Web slinging with the best (almost)
Spiderman 3 Review

By Aaron 5/30/2007

Spiderman 3 - Sam Raimi - 2007 - 7/10



The movie shows that New York has finally embraced Spiderman and Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) feels ready to ask Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) to marry him. Things get out of hand when Harry returns as the Green Goblin, with vengeance in his heart, fury in his veins, and knowledge of who Spiderman really is. To make Peter's world even more confusing, the police inform him and Aunt Mae that Uncle Ben’s murderer was really Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church). Peter explodes, voicing his anger that the police are incompetent and vowing revenge. After Spiderman saves the life of the police chief's daughter, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), the city throws Spiderman a party and Mary Jane becomes jealous when Spiderman/Peter kisses Gwen. The shit hits the fan when a strange substance bonds with Peter, changing his suit from the friendly red and blue to black, darkening Peter's personality as well. Flint Marko comes out of hiding too, after an accident with a genetic realignment device gives him the ability to reshape his body as a mound of sand, giving him great power and he begins to come into his own as “the Sandman”. As Peter is slowly changed by the symbiote, his world changes as he unintentionally hurts all those around him. Peter also must grapple with his uneasy friendship with Harry Osborne (James Franco) which remains a friendship after Harry has temporary amnesia, forgetting that he attacked Peter/Spiderman as the Green Goblin.  A new photographer at the Daily Buggle, Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) threatens Peter's standing with J Jonah Jameson (JK Simmons) as Brock tries to displace Peter as Spiderman’s main photographer. As Peter deals with feelings of revenge, he is faced with several questions: which suit will Peter choose? Can win Mary Jane back? Can he befriend Harry again? Can he bring Flint Marko to justice?

 Can he survive the symbiote?

My thoughts are that 

overall I thought the movie was really good, but a small step back from Spiderman 1 - which I rate an 8. I thought the fight scenes were amazing. No other way to say it – no other comic book movie comes close to these action scenes. This is the way Spiderman should fight – fast, fluid, instinct driven. And fighting the Green Goblin with the Goblin muscle amplifying gas, it makes sense and makes for good fight scenes. But the movie has more than just good action scenes - the acting was really good too. James Franco totally steals the show - alternating his emotions between revenge, love, friendship, hate...showing that he has a bright post-Spiderman career.  Bryce Dallas Howard was a good new addition, playing a character that probably should have been set up in the earlier movies. I also think Topher Grace makes a great Eddie Brock, who deserved a lot more screen time.

Where this movie could have gotten a lot better was without Sandman. He was a cool villain but he took away from the other storylines and his revenge-forgiveness message could have been executed more simply without him. Smaller things really did the movie in, as possible modes of tension were erased with minutes of cheesy dialogue amounting to near deus-ex-machina type rescues for shoddy script writing. The news reports Raimi shows in key action sequences take away from the power of the action scene and clutters the movie with camp. 

What really sets this movie apart, besides piling up the little nuisances, is the character development of the villain. In the first two movies we get to see the Goblin and Doc Oct before they become corrupted by their new powers. That doesn’t happen as much here, although Thomas Hayden Church is really trying. Despite these efforts, if Sandman wasn’t in the movie at all we would have seen more of Brock and Harry and made Brock a lot more multidimensional. What is so shocking about all this is that Raimi probably knew this – which is why he departed from the commercially successful formula of the Batman movies that always had two villains. But this time he throws his own advice out the window, and his movie suffers.

What I Want to See in Spiderman 4 (assuming Tobey and Raimi return), is a way for Mary Jane to not be in the next movie. They could make some bit up about how she went to Hollywood to pursue a film career. Her character has run its course for the most part, and we can’t see Spidey actually marry her. Without Mary Jane to slow him down, I'd love to see Peter have to decide between Gwen and Brandt - that would really give the movie some flavor, and maybe even attract more female viewers. 

I would also want to see the Lizard and maybe another genetics type villain like the Scorpion. What would make the movie great is a villain where Peter needs the help of Dr Conors, both as a scientist and as the Lizard. But that’s just me…

When it comes down to it – I think this is a pretty solid summer popcorn flick that you should definitely see. Seven salty stix.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.