Figured it was getting near that time. The movie opens in 2 days, and the reviews are just starting to come in, with tons surely to pour in within the next few days.
Opens: May 4th, 2007
I thought S-M1 was pretty decent, and good fun. S-M2 improved on it by leaps and bounds, and is easily my favorite of the superhero movies released (yes, more than Batman Begins). I have been down on S-M3 from it's inception though, since everything I heard/read/saw hinted towards a disaster (too many villians, not enough time to develop them, retcons, another love interest, the bad SFX, GHASTLY trailers, etc). However, Im hoping that being so pessimistic about this movie for so long with result in the final product pleasantly surpising me.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/
46 reviews have come in so far, 33 being positive. Its at 72% right now, but Im feeling that the final level will hover around 70% after all is said and done, nowheres near S-M2's 90-something %. Most are saying the same thing: too much content to give proper attention to in a 140 minute running time, but a satisfactory, if rushed, conclusion to the trilogy. Its mostly internet type reviews so far, so I am really waiting to hear from some other critics, like Ebert (loved S-M2), or Berardenelli (who, as far as internet film critics go, is usually my favorite).
===============================================
Review quotes:
"The three main recurring characters get stuck in a rut and the same can be said of the film itself in "Spider-Man 3." After the significant improvement of the second installment over the first, new entry reps a roughly equivalent dip in quality and enjoyment, with Spidey now giving off the faint odor of running on fumes. This devaluation shouldn't hurt at the box office, at least at first, as the vast majority of the fans who turned the first two into $822 million and $784 million worldwide grossers, respectively, will cram multiplexes around the globe to see the first blockbuster of the summer.
A sense of strain envelops the proceedings this time around. One can feel the effort required to suit up one more time, come up with fresh variations on a winning formula and inject urgency into a format that basically needs to be repeated and, due to audience expectations, can't be toyed with or deepened very much.
Big problem with third Spideyis the script, the very same element that elevated the second yarn. Four years back, vet scenarist Alvin Sargent, with a story assist from Michael Chabon, enriched the premise from all angles -- emotion, humor and villainy. This time, the magic has eluded Sargent and the Raimi brothers, director Sam and co-writer Ivan, the result being a story that would have provenmore satisfactory for a late '60s cartoon-hero TV show than for a new-century blockbuster."
- VARIETY (rotten)
"Left dangling for the past three years, arachnophiles everywhere finally have cause to celebrate.
The biggest (with a production budget due north of $250 million) and longest (clocking in at 139 minutes) and quite possibly the capper of a trilogy featuring the current talent lineup, "Spider-Man 3" has done it again.
Certain to please the geek squad by remaining ever true to its comic book roots while retaining that satisfying emotional core that has registered with equal numbers of female fans, "Spider-Man 3" has all its demographic bases covered."
- HOLLYWOOD REPORTER (fresh)
"Likely to divide reviewers, "Spider-Man 3" may prove to be critics-proof, just like Columbia's "Da Vinci Code" was last summer (though there was unanimous agreement that "Da Vinci Code" was a bad picture, which is not the case of "Spider-Man 3").
However, adding more villains and a new femme simply means having more characters, subplots, and emotionally tangled web of relationships, but doesn't necessarily translate into a more engaging or enjoyable film. Indeed, "Spider-Man 3" represents a step down from the second, 2004 installment, which improved over the first in every department. That said, opinions would differ as to whether "Spider-Man 3," which is considered to be the "most Sam Raimi" picture, is stronger or weaker than the first. Sam Raimi and brother Ivan Raimi are credited with the script, along with Alvin Sargent, who got most of the credit for the better quality and greater fun of "Spider-Man 2."
So what's missing? An engaging storyline and the right tone or mood, which is a tough challenge when it comes to a mega-franchise. Understandably, the filmmakers have to navigate through sensitive terrain, since the basic formula needs to be observed to fulfill expectations of viewers and readers. Yet the creators are also expected to offer a new, fresh angle (other than just more villains) to enrich the proceedings and distinguish "Spider-Man 3" from the former episodes. This is particularly hard due to the fact that "Spider-Man 2" was an A-picture.
Major problem is not the film's darker impulses (the public will accept that in the post 9/11 climate, even for a megaplex blockbuster), but basic script, the very ingredient that elevated "Spider-Man 2," by vet scribe Alvin Sargent, who was able to enrich the formatand it is a formatwith deeper characterization, greater resonance, and even humor."
- EMMANUEL LEVY (fresh)
"In retrospect, it's almost exciting to consider how effectively Raimi introduces each storyline and then slowly weaves it into the fabric of the overall film. For example, Harry's hatred of Spider-Man might be a lingering plot point if the film either addressed it in a single scene or left it unexplored until the end. But Raimi and Co. offer a solution that allows new plot developments to breathe. There's also the matter of Eddie Brock/Venom (Topher Grace), whose intricacies will not be explained in this review, but who slowly becomes integral to both the building drama of the narrative and the emotional complexity of Peter over the course of the three films.
After all, how would this nerdy kid respond if he finally found acceptance as Spider-Man, as he begins to here? Peter's ability to handle that situation and to recognize that he might be the only person able to apprehend his uncle's possible killer creates a palpable emotional turmoil that plays directly into the comic book origins of both the hero and his adversaries. By the time he faces them down in the film's climax, Raimi creates the opportunity not only for a physical triumph but an emotional catharsis that ties together all of the preceding, sometimes seemingly disconnected scenes.
As a person who typically has little trouble differentiating his likes from his dislikes, I was surprised by my initial conflicting feelings -- especially given my lifelong love for the character and enthusiasm for the franchise. The trailers alone were so jam-packed with story developments and new characters that it seemed an entire film would not be enough to fully explore all of them. But what truly is most amazing about Spider-Man 3 (no pun intended) is that all objections are answered and all developments are resolved, even if at times it feels like they will never converge.
So if you're going into the film with any trepidation about whether Raimi can combine all these disparate elements and still satisfactorily conclude the movie, much less the series, reserve your judgment until the last web has been slung. Because this is the first time that two films and two-thirds into a trilogy, you still haven't seen anything yet. Spider-Man 3 has a great ending, and more importantly, it is a great ending for both a standard three-film arc and the best comic book trilogy in film history."
- IGN (fresh)
"Now comes the third film which is as technically impressive as ever, but suffers from being simultaneously pulled in too many different directions. Even being an extra 15 minutes or so longer than its predecessor, the film still has to juggle three villains (Sandman, Harry Osborn, Venom) along with subplots about the rocky roads of new love, a "Superman 3" style 'dark personality' subplot, the ongoing Harry-Mary Jane-Peter love-hate triangle, not to mention giving time to a half dozen other characters both new and old.
Surprisingly the film does manage to wrap things up by the end, so much so that it feels like an 'unofficial end' to the series in some ways with no cliff hanging stories left to resolve. Yet how most of these are resolved is done in some rushed and often unsatisfactory ways and that's where "Spider-Man 3" falls apart. The elements are there for some great drama, but they're never developed enough to become involving, and often awkwardly mix rather than cohesively gel.
The action is pretty spectacular. At some times, most notably the big fight scenes, the action becomes too frantic with the frames shot way too close-up which makes things a little confusing. Yet the sequences are staged well, notably the early Peter vs. Harry fight along with the film's most effective scene - a vertigo-inducing sequence with Gwen in peril when a construction crane goes haywire. Less successful is the later scenes with forced crowd reactions and somewhat murky action mixed with some seemingly rushed CG effects.
"Spider-Man 3" may not reach the heights of the first two films, let alone the transcendent macabre aria of "Batman Begins" or the near perfectly-balanced symphony of "X-Men 2," but in spite of it being the closest thing this franchise has had to a mediocre entry - it's still good enough to show up how laughably bad the likes of "Ghost Rider" and "300" are, and more on target than some other misfires of late (I'm looking at you X-Men & Superman). Raimi and gang have gone out colorfully, but it's now time to give the webslinger a rest before coming back fighting sometime next decade."
- DARK HORIZONS (fresh)
Opens: May 4th, 2007
I thought S-M1 was pretty decent, and good fun. S-M2 improved on it by leaps and bounds, and is easily my favorite of the superhero movies released (yes, more than Batman Begins). I have been down on S-M3 from it's inception though, since everything I heard/read/saw hinted towards a disaster (too many villians, not enough time to develop them, retcons, another love interest, the bad SFX, GHASTLY trailers, etc). However, Im hoping that being so pessimistic about this movie for so long with result in the final product pleasantly surpising me.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/
46 reviews have come in so far, 33 being positive. Its at 72% right now, but Im feeling that the final level will hover around 70% after all is said and done, nowheres near S-M2's 90-something %. Most are saying the same thing: too much content to give proper attention to in a 140 minute running time, but a satisfactory, if rushed, conclusion to the trilogy. Its mostly internet type reviews so far, so I am really waiting to hear from some other critics, like Ebert (loved S-M2), or Berardenelli (who, as far as internet film critics go, is usually my favorite).
===============================================
Review quotes:
"The three main recurring characters get stuck in a rut and the same can be said of the film itself in "Spider-Man 3." After the significant improvement of the second installment over the first, new entry reps a roughly equivalent dip in quality and enjoyment, with Spidey now giving off the faint odor of running on fumes. This devaluation shouldn't hurt at the box office, at least at first, as the vast majority of the fans who turned the first two into $822 million and $784 million worldwide grossers, respectively, will cram multiplexes around the globe to see the first blockbuster of the summer.
A sense of strain envelops the proceedings this time around. One can feel the effort required to suit up one more time, come up with fresh variations on a winning formula and inject urgency into a format that basically needs to be repeated and, due to audience expectations, can't be toyed with or deepened very much.
Big problem with third Spideyis the script, the very same element that elevated the second yarn. Four years back, vet scenarist Alvin Sargent, with a story assist from Michael Chabon, enriched the premise from all angles -- emotion, humor and villainy. This time, the magic has eluded Sargent and the Raimi brothers, director Sam and co-writer Ivan, the result being a story that would have provenmore satisfactory for a late '60s cartoon-hero TV show than for a new-century blockbuster."
- VARIETY (rotten)
"Left dangling for the past three years, arachnophiles everywhere finally have cause to celebrate.
The biggest (with a production budget due north of $250 million) and longest (clocking in at 139 minutes) and quite possibly the capper of a trilogy featuring the current talent lineup, "Spider-Man 3" has done it again.
Certain to please the geek squad by remaining ever true to its comic book roots while retaining that satisfying emotional core that has registered with equal numbers of female fans, "Spider-Man 3" has all its demographic bases covered."
- HOLLYWOOD REPORTER (fresh)
"Likely to divide reviewers, "Spider-Man 3" may prove to be critics-proof, just like Columbia's "Da Vinci Code" was last summer (though there was unanimous agreement that "Da Vinci Code" was a bad picture, which is not the case of "Spider-Man 3").
However, adding more villains and a new femme simply means having more characters, subplots, and emotionally tangled web of relationships, but doesn't necessarily translate into a more engaging or enjoyable film. Indeed, "Spider-Man 3" represents a step down from the second, 2004 installment, which improved over the first in every department. That said, opinions would differ as to whether "Spider-Man 3," which is considered to be the "most Sam Raimi" picture, is stronger or weaker than the first. Sam Raimi and brother Ivan Raimi are credited with the script, along with Alvin Sargent, who got most of the credit for the better quality and greater fun of "Spider-Man 2."
So what's missing? An engaging storyline and the right tone or mood, which is a tough challenge when it comes to a mega-franchise. Understandably, the filmmakers have to navigate through sensitive terrain, since the basic formula needs to be observed to fulfill expectations of viewers and readers. Yet the creators are also expected to offer a new, fresh angle (other than just more villains) to enrich the proceedings and distinguish "Spider-Man 3" from the former episodes. This is particularly hard due to the fact that "Spider-Man 2" was an A-picture.
Major problem is not the film's darker impulses (the public will accept that in the post 9/11 climate, even for a megaplex blockbuster), but basic script, the very ingredient that elevated "Spider-Man 2," by vet scribe Alvin Sargent, who was able to enrich the formatand it is a formatwith deeper characterization, greater resonance, and even humor."
- EMMANUEL LEVY (fresh)
"In retrospect, it's almost exciting to consider how effectively Raimi introduces each storyline and then slowly weaves it into the fabric of the overall film. For example, Harry's hatred of Spider-Man might be a lingering plot point if the film either addressed it in a single scene or left it unexplored until the end. But Raimi and Co. offer a solution that allows new plot developments to breathe. There's also the matter of Eddie Brock/Venom (Topher Grace), whose intricacies will not be explained in this review, but who slowly becomes integral to both the building drama of the narrative and the emotional complexity of Peter over the course of the three films.
After all, how would this nerdy kid respond if he finally found acceptance as Spider-Man, as he begins to here? Peter's ability to handle that situation and to recognize that he might be the only person able to apprehend his uncle's possible killer creates a palpable emotional turmoil that plays directly into the comic book origins of both the hero and his adversaries. By the time he faces them down in the film's climax, Raimi creates the opportunity not only for a physical triumph but an emotional catharsis that ties together all of the preceding, sometimes seemingly disconnected scenes.
As a person who typically has little trouble differentiating his likes from his dislikes, I was surprised by my initial conflicting feelings -- especially given my lifelong love for the character and enthusiasm for the franchise. The trailers alone were so jam-packed with story developments and new characters that it seemed an entire film would not be enough to fully explore all of them. But what truly is most amazing about Spider-Man 3 (no pun intended) is that all objections are answered and all developments are resolved, even if at times it feels like they will never converge.
So if you're going into the film with any trepidation about whether Raimi can combine all these disparate elements and still satisfactorily conclude the movie, much less the series, reserve your judgment until the last web has been slung. Because this is the first time that two films and two-thirds into a trilogy, you still haven't seen anything yet. Spider-Man 3 has a great ending, and more importantly, it is a great ending for both a standard three-film arc and the best comic book trilogy in film history."
- IGN (fresh)
"Now comes the third film which is as technically impressive as ever, but suffers from being simultaneously pulled in too many different directions. Even being an extra 15 minutes or so longer than its predecessor, the film still has to juggle three villains (Sandman, Harry Osborn, Venom) along with subplots about the rocky roads of new love, a "Superman 3" style 'dark personality' subplot, the ongoing Harry-Mary Jane-Peter love-hate triangle, not to mention giving time to a half dozen other characters both new and old.
Surprisingly the film does manage to wrap things up by the end, so much so that it feels like an 'unofficial end' to the series in some ways with no cliff hanging stories left to resolve. Yet how most of these are resolved is done in some rushed and often unsatisfactory ways and that's where "Spider-Man 3" falls apart. The elements are there for some great drama, but they're never developed enough to become involving, and often awkwardly mix rather than cohesively gel.
The action is pretty spectacular. At some times, most notably the big fight scenes, the action becomes too frantic with the frames shot way too close-up which makes things a little confusing. Yet the sequences are staged well, notably the early Peter vs. Harry fight along with the film's most effective scene - a vertigo-inducing sequence with Gwen in peril when a construction crane goes haywire. Less successful is the later scenes with forced crowd reactions and somewhat murky action mixed with some seemingly rushed CG effects.
"Spider-Man 3" may not reach the heights of the first two films, let alone the transcendent macabre aria of "Batman Begins" or the near perfectly-balanced symphony of "X-Men 2," but in spite of it being the closest thing this franchise has had to a mediocre entry - it's still good enough to show up how laughably bad the likes of "Ghost Rider" and "300" are, and more on target than some other misfires of late (I'm looking at you X-Men & Superman). Raimi and gang have gone out colorfully, but it's now time to give the webslinger a rest before coming back fighting sometime next decade."
- DARK HORIZONS (fresh)
