- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Posts
- 46,291
- Reaction score
- 11,925
Is it playing at AZ Mills, or are you seeing it at Deer Valley?
Spider-Man 3
- Thread starter Brian in Mesa
- Start date
Is it playing at AZ Mills, or are you seeing it at Deer Valley?
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
Sorry, I'm in SoCal...Seeing it at the Irvine Spectrum.
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
IMAX Screen Showtimes More Info
10:00am 1:10 4:25 7:40 10:55
These are the Showtimes for Deer Valley Imax on Friday...according to Fandango.com.
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
Great movie...wanted to see more development of Sandman and Brock character's though.
Louis
DJ Roomba
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Posts
- 5,316
- Reaction score
- 2
Where does 3 rank compared to the other 2?
First, I wish I knew how to do the Spoiler tag. I'd like to talk about the film. If you haven't seen it, don't read the rest.
I obviously just saw Spider-Man 3.
I did like it, but it wasn't the perfect exit for the film I was hoping for.
Here's some random thoughts I had while watching.
I obviously just saw Spider-Man 3.
I did like it, but it wasn't the perfect exit for the film I was hoping for.
Here's some random thoughts I had while watching.
1) Good movie, good length. For those of us who remember what comic book movies were like in the 90's (Captain America!) we're very blessed with all the recent stuff.
2) It did suffer from some minor flaws, it was a little busy because the writers (writer/director/producer?) were trying to do too many things.
The Sandman isn't enough of a villian to give him his own movie (although they planted enough seeds to make you think that just maybe they could have made him into a prime time player). The Green Goblin and Venom are too big to split screen time with anyone else, much less each other. Each was deserving of telling their own story on their own stage.
It felt a little cheap to give the two greatest villians in the Spider-Man mythos such little development.
3) Great production work visually! The Sandman looked wonderful. Spidey looks great (as always) and Venom was very well done.
I do wonder what Spidey Black would have looked like with the white insignia/eyes from the comics. I'll bet they could have set up some very cool scenes up just playing with shadows.
One of my favorite comic panels was during the McFarlane run when MJ comes home to find Spidey standing in a deep shadow of their apartment in his black costume. She asks him what's wrong only to watch the costume smile it's sharp smile.
4) Sam Raimi knows his material cold. You can see nods to the way comics are set up all over the movie. Not in an annoying "Hulk" way but in very low-key styles. The man is a master.
5) The Goblin/Spidey team up seems a little forced on the surface but it actually jives with the comics. Spider-Man has never beat Venom on his own he's always had a helping hand or advice (Reed Richards insight/Fantastic Four Help, Therapists). So the filmakers stayed true to that nature and were able to provide some redeeming qualities to Harry Osborne, who was always a hollow character as the Goblin.
In my perfect world the 3rd movie would have been Goblin/Sandman as the villians with very little Sandman until the seemingly inevitable team-up was nessesary (ala Vader killing the Emperor in Jedi) OR give Venom his own movie outright (more of a horror/suspense film).
6) The Butler/Osborne scene really came out of left field and gave the movie a bad turn (just my opinion, as is all this) that took my attention away from the movie (Steven King rule: Keep the audience suspending the balloon of disbelief for as long as possible).
All in all though, good movie and I am very very happy to not only have seen Spider-Man in theaters but to have it be good enough to get three installments.
I'm also thrilled it didn't fall into the trap that Batman got caught up in.
My final hope was that this will be the last Spider-Man movie.
There is always more story to tell but some times you have to know when to stop telling it. No new actors, no big goofy plots just ride off gracefully into the sunset. I know I've forgotten a 1000 bad comics I've read but I can still name most of the bad movies I've seen.
Call it good before we get to SPIDER-NIPPLES is all I'm saying.
2) It did suffer from some minor flaws, it was a little busy because the writers (writer/director/producer?) were trying to do too many things.
The Sandman isn't enough of a villian to give him his own movie (although they planted enough seeds to make you think that just maybe they could have made him into a prime time player). The Green Goblin and Venom are too big to split screen time with anyone else, much less each other. Each was deserving of telling their own story on their own stage.
It felt a little cheap to give the two greatest villians in the Spider-Man mythos such little development.
3) Great production work visually! The Sandman looked wonderful. Spidey looks great (as always) and Venom was very well done.
I do wonder what Spidey Black would have looked like with the white insignia/eyes from the comics. I'll bet they could have set up some very cool scenes up just playing with shadows.
One of my favorite comic panels was during the McFarlane run when MJ comes home to find Spidey standing in a deep shadow of their apartment in his black costume. She asks him what's wrong only to watch the costume smile it's sharp smile.
4) Sam Raimi knows his material cold. You can see nods to the way comics are set up all over the movie. Not in an annoying "Hulk" way but in very low-key styles. The man is a master.
5) The Goblin/Spidey team up seems a little forced on the surface but it actually jives with the comics. Spider-Man has never beat Venom on his own he's always had a helping hand or advice (Reed Richards insight/Fantastic Four Help, Therapists). So the filmakers stayed true to that nature and were able to provide some redeeming qualities to Harry Osborne, who was always a hollow character as the Goblin.
In my perfect world the 3rd movie would have been Goblin/Sandman as the villians with very little Sandman until the seemingly inevitable team-up was nessesary (ala Vader killing the Emperor in Jedi) OR give Venom his own movie outright (more of a horror/suspense film).
6) The Butler/Osborne scene really came out of left field and gave the movie a bad turn (just my opinion, as is all this) that took my attention away from the movie (Steven King rule: Keep the audience suspending the balloon of disbelief for as long as possible).
All in all though, good movie and I am very very happy to not only have seen Spider-Man in theaters but to have it be good enough to get three installments.
I'm also thrilled it didn't fall into the trap that Batman got caught up in.
My final hope was that this will be the last Spider-Man movie.
There is always more story to tell but some times you have to know when to stop telling it. No new actors, no big goofy plots just ride off gracefully into the sunset. I know I've forgotten a 1000 bad comics I've read but I can still name most of the bad movies I've seen.
Call it good before we get to SPIDER-NIPPLES is all I'm saying.
Last edited:
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Wow, a potentially great movie that was absolutely ruined and trashed by some things that should not have been problems.
*****SPOILERS*****
1-Villains, switching of villains, etc...um, where was the creative limitation on this flick? Isn't there some writer or quality control guy that says 'whoa, too much there...overload!' The film absolutely could not handle all the different story lines and villains and switcheroos as to who remembers what and who is after who and who likes who. I mean, I followed it all, but that doesn't mean it made much sense to do.
2-Length. Normally, I love longer movies...as long as they're good. This one was good in parts, excellent in others, and downright awful in others. Cut out the chaff and you have a great flick.
3-Bad acting. While I think there were a few stellar acting moments, there were other moments that just made you want to laugh and puke at the same time (the breakup on the bridge...wow, just wow).
The kid that played the Green Goblin, when not trying (and failing) to be sinister, was actually really good. Whenever he smiled and started to laugh, I believed he was who he was. The rest of the time, I thought he was the actor trying to play a villain.
Oh well. At least I didn't fall asleep.
*****SPOILERS*****
1-Villains, switching of villains, etc...um, where was the creative limitation on this flick? Isn't there some writer or quality control guy that says 'whoa, too much there...overload!' The film absolutely could not handle all the different story lines and villains and switcheroos as to who remembers what and who is after who and who likes who. I mean, I followed it all, but that doesn't mean it made much sense to do.
2-Length. Normally, I love longer movies...as long as they're good. This one was good in parts, excellent in others, and downright awful in others. Cut out the chaff and you have a great flick.
3-Bad acting. While I think there were a few stellar acting moments, there were other moments that just made you want to laugh and puke at the same time (the breakup on the bridge...wow, just wow).
The kid that played the Green Goblin, when not trying (and failing) to be sinister, was actually really good. Whenever he smiled and started to laugh, I believed he was who he was. The rest of the time, I thought he was the actor trying to play a villain.
Oh well. At least I didn't fall asleep.
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
(Possible Spoilers Here)
Not as good as #2, but worthy of seeing in the theater...try to see it in IMAX if you can.
I think the movie should've been about 10-15 minutes longer. As others have posted, their was a lot going on with all the villians and more time could've been spent on character development. My only complaint was that I really didn't care about who the villians were, before they became bad. Topher Grace was excellent as Eddie Brock...he really nails the cocky attitude. Also, Thomas Hayden Church was great as Flint...with more time he could've actually made me care about his previous transgressions and how he got where he was...He was capable of adding more depth, but wasn't given enough time.
This movie left me with questions, in the end...it wasn't as clean of an ending as the 1st two...I could easily see both Sandman and Venom coming back. Goblin is gone for good, unless the old man butler is planning on taking up where Harry and his father left off. BTW, I was a little disturbed by the team up at the end...as someone else posted, it seemed forced and too formulaic.
On a side note, Rami fans will love the cameo of Bruce Campbell...he was hilarious!
Louis
DJ Roomba
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Posts
- 5,316
- Reaction score
- 2
Spoiler tags are exactly like the quote tags.
joeshmo
Kangol Hat Aficionado
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Posts
- 17,247
- Reaction score
- 1
The ending seemed very forced and put together to fast, like they were just trying to end it without it going into a 3rd hour.
They could have also spent a little more time developing the villians like they did with the first 2 and like the good batman movies before that.
But overall I really liked it.
They could have also spent a little more time developing the villians like they did with the first 2 and like the good batman movies before that.
But overall I really liked it.
Red Hawk
JUST WIN!
DISSAPOINTING!!
Ironic since I saw the first preview before the Superman Returns movie, but some of the "flaws" were similar.
Weak unemotional forced acting.
Silly plot advancement.
All show no go.
No where near as good as either 1 or 2. IMHO
Ironic since I saw the first preview before the Superman Returns movie, but some of the "flaws" were similar.
Weak unemotional forced acting.
Silly plot advancement.
All show no go.
No where near as good as either 1 or 2. IMHO
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,165
- Reaction score
- 70,344
mediocre at best. Spidey and Spidey 2 were GREAT comic book movies, but the plot contrivances and overlaod of villains was just too much in this one. Also, as ridiculous as this is, Raimi should have watched Superman 3 to see how the "bizarro" Superhero act should play out - his version was terrible - and that's saying something because Supes 3 was AWFUL. (although the fight between good and bizarro Superman in the car parts yard is IMO the greatest superhero fight scene ever.)
PortlandCardFan
Registered User
I liked it...
Cardinals.Ken
That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
I liked it, but it did feel forced.
Raimi tried to "out-do" his two previous Spidey films, and it showed.
I felt that Parker's "decent into darkness" could have been a bit...well...darker...but I can understand the reasoning behind it (ie: marketing to children).
Overall 7/10
Raimi tried to "out-do" his two previous Spidey films, and it showed.
I felt that Parker's "decent into darkness" could have been a bit...well...darker...but I can understand the reasoning behind it (ie: marketing to children).
Overall 7/10
Kinda sad that his "decent in to darkness" consisted of him walking around like he was in a Bee Gees video.
Cardinals.Ken
That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
Are you saying that Tony Manero didn't have a darkside?
Cardinals.Ken
That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
Who does Bruce Campbell play in this one?
READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!
The French Maitre 'D at the fancy restaurant the Peter Parker goes to to propose to MJ.
Who does Bruce Campbell play in this one?
One of the scenes that kept the movie a float.
LOL! So true.
green machine
I rule at posting
Saw it today, and while I don't think it was as good as the first two, I certainly don't feel it was the total piece of crap that many are making it out to be.
