the_plunk (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} the_plunk) wrote,@ 2007-05-04 21:25:00 |
|
Spider-Man Team-Up Featuring Bruce Campbell
So, I saw Spider-Man 3 today, and I'll post a rambling, unfunny review below. I did include pictures, though. If you don't want to read it, here are the important parts:
-Ted Raimi's cameo went on far too long.
-Bruce Campbell's cameo went on just long enough, or possibly not long enough.
-The butler is the real villain of all three films for withholding a simple bit of information that could have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
-Getting turned into sand makes you stumble around like Frankenstein's monster and make dinosaur noises.
-There is a thing that makes no sense, and also another thing that makes no sense.
-The film features the worst ad-libbed line I've heard in a while.
So, it's a pretty good movie overall. The performances are all pretty good, except for Willam Dafoe's hammy voiceovers that might have been pulled from the other two movies. The story is plotted pretty well too, although there's about 1/3 too much plot, I think. This is kind of odd considering that there's some rather necessary exposition that seems to have been cut for time. Mostly, I'm thinking of a scene that could have explained why Spider-Man isn't more concerned about having woken up in a living constume made out of slime from under his bed. Also, it seems like the movie should have shown us how Peter went from deciding to lose the part of his suit he was wearing under his clothes to him jumping around a cathedral in the full outfit and unable to take off the mask. Although I guess I don't miss those scenes if it means more awesomely hilarious dancing montages or scenes with the landlord.
Hello, living goo from my apartment floor. Would you like to be my underwear?
But I probably shouldn't expect too much logic from this film which, like the other two, do a good job of being surreal and goofy enough to make me not wonder why a high-tech experiment with nuclear lasers is taking place in the open air in the middle of a field, or why none of Peter Parker's neighboors notice that Spider-Man always jumps out of his window when leaving on patrol. Sam Raimi is the perfect director for this film, and he does a terrific job of not only explaining away goofy things, but also putting real, actual drama in the same movie as a <i>Saturday Night Fever</i> montage (It's great because Peter Parker can apparently hear the music on the soundtrack). There is actual emotion in this film, and some of its best scenes don't have anything to do wtih CG animation or slow-motion punches.
Remember when I was dating your best friend and then dumped him for you right after his dad died? And after that when I dumped you for that astronaut? And then when I ran out on my wedding with him because I changed my mind again at the last minute? Let's stay together forever.
And I would actually say that the biggest improvement over the other two films is that the character of Mary Jane is actually relatively sympathetic in this film. Although I think the story of all three films may require that this character come off as totally self-centered and ulikeable, since she functions as the object of affection for the character the movie is about, so there's no drama if they're actually happy together. This obviously limits what the character is able to do, but this time around she's not that bad. I mean, in the last movie she dumped that astronaut guy on their wedding day because she changed her mind and decided that she liked Spider-Man better, and she only dated the astronaut guy in the first place because she turned on Spider-Man for getting hassled by Bruce Campbell at her play. But this time she's recognizeably human, and Kirsten Dunst gives what I believe to be a good performance. James Franco is similarly good, especially the part where he gets comic book-style amnesia, and there's a montageish scene in a ktichen between him and Dunst that has actual, good acting in it. It also features the worst improvised line I've ever heard, but it's not enough to ruin the movie. You'll know it when you hear it.
"At least we can still eat what's in the frying pan..." You went to acting school for that? That's the best you could do? I quit! This never would have happened on Freaks and Geeks.
There is a pretty fantastic lapse in the film's logic though, and it has something to do with Mary Jane's newfound humanity. You see, Harry goes back to evil mode about halfway through the film and decides to wreak terrible vengeance on Spider-man. But instead of trying to kill him again, he decides to ruin his relationship with Mary Jane. And instead of actually seducing her away from Spider-Man, he decides to somehow blackmail her into breaking up with Spider-Man and then swoops in and pretends that he's seduced her away. And then everybody just goes on with their lives for a while. I can buy that Mary Jane would do what Harry told her to while he was flying around on his surfboard threatening her with his samurai sword, but I don't understand why she never told Peter what was happening as she had lots of opportunities. Thus, all the strained emotional stuff later makes no sense because Peter and Mary Jane didn't actually break up earlier in the film. He has reason to be upset with her, but she shouldn't be pissed at him and should actually be kind of concerned that his friend Harry turned back into a supervillain and is plotting revenge. But she never even tells anyone.
But the film acts like none of this matters, and actually unfolds as if Harry did seduce Mary Jane instead of just enacting some ridiculously elbaorate plot to make it look like he did. And the film would probably work a lot better if that's what really happened. But I guess Sam Raimi decided that having Mary Jane dump Spider-Man yet again would make her the most unsympathetic chacter in the history of film, and I guess that's probably true. But it does make a confusing mess of the film's biggest non-action plot element.
Surf's up...for evil! Or at least mild relationship trouble! Mwa-ha-ha!
Otherwise, I don't have any complaints or other observations. There's a fun cameo from the fake William H Macey who was also on that show <i>Drive</i> on FOX that just got cancelled. Topher Grace is acceptable as a foil for Peter Parker, although his motivation for becoming an insane super-villain is a little shaky (find a new career vs go crazy and kill people). That guy from <i>Wings</i> is also pretty good as the Sandman. He dresses like an extra from <i>West Side Story</i>, but that's ok; he goes nicely the music that sounds like it's from <i>West Side Story</i> that plays when Peter and Harry fight. I don't really like the way his story is resolved though: he blows away in the wind after giving Peter a chance to let go of his desire for revenge, but what does that mean for his story? Here are the options I forsee: a) He gives up his life of crime and gets back to his family just in time to watch his kid die from her terminal disease b)he continues his life of crime and continues to cause lots of property damage. But none of that is Spidey's problem because Spidey was able to foregive him for the one crime that he has a personal connection to.
I turned to a life of crime because Red beat me. Also, I too sound like a dinosaur.
Joe Bob says check it out
P.S. Was anyone else confused about why the people of New York stopped trusting Spidey when he started wearing the black suit? Was it just because Spider-Man was black? The people at that newsstand were sure lucky that Luke Cage wasn't around.
They said what? First they keep calling The Panther "Black Panther," and now this...that's it, I'm starting a boycott.
So, I saw Spider-Man 3 today, and I'll post a rambling, unfunny review below. I did include pictures, though. If you don't want to read it, here are the important parts:
-Ted Raimi's cameo went on far too long.
-Bruce Campbell's cameo went on just long enough, or possibly not long enough.
-The butler is the real villain of all three films for withholding a simple bit of information that could have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
-Getting turned into sand makes you stumble around like Frankenstein's monster and make dinosaur noises.
-There is a thing that makes no sense, and also another thing that makes no sense.
-The film features the worst ad-libbed line I've heard in a while.
So, it's a pretty good movie overall. The performances are all pretty good, except for Willam Dafoe's hammy voiceovers that might have been pulled from the other two movies. The story is plotted pretty well too, although there's about 1/3 too much plot, I think. This is kind of odd considering that there's some rather necessary exposition that seems to have been cut for time. Mostly, I'm thinking of a scene that could have explained why Spider-Man isn't more concerned about having woken up in a living constume made out of slime from under his bed. Also, it seems like the movie should have shown us how Peter went from deciding to lose the part of his suit he was wearing under his clothes to him jumping around a cathedral in the full outfit and unable to take off the mask. Although I guess I don't miss those scenes if it means more awesomely hilarious dancing montages or scenes with the landlord.
Hello, living goo from my apartment floor. Would you like to be my underwear?
But I probably shouldn't expect too much logic from this film which, like the other two, do a good job of being surreal and goofy enough to make me not wonder why a high-tech experiment with nuclear lasers is taking place in the open air in the middle of a field, or why none of Peter Parker's neighboors notice that Spider-Man always jumps out of his window when leaving on patrol. Sam Raimi is the perfect director for this film, and he does a terrific job of not only explaining away goofy things, but also putting real, actual drama in the same movie as a <i>Saturday Night Fever</i> montage (It's great because Peter Parker can apparently hear the music on the soundtrack). There is actual emotion in this film, and some of its best scenes don't have anything to do wtih CG animation or slow-motion punches.
Remember when I was dating your best friend and then dumped him for you right after his dad died? And after that when I dumped you for that astronaut? And then when I ran out on my wedding with him because I changed my mind again at the last minute? Let's stay together forever.
And I would actually say that the biggest improvement over the other two films is that the character of Mary Jane is actually relatively sympathetic in this film. Although I think the story of all three films may require that this character come off as totally self-centered and ulikeable, since she functions as the object of affection for the character the movie is about, so there's no drama if they're actually happy together. This obviously limits what the character is able to do, but this time around she's not that bad. I mean, in the last movie she dumped that astronaut guy on their wedding day because she changed her mind and decided that she liked Spider-Man better, and she only dated the astronaut guy in the first place because she turned on Spider-Man for getting hassled by Bruce Campbell at her play. But this time she's recognizeably human, and Kirsten Dunst gives what I believe to be a good performance. James Franco is similarly good, especially the part where he gets comic book-style amnesia, and there's a montageish scene in a ktichen between him and Dunst that has actual, good acting in it. It also features the worst improvised line I've ever heard, but it's not enough to ruin the movie. You'll know it when you hear it.
"At least we can still eat what's in the frying pan..." You went to acting school for that? That's the best you could do? I quit! This never would have happened on Freaks and Geeks.
There is a pretty fantastic lapse in the film's logic though, and it has something to do with Mary Jane's newfound humanity. You see, Harry goes back to evil mode about halfway through the film and decides to wreak terrible vengeance on Spider-man. But instead of trying to kill him again, he decides to ruin his relationship with Mary Jane. And instead of actually seducing her away from Spider-Man, he decides to somehow blackmail her into breaking up with Spider-Man and then swoops in and pretends that he's seduced her away. And then everybody just goes on with their lives for a while. I can buy that Mary Jane would do what Harry told her to while he was flying around on his surfboard threatening her with his samurai sword, but I don't understand why she never told Peter what was happening as she had lots of opportunities. Thus, all the strained emotional stuff later makes no sense because Peter and Mary Jane didn't actually break up earlier in the film. He has reason to be upset with her, but she shouldn't be pissed at him and should actually be kind of concerned that his friend Harry turned back into a supervillain and is plotting revenge. But she never even tells anyone.
But the film acts like none of this matters, and actually unfolds as if Harry did seduce Mary Jane instead of just enacting some ridiculously elbaorate plot to make it look like he did. And the film would probably work a lot better if that's what really happened. But I guess Sam Raimi decided that having Mary Jane dump Spider-Man yet again would make her the most unsympathetic chacter in the history of film, and I guess that's probably true. But it does make a confusing mess of the film's biggest non-action plot element.
Surf's up...for evil! Or at least mild relationship trouble! Mwa-ha-ha!
Otherwise, I don't have any complaints or other observations. There's a fun cameo from the fake William H Macey who was also on that show <i>Drive</i> on FOX that just got cancelled. Topher Grace is acceptable as a foil for Peter Parker, although his motivation for becoming an insane super-villain is a little shaky (find a new career vs go crazy and kill people). That guy from <i>Wings</i> is also pretty good as the Sandman. He dresses like an extra from <i>West Side Story</i>, but that's ok; he goes nicely the music that sounds like it's from <i>West Side Story</i> that plays when Peter and Harry fight. I don't really like the way his story is resolved though: he blows away in the wind after giving Peter a chance to let go of his desire for revenge, but what does that mean for his story? Here are the options I forsee: a) He gives up his life of crime and gets back to his family just in time to watch his kid die from her terminal disease b)he continues his life of crime and continues to cause lots of property damage. But none of that is Spidey's problem because Spidey was able to foregive him for the one crime that he has a personal connection to.
I turned to a life of crime because Red beat me. Also, I too sound like a dinosaur.
Joe Bob says check it out
P.S. Was anyone else confused about why the people of New York stopped trusting Spidey when he started wearing the black suit? Was it just because Spider-Man was black? The people at that newsstand were sure lucky that Luke Cage wasn't around.
They said what? First they keep calling The Panther "Black Panther," and now this...that's it, I'm starting a boycott.
