too much Alan, and yet, not enough.

    Blueeyes I liked Maguire in 2. But in this, I dunno, he just didn't work. And I can't be the only person thinking "he looks just like Frodo" when he was trying to rescue the ring.

    I know H. I know.

    Ned was meh. Didn't have that much to do. A lot more muscles on him than usual though.

    Heather Anne, they shoulda just done the Venom baddie. All the others were too conflicted over their evilness. Which sometimes can be a good thing, but in S3 it just made them into not-evil-villians

  6. Sir Jorge says:

    I still haven't seen it, but everyone seems to resound mixed reviews.

    I'm a big comic book fan, and I do not believe that these general audience pictures really depict the character like a long on-going series can. So it'll always be a let down on many levels.

  7. Fence says:

    I'm not a huge comics fan, thought I have read and enjoyed a few, but I agree that one, or even three, films can never match the characterisation you get in a long series. That is why, whenever I see a film based on a book, I always try and forget everything about the previous incarnations. It doesn't always work, but I try

  8. Dianna Trent says:

    I agree that there was waaaaaaaay too much going on in this film!

    It was dizzying to say the least! I also don't know why Peter Parker didn't freak without his mask! Soooooo many people saw him without it! BTW, that was Miss Dunst's REAL voice singing! I think we all know why she lost her job on broadway now! That Topher kid was funny but I don't care for Venom. And why wasn't his name mentioned in the film?! As for the wooden T.H. Church, I liked him MUCH better in the tv sitcom WINGS. Sandman was scarey! (IMO)

    It's HARRY who stole the show! I don't think there's a woman alive who will EVER get enough of his 'soooo good pie' & 'strawberries' line! I must say, he can play "deranged" effortlessly!

    – Dianna

  9. Fence says:

    Dianna, I have to say that Franco does nothing at all for me. Nothing. But then again, more than anyone else in this film.

  10. Carl V. says:

    Really enjoyed 1 and 2. As for your assessment of 3: Amen!!!

  11. Harlequin says:

    Nothing. Nothing nothing nothing. Bleccch.

  12. Ann says:

    I agree 1000% with this review. That movie was 3 hours of my life wasted. I was never keen on Spiderman but was actually won over by the first 2 films. This one made me want to gouge my eyes out.

    Haven't been blog-reading in a while, but I love your new look. (I know it's probably not that new anymore – but it's new to me after all.)

  13. Fence says:

    Kindof a pity, isn't it Carl? Wonder if they'll make a 4th, cause I know the box office was quite good.

    Different horse for different course H :)

    Ann I'll forgive you for not visiting. I know you've been busy.