Spider-Man 3

Okay, first off, I only seen Spidermans 1 & 2. I have not seen anything between 1.1 and 1.9 or 2.1 through 2.9, any of these weird DVD special editions. So if I’m missing any info I apologize. But based on this limited theatrical knowledge I would have to say that the conventnerdal wisdom is probaly a little correct: Part 3 is more flawed than Part 1 or Part 2. But not by much. It is the same tone, same combo of boy-girl soap opera, cornball old fashioned comic book reverance for New York City and high-flyin’ CGI action. Only thing is in this one they are telling a more ambitious story (good) which is stitched together with some ridiculous coincidences and occasional bad ideas (bad).

For example, there is a black goo that falls from space which just happens to land right in the park where Spider-man is kickin it with his girl. Okay, admittedly the space goo may have been intentionally honing in on Spider-man’s powers, we don’t really know this. So I will let that one go. But when Tom Hayden Church is running from the pigs he just happens to climb over a fence into a science facility where, at that exact moment, scientists are about to do an experiment with sand which turns him into a sand monster. Admittedly, he did say earlier that he had bad luck, so that is sort of explained why that happens. So I guess I can let that one go too. But what about this. Eddie Brock happens to be in a church praying for God to kill Peter Parker at the exact moment Pete is yanking the evil space goo off of his suit up in the bell tower right above, so the goo falls on Eddie and turns him into a monster!? I mean what are the chances of that? The only way to explain it is that God was pissed that Eddie would defile the church with such a bullshit prayer, so He went Old Testament on him. Hmmm, actually I like that. Come to think of it, never mind, there are no coincidences, it’s air tight.

Spider-Man 3But what about Spider-man’s liberal attitude toward maintaining a secret identity? I know he’s always been kinda bad at it, but here he stands on a roof at a parade in his honor, wearing the suit with no mask. He allows all 3 villains to see his face and know who he is. He sits in the park out of his costume with his girl MJ using a super-spiderweb as a hammock. He even has an entire flying and web-shooting fight through New York City wearing a suit and tie and no mask. Hell, he can’t keep his suit in one piece anyway, and sometimes it turns him evil. I’m not sure why he even bothers anymore. Come out of the closet, dude.

The part comic book fundamentalists will burn the most effigies over, I bet, is where the goo gets ahold of Peter. Instead of turning him DARK and EEEEEEVIL like you might expect it gives him bangs and makes him a prick who thinks women love him. First there’s a scene where he struts around New York smiling at super models, a parody of SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. I thought this is like something they’d pull in those corny old Super-man movies. Then comes the scene where, to piss off Mary Jane, he goes to the jazz club and interrupts her song with a piano solo and a super-powered evil chair dance (possibly a mating ritual from the Planet of the Evil Space Goo). Here I thought holy shit, Sam Raimi is trying to get fired from Spider-man. On the DVD it will be Chapter 22: Holy Shit, Sam Raimi Is Trying To Get Fired From Spider-man. I can see why most people would hate chapter 22, but it was so ridiculous and so “what the fuck” that I think I sort of liked it. You really need an evil piano solo to keep the audience on their toes.

Besides, comic strip fans are gonna hate this movie anyway, because it’s so different from the comics. I saw an issue once and in the comics he’s not even human, he’s a little pig named Peter Porker who turns into Spider-ham. I was surprised they never mentioned this in part 1 but geez, it’s been 3 movies now, they’ve had time to explain it. Those guys must be pissed.

The worst part of the movie to me is not a scene, its just one line. After a really fake looking but thrilling fight with his former best friend Harry (now using his dad’s Green Goblin equipment to try to kill Peter) Harry ends up in the hospital. This leads to a useless amnesia subplot, but oh well. The part I hate is when Harry tells his nurse, “My best friends. I’d give my life for them.”

Now, I’m not gonna give it away. I won’t tell you how I was able to decipher this line. But to me, personally, it gave a hint of how the movie was gonna end. And since it’s a good ending, the fitting way to resolve this trilogy, it would be nice to not have it announced 10 or 15 minutes into the damn movie.

But that brings me to what I like. The fights with Goblin Jr. are great. They are not just super hero fighting super villain. They’re also former friends, jealous rivals, and best buds getting pissed and trying to one-up each other. And their relationship changes throughout the movie. It’s not really like any other hero/villain relationship in these types of movies. They even get to team up at one point. Nice to see them pay off what they’ve been setting up in the other 2 movies.

I also liked The Sandman. He’s a cool special effects monster, also a likable lug. Thomas Haden Church in a striped shirt looks so much like a cartoon sailor it’s eerie. I couldn’t figure out if his mouth really looked like that or if it was movie magic.

Also, you got Space Goo Eddie, who is the lamest of the villains but still kind of cool. His motivation for hating Peter is that after he stole Peter’s job by cheating, Peter pointed out that he cheated. Boo fuckin hoo. Some super villains had their dad killed in a fight with Spider-Man, or Spider-Man stops them from stealing money they were gonna use to help their sick daughter. Maybe that’s why they need this guy Eddie: the other two villains are very sympathetic, you need one that’s just a complete dick. But at least he has a giant CGI mouth full of fangs, that’s cool.

They could’ve done a better job writing some of this shit, but I appreciated that they were trying for more. I like that they juggle a bunch of stories, it makes it feel different from the other two. The freshest thing about the movie though is the way it ends. You get the drift there pal, what I mean is HUGE SPOILERS COMING UP. See, most of the comic strip movies, they kill off the villain(s) at the end. That goes for most of the Batmans, the other 2 Spidermans, all 3 Blades I believe, even one of the Garfields. (just guessing.) In this one two die, but one of the two dies helping Peter, the other Peter actually saves but he is such a greedy prick he jumps back into the danger zone and gets blown to dust (actually I’m guessing he’ll be back, but I’m one a them conspiracy nuts). But the third one, the one that lives… Peter actually forgives and lets go. I’ve seen some nerds complaining about this, but fuck those guys. This is a brilliant touch for many reasons. 1. It’s something you hardly ever see in a movie. Usually the bad guy has got to die, or at least get busted. It’s not every day that the hero and villain come to understand each other and make peace. Original is good. 2. It’s actually a better solution to the problem. Sandman really is a well meaning individual. He is a sympathetic character. It is better for the world if he goes and helps his daughter than if Spider-man kills him. 3. (most important) The whole trilogy has been about Peter learning this lesson. He started his career as revenge for his Uncle Ben’s death, but his Aunt Grandma has been trying to teach him that revenge is a dish best not served at all, unless you’re some kind of huge asshole. In this scene Peter learns not to get revenge, he learns that he himself is a big asshole and he can’t exactly go around passing judgment on other people who do the same shit, and also he has just helped his best friend/worst enemy have a Darth Vader Redemption Moment so things are looking a little less black and white right now. So really this is the character and emotional climax of the entire trilogy, so if any of you assholes hated it because you’d rather see yet another villain fall off a building or get impaled, you really don’t deserve the effort these people are putting into these movies. Go watch GHOST RIDER.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that this scene is reminiscent of the legendary bar/hand slap game/Cupcake scene from ON DEADLY GROUND (1996, d: S. Seagal). I almost yelled “I NEED TIME TO CHANGE!”

In conclusion, this movie is worse than the other two in some ways and better in other ways. Lots of interesting characters, great action scenes, good emotional climax, some sloppy writing and a weird tangent for the history books. When all is said and done I realize that actually I don’t like Spider-man that much. He’s no Blade. But these are three entertaining movies that fit together pretty well.

Anyway, trilogy done. Sam Raimi, please report to the woods.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 5th, 2007 at 8:59 pm and is filed under Action, Comic strips/Super heroes, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

70 Responses to “Spider-Man 3”

  1. To answer everybody’s question, yes I will probly review THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN when I see it, but I haven’t yet and don’t have a huge urgency to. I was kinda in denial believing they couldn’t possibly really gonna be doing the same story again a couple years later, but they’re telling me that’s not the case.

    I saw THE INCREDIBLE HULK though so I’ll get to this one eventually.

  2. Warning, Vern:
    Best scene in NEW SPIDER-MAN:RISE OF THE REBOOT: AMAZING-ER THAN THE OLD SPIDERMEN GIVE US YOUR MONEY NOW PLEASE is when a 23 year old actress and a 28 year old actor each playing 17 year olds sort of ask each other out and fail to complete a full sentence for, like, 2 minutes of actual dialogue, uttering a series of non-sequiturs and teeny-bopper mumblings that somehow conveys they like each other.

    It’s adorable.

    The rest of the movie you might like if you view it as an extension of comic book-y, THE PHANTOM-y values. Or if you pretend you’re 9 years old (which isn’t always a bad thing).

    But whatever, I’m the guy who doesn’t like any of the Raimi SPIDERMANs either, so in my opinion I probably shouldn’t even be commenting here.

  3. “Sam Raimi, please report to the woods” could be the new “In conclusion, watch BLADE 2 again” if it plays its cards right.

  4. I guess this is a confession of some sorts, but SPIDERMAN 1 and 3 are the only two movies I watched TWICE in cinemas. There…I´ve said it. Why I did not watch FROM DUSK TIL DAWN more than once in theatres is a question I myself cannot answer.

  5. Wow did I not read this review before? Vern liked it for the same reasons I did. Yes, forgiveness is a profound message it takes balls to put in a summer movie, and the fanboys didn’t want to hear it. They wanted to believe he already learned his lesson about letting the robber go so he killed uncle Ben so he fixed that by killing the robber. They like it when with great power comes great responsibility means yore responsible for killing the bad guy. No one wants to hear with great power comes great responsibility including the responsibility not to kill the person who wronged you.

    Vern, you got it, man. I love this movie. I don’t mind the coincidences. I take some of it as more thematic (the church space goo transition, e.g.) some sloppiness like the butler’s ig reveal but overall I’m glad Raimi got his way with the big thematic stuff, and made the Venom, etc demands work with it.

  6. I never understood the hate for SM3. It’s basically the same movie as the other two, but with better special effects and one goofy scene that seemed like Raimi was finally allowing himself to have a little fun. Granted, I started finding that lip quiver McGuire does to be pretty hilarious. Kinda made me want to yell out “Cry, Spidey, cry!” in the theater. But considering nobody involved particularly wanted to make the goddamn thing in the first place I think it turned out pretty well. The Harry arc and the unexpectedly moving climax helped redeem the clunky, overstuffed storytelling.

    It was also the movie when I realized that Franco could be kind of awesome sometimes. Until then, I thought he was just a wooden prettyboy. I didn’t realize he was a deadpan comedian. His scene with Peter in the restaurant was a little bit genius.

    He pretty much sucked in that monkey movie, though.

  7. I still think that this movie’s emo Peter WAS supposed to be lame, just to show to the audience that the nerdy Peter, who thinks that something corny, like a ring in a champagne glass, is the most romantic thing ever, was still in there.
    It wasn’t Raimi saying “Hey, look at how cool evil Peter is, with his MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE haircut and funky fresh dance moves”, it was more a: “See how uncool he still is? Black space goo may have a bad influence on him, but it didn’t completely take over!”

  8. Yeah, totally. It was completely in character. The goo made him evil; it didn’t make him cool. Nothing on this planet or any other has the power to do that.

  9. One thing I love about this movie is how cavalier it is about the most mind-blowing shit. How does Spidey end up meeting up with an Evil alien symbiont? Simple, it falls out of the sky right next to him. No further questions necessary.

  10. For the record, My Chemical Romance is actually a very good band, for its’ genre. And the lead singer was very nice to me when I met him at comic-con and started asking him about where to get some pink hair dye before realizing who he was. And then he was also cool when I did realize who he was. Also, they are really fun live, even if you’re in the cheap seats at the back of the arena. Hell, I’d venture to say that they are the single best arena show I’ve ever seen. Of course, I generally only go to small club shows, so there aren’t too many points of comparison.

  11. Mr. M, the way I understand the hate is this movie threatens what fanboys know. You can’t change the uncle Ben story and you can’t make Venom second fiddle and you can’t make Gwen Stacy the second love interest. I wonder how many people actually don’t hate it though but are afraid to speak up. $300 million means people going back to see it twice.

    I don’t understand calling SPIDER-MAN 2 a masterpiece. To me that’s the most banal redundant one. I guess they like how he tries to hold down a job and super heroics conflict with a normal life. Seemed more on the nose than the other two. They love Doc Ock but call him a sympathetic villain which I think completely misses the point. Octavius was a megalomaniac before he got powers. He’s the only unsympathetic villain of all the films. And it’s supposed to be a dramatic moment when Peter tells Aunt May be was responsible for uncle Ben, but all it is is exposition reselling information the audience already knows. I find psychosomatic web loss more ridiculous than space goo. Space goo is as believable as genetic spider bite to me.

    SPIDER-MAN 2 is a solid Spider-Man movie with some good sequences but it’s the only one of Raimi’s that doesn’t move me. To me it’s the typical sequel isn’t as good but the third one redeems it structure. To others it’s the classic superior sequel and failed third part structure.

  12. I wasn’t thrilled about the “Actually, Sandman killed Uncle Ben, psch!” retcon at first either, but it was worth it for the way it played out in the movie. In theory, it’s a shitty idea, but execution matters.

  13. Maj, I had the same worry and I should’ve trusted Raimi was going somewhere. Saying there’s more to the story than the simple black and white version you know is a profound message I’m glad to have in a movie.

  14. caruso_stalker217

    July 9th, 2012 at 6:55 pm


    I also don’t understand how SPIDER-MAN 2 achieved it’s reputation for being really fucking awesome. I’d take SP1

  15. caruso_stalker217

    July 9th, 2012 at 6:57 pm


    I also don’t understand how SPIDER-MAN 2 achieved it’s reputation for being really fucking awesome. I’d take SM1 (Dafoe, motherfucker) or SM3 (“Sooooo good!”) any day of the week.

  16. caruso_stalker217

    July 9th, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Fucked that up.

  17. And here on outlawvern.com we meet…

  18. caruso_stalker217

    July 9th, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Not to say SM2 is a bad film, but it’s definitely lost a lot of appeal for me over the last eight years.

  19. There’s always my Wallflower Theory that states that nerds don’t like to dance and will have an irrational hatred of any scene that has dancing in it (see also Matrix Reloaded). But now with Glee and all that musical theater bullshit being so popular things are obviously changing with the younger generation. They could release both movies in 3D and they would beat Avatar. In my opinion.

  20. Michael Mayket

    July 9th, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    SPIDER-MAN 2 gained it’s reputation for being fucking awesome by being fucking awesome. SPIDER-MAN 3 gained its reputation for being the worst of the three by being the worst of the three. That said just like pretty much everyone here at Vern’s site I’m not a complete Internet douche so I understand that not quite as good as the other two doesn’t actually make it the worst movie ever made (actually its a good movie) or mean that Sam Raimi should kill himself (he shouldn’t, in my opinion). Also, by douche I wasn’t referring to the good kind that cleans vaginas, but to the other kind.

    So, in summation, I liked all of the Raimi SPIDER-MAN’s.

  21. Knox Harrington

    July 10th, 2012 at 4:35 am

    Geez, guys. I know we like to stand up for movies that the masses would usually dismiss on this site, but Spider-man 3?

    I don’t remember it being very good and I don’t remember it being completely horrible. I just remember it being forgettable.

    What I do remember, though, is how there was this nice set-up in Spider-man 2 where they mention J. Jonah Jameson’s son returning from Mars or something, and thinking “that would be a great way to link to that Venom symbiote thing for Spider-man 3, because the black goo could be some sample they brought back to earth”.

    But then in Spider-man 3 they decide to take the shortest of storytelling shortcuts and simply have it crash next to Peter Parker a.k.a. Spidey, of all people, in a park somewhere. Classy.

  22. In SPIDER-MAN 2 John Jameson was engaged to Mary Jane and she leaves him at the alter at the end for Peter (spoiler). I don’t think he was ever in space during that movie.

  23. In the comics, doesn’t that guy become a space werewolf or something? Because everybody Peter Parker knows become a supervillain at some point?

    Compared to the source material, I don’t think having the black goo land right next to Spider-Man is all that much of coincidence.

  24. Knox Harrington

    July 10th, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    Maybe it was in Spider-man 3 where they mention the space trip, which would make the choice to have the Mars thing and the magic coincidence goo in the same movie even stranger.

    I wonder if it’s the same goo from Prometheus.

  25. caruso_stalker217

    July 10th, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    I believe it was mentioned in SPIDER-MAN 2 that Jameson’s son was the first person to play football on the moon, however the fuck that works. So I don’t know if he was recently on the moon or not, but Jameson refers to him as “My son, the astronaut” which means he’s at least been to space but I don’t know if it was recent or if he was on the moon while there and also “My Son The Astronaut” sounds like a shitty ’70s sitcom.

  26. If memory serves, Jameson’s son had already made his travel to space by the events of that movie. And i don’t believe there is any linking betwen Jameson’s space travel to the arrival of the goo that maketh Venon.

  27. you got to admit, JK Simmons was the best thing about those movies

  28. Griff, i have to agree with you. If they are going to bring back JJ Jameson to the new Spider-Man movies, it will be a very tough act to follow. JK Simmons just nailed it.

  29. I’ve always felt weird because both Xmen3 and Spiderman 3 were my favorite of their respective franchises. I think a huge reason I cut both of those movies lots of slack and ignored alot of their flaws was that both of these movies were unafraid to take risks, to kill off some major characters and actually give closure to some issues, thematic and otherwise (as Vern points out). Plus both of those movies really hit me emotionally – I loved the forgiveness stuff in Spider-Man 3, and I don’t know how come nobody talks about the scene at the end of X3 where Wolverine has to walk towards the woman he loves to kill her to save the world – it’s a really, really strong scene. (I just noticed that X3 might be one of the only universally loathed nerd movies that can’t be stereotyped with one phrase, such as “Emo Peter Parker”, “Jar Jar Binks”, “Nuke the Fridge/Hedgehogs”, “Dance Scene”, etc.. The 2 second “Bye-Bye-Bye” gag in X2 seems like something that everyone would weirdly hold a grudge against, but everyone loves that movie.

    Speaking of which, yeah, I don’t really get the Spider-Man 2 love either. It’s a good film, don’t get me wrong. I can’t see anyone giving it a thumbs down or not recommending it. But it really did feel like nothing more than a solid entry in a superhero series, not the masterpiece people claim it to be.

  30. Oh by the way, I really liked the addition of “Chocolate Cake Girl” to the Spider-Man series. Her appearance in 2 was so unusual, so out-of-left-field, that you can’t believe the studio didn’t make Raimi cut her scene to get to more action scenes. Then she shows up again in part 3! Haven’t seen the reboot yet but that’d be hilarious if they had a newly rebooted Chocolate Cake Girl.

  31. caruso_stalker217

    July 11th, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    The cake is her vagina.

  32. the cake is a lie.

  33. Wait, I’m confused. Does that mean that Vaginas don’t exist?!

  34. I’ve never seen one in person, have you?

  35. Well, I saw millions of, uhm…documentaries, that showed lots and lots of close ups of them.

  36. oh, yeah? well I’ve seen plenty of documentaries purporting to show ghosts and UFOs, but that doesn’t mean those exist either, now does it?

  37. I guess that also means that babies really are delivered by a stork or born in a cabbage patch. That explains a lot…

  38. neal2zod of there is one thing thatboth X-MEN 3 and SPIDER-MAN 3 have in comon is that they are the most risk-adversed and risk avoiding movies of their franchises. And i’ not much of a Spider-Man 3 detractors as most are. X-Men 3, however, is shit.

  39. All of the X-Men movies have sucked if you ask me. Watching that first Singer movie was one of the most boring movie experiences I’ve ever had.

  40. How was X-Men 3 risk-averse? It killed off practically the entire fucking cast. The movie is still pretty sloppy in its storytelling and filmmaking, but what other franchise has the nuts to do that?

  41. The later NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREETs had a habit of bringing back characters just to kill them off, often right during the first act.

    But those weren’t exactly iconic, beloved characters.

  42. Yeah you lost me there, asimov. Not only is almost everyone dead, but the POV character that subs in for the audience (Rogue) in the first one, freaking CHOOSES to get rid of her own power in this one. That’s some huge balls right there and pissed alot of people off; there’s nothing risk-adverse about that.

    As for Spider-Man 3, I’d argue it’s ballsy, not just because a main character dies, not just because of the forgiveness stuff, but also it jumps right into the more-fantastical comic book storylines that alot of audiences might find silly. Sentient space goo and a guy turning into a T-1000 made of sand makes the Green Goblin and Doc Ock seem positively Nolan-esque by comparison.

  43. Good point, Vern, but it’s not really at the same level. The X-MEN cast constitutes a wide array of intellectual properties that each present future T-shirt, Slurpee cup, action figure, and other merchandising opportunities for future franchise installments. Killing them off meant ending those revenue streams, at least until the next reboot. I’m really surprised the studio let them get away with it.

    Pity all these balls went into such a middling movie, though.

  44. Oh jeez, we better get the topic off of the Alien series or sentient black space goo before a certain someone starts talking about a certain movie. Maybe we can discuss Chocolate Cake Girl some more.

  45. caruso_stalker217

    July 12th, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    So that huge fucking mole above Chocolate Cake Girl’s eye…turn-off? Yes? No?

  46. Turn-on, mainly because attainability is really attractive to me. Flawless supermodel types don’t really interest me at all, because I know I have no shot at them. Chocolate Cake Girl totally seemed like you’d have a fair shot at her. (It’s been theorized that the whole “pornstars/models go out of their way to appear geeky and say how much they love comic books, etc…” is capitalizing on this whole attainability appeal)

    And the weird thing is, in any other movie, she would be developed as a character and maybe eventually win Peter over or something. But she’s curiously left as a non-sequiter, not to mention Peter already has his hands full with two other love interests! (Wait, Spider-Man 3 has 3 villains and 3 love interests – maybe they did this on purpose)

  47. caruso_stalker217

    July 12th, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    SPIDER-MAN 3 is really full of characters with no real function or purpose, including much of the principal cast.

  48. I prefer flawless supermodel types.

    Only loose change I hold onto is dimes.

  49. caruso_stalker217

    July 12th, 2012 at 11:34 pm

    I prefer has a vagina types.

  50. No, I know Majestyk, I agree with you. I actually like X part 3. I always feel like I don’t get comic book movies because I like these two part 3s and don’t think they’re THAT much worse than the predecessors, but they are pretty much universally hated. I guess I’m also forgiving of Blade 3, but I see a much bigger drop in quality there.

    It sucks that, as Fred has pointed out, this new insta-remake of Spider-man has created a wave of anti-Raimi sentiment. But I guess the real tragedy is that Raimi wasted so many years doing only Spider-man that there’s a generation of people that don’t even know what a Sam Raimi movie is. To me his Spider-men was just an interlude. I hope the Raimi who did DARKMAN and more recently DRAG ME TO HELL comes back after this Oz thing.

  51. caruso_stalker217

    July 13th, 2012 at 12:44 am

    I fear that the SPIDER-MAN pictures may have ruined Sam Raimi for good. The OZ movie looks very Burton-esque. I miss the old Sam.

  52. Actually the OZ movie doesn’t look like Burton at all. It DOES look like his WONDERLAND picture, but this was the least Burtonesque that he ever did.
    Anyway, I don’t mind him doing some big studio gigs (Isn’t it weird that the director of THE EVIL DEAD is now shooting Disney stuff?), as long as he does something like DRAG ME TO HELL inbetween. But who knows how his future work pattern will be?

  53. caruso_stalker217

    July 13th, 2012 at 1:11 am

    WONDERLAND is what I was thinking of. I should’ve been more specific. Yes, unfortunately, it DOES look like that film.

  54. Vern: Yeah, I feel you. I hated X3 the first time I saw it because it killed off or otherwise dispatched all the characters I liked and replaced them with anonymous nobodies in motocross jackets who all seemed to have the same “jump around like a frog” powers. Watching it again, I can appreciate the boldness of the ideas in the script, but their execution is merely adequate most of the time. It was always going to be the bastard stepchild sequel, though, so I cut it a little slack. I kinda like it now.

  55. Correct me if I´m wrong, but isn´t X3 the only one in the series, where Wolverine DOESN´T get his ass kicked by a woman?

  56. Jean Grey burns most of the skin off his face. So no.

  57. Yeah, but its not like he has a real fight-sequence with her.

  58. She tries to kill him with her powers and he succeeds in killing her with his. Sounds like a fight to me.

  59. Ok, I stand corrected.

  60. Holy shit! An argument was just won on the internet! Somebody alert the media!

  61. I just don´t feel the need to argue about over-powered mutants,that´s all. You don´t have to turn up the snarkiness to 110 %…oh..wait..who the hell am I talking to again…

  62. I’m just kidding, dude. The joke was about how laidback we are about disagreeing, not about you conceding the point.

    I apologize for the misunderstanding. Sometimes the snark controls me, not the other way around.

  63. I knew you were being sarcastic about it, no need to apologize. Maybe my response sounded a bit more harsh than they actualkly were,sometimes its hard to come up with the right words without resorting to stupid internet shit like ;) or :) or my least favourite xD. Thats just being lazy.

  64. And just to be clear, I know I’m too sarcastic for my own good and that often doesn’t read well online, but I consider all the regulars on here friends of mine. If you’re ever unclear on how to take a post of mine, just know that I’d never knowingly insult any of you. If I’m too harsh or too snarky sometimes, it’s just because I respect you enough to not pull my blows. I know you guys can take it and dish it out just as hard.

  65. All this sincerity & clarification. Yeah, yeah, we get it, sarcasm 24/7 is how most of us roll, online at least, but it’s all love.

    It’s like the first thing I exclaimed when last I met with Mr. Majestyk at that awesome basement heavy metal dive bar, saying hello to him with a Michael Bay quote while acknowledging that I was dressed like a Madison Avenue executive 9-to-5er:

    “I don’t change my style for anybody. Pussies do that.”

  66. Sarcasm I can only do in small doses, since I am at core a very bitter and angry individual. thats why most of my input here consists of drunken ramblings. I hope you excuse.

  67. The Original... Paul

    July 13th, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    “Vern: Yeah, I feel you. I hated X3 the first time I saw it because it killed off or otherwise dispatched all the characters I liked and replaced them with anonymous nobodies in motocross jackets who all seemed to have the same “jump around like a frog” powers. Watching it again, I can appreciate the boldness of the ideas in the script, but their execution is merely adequate most of the time. It was always going to be the bastard stepchild sequel, though, so I cut it a little slack. I kinda like it now.”

    Y’see I get the first part, but not the second. I recently watched it again to see if I’d hate it any less viscerally (I didn’t). And I don’t give it credit for being “bold” in killing off major characters, I give it credit for being so goddamned stupid that it threw away a franchise that had, up until that point, spawned two movies that count in my book as, at the very least, “pretty good”, and totally missed the point about why they became as popular as they did in the first place.

    Result: people like me who aren’t fans of comic-books but liked the first two movies saw all the characters they liked become cyphers or nobodies, while people who ARE fans of the comic-books get an adaptation of what I understand from their reviews is supposed to be a classic storyline, that just misses everything that makes it good. Everybody loses.

    And although I kinda agree with Vern on “Spiderman 3”, which falls squarely into the “so bad it’s fantastic” category for me, I can’t agree with “Blade 3” and “X3”. I thought both of those movies were just bad. Iredeemably, unwatchably bad. I seriously cannot believe how boring “Blade 3” was considering its subject matter. How the hell do you make a movie about three badass vampire hunters, one of them a hot chick, fighting a genuine vampire apocalypse led by Dracula, and make it DULL? How much do you have to fuck up for that to happen?

    One thing I do agree with Vern about though: I hope we get a return of the Raimi that did “Drag me to Hell”, rather than the Raimi that did three “Spiderman” movies. It says a lot about what didn’t work about those movies that IMO the best scene in the entire trilogy is two guys talking to each other in an elevator.

  68. I agree with Vern that X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, and Blade 3 are all enjoyable films even if they don’t live up to their predecessors, but I actually think the drop-off in quality for Blade 3 is less than the drop-off in quality for the other 2(unless you count the fact that Blade isn’t really in it very much).

    But, I think we can all agree that part 2 is the best of all 3 series and part 3 is the worst except for the maniacs arguing that Spider-Man 3 is better than Spider-Man 2 up above.

  69. So David Morrell (author of FIRST BLOOD and creator of Rambo) has a Spider-Man comic book out in October.


Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>