Great Spidey 3 review from Roger Ebert: (Because of his illness he didn't get to review it when it first came out.)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /0/search3
Spider-Man 3
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: January 6th, 2008
Re: Spider-Man 3
Josh wrote:If Freeze Dried Movies is correct, then the villains for Spider-Man 3 are:
James Franco- Hobgoblin, not Green Goblin II
Thomas Haden Church- Sandman
Topher Grace- Venom(!), not Chameleon
I can hardly wait to see this film.
Taht's really nice, thank you for your share. Happy new year!
Don't count on anyone returning for Spider-Man 4.
It all comes down to money. Depends on whether Sony will pay through the nose to keep Tobey ($20 million at least), Kirsten ($10mil-$14mil), and Sam Raimi (similar to Kirsten's pay plus profit points) happy.
Frankly, I don't think Kirsten Dunst is worth it, and I wish Maguire and Raimi had played Parker as being other than a seemingly doped-up guy walking through life. Maguire's Spider-Man also lacked the humor that's associated with the character.
Yes, it's the second best adaptation of a superhero that I've seen in my lifetime, but it still pales in comparison to Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman and Clark Kent.
I'm torn now on whether I think Superman the Movie or Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is the best superhero live-action adaptation I've seen. I'm kind of leaning towards the Donner Cut now, but I have to watch Superman the Movie again in the last DVD release to be sure... It was amazing how much the reconstruction of Superman II improved the product. It blows the theatrical version out of the water in my opinion, and it's the first director's cut that I've seen that I believe lives up to the hype!
It all comes down to money. Depends on whether Sony will pay through the nose to keep Tobey ($20 million at least), Kirsten ($10mil-$14mil), and Sam Raimi (similar to Kirsten's pay plus profit points) happy.
Frankly, I don't think Kirsten Dunst is worth it, and I wish Maguire and Raimi had played Parker as being other than a seemingly doped-up guy walking through life. Maguire's Spider-Man also lacked the humor that's associated with the character.
Yes, it's the second best adaptation of a superhero that I've seen in my lifetime, but it still pales in comparison to Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman and Clark Kent.
I'm torn now on whether I think Superman the Movie or Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is the best superhero live-action adaptation I've seen. I'm kind of leaning towards the Donner Cut now, but I have to watch Superman the Movie again in the last DVD release to be sure... It was amazing how much the reconstruction of Superman II improved the product. It blows the theatrical version out of the water in my opinion, and it's the first director's cut that I've seen that I believe lives up to the hype!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: January 23rd, 2006
- Location: The Middle of Nowhere
I don't know, George, I thought the director's cut of Daredevil was very good and a vast improvement over the theatrical version. The story goes that the DC was what Mark Johnson initially turned in but the studio executives forced him to make lots of changes to make the film more marketable. The theatrical version isn't bad but after seeing the director's cut, it just goes to show how moronic the execs can be sometimes. It says a lot that whenever I see Daredevil on TV they only ever show the director's cut and never the theatrical version.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25714
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
I liked the Donner Cut on my first view, but it can never be better than Supes The Movie because the Donner Cut of II is essentially a unfinished film.
Lester had the resources to use what he wanted of Donner's footage and fill in the gaps with the cast and crew during production. Donner's reconstruction goes a LONG long way to making up a "what if" approach but it's never the film he would have intended and, as editor Michael Thau himself has said, if anything they went a little bit overboard in the other direction and Donner had him take out as much of Lester's stuff as was plot-possible.
Watching it again recently, it just doesn't stand up as a film in its own right or even as a Supes The Movie continuation - there are just too many glaring things not to notice that this is a patch job, not least the reuse of the turning the world back ending that Donner himself says would have been changed if he'd been allowed to finish the film.
Probably a better version of whatever a "Superman II" could ever have been, yes, but better than the fully rounded - and properly completed - Superman The Movie? Not by a leap of a tall building in a single bound!
Lester had the resources to use what he wanted of Donner's footage and fill in the gaps with the cast and crew during production. Donner's reconstruction goes a LONG long way to making up a "what if" approach but it's never the film he would have intended and, as editor Michael Thau himself has said, if anything they went a little bit overboard in the other direction and Donner had him take out as much of Lester's stuff as was plot-possible.
Watching it again recently, it just doesn't stand up as a film in its own right or even as a Supes The Movie continuation - there are just too many glaring things not to notice that this is a patch job, not least the reuse of the turning the world back ending that Donner himself says would have been changed if he'd been allowed to finish the film.
Probably a better version of whatever a "Superman II" could ever have been, yes, but better than the fully rounded - and properly completed - Superman The Movie? Not by a leap of a tall building in a single bound!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
This doesn't actually have to do with any of the films but I thought it might interest some here: (about the comic book)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/89134
http://www.newsweek.com/id/89134
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
this is just ruine Spidey -
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: January 23rd, 2006
- Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Meh. I don't have a problem with it. Anyone who gets upset about this obviously hasn't been reading comics very long. Even if there wasn't a negative reaction, I can guarantee that it would only be a finite story and that after a year or two, something would happen to bring Peter and MJ back together. That's the way comics work and it always has been. Just wait and you'll see that I'm right (I would be seriously surprised if it didn't go that way).
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: May 31st, 2005
- Location: Maryland
I agree with Eddie. Big name comics pull this kind of crap all the time, giving readers some shocking storyline that supposedly will change the entire series, but then going right back to normal after a few months. I guess that's one of the reasons I'm not really attracted to mainstream comics - there's a lack of commitment to changes in the storyline and character's lives which has always struck me as cowardly writing.
The best, though, is when fans totally freak out about something like this, as if they don't know it'll get back to normal after a while. Remember all the fuss over the death of Captain America? Is he still dead?
The best, though, is when fans totally freak out about something like this, as if they don't know it'll get back to normal after a while. Remember all the fuss over the death of Captain America? Is he still dead?