Variety Pans 'Spider-Man 3,' Cites Strained Script, Cartoonish Story
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Sony, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
I generally try to avoid reading reviews before I see a film, but since I won't be reviewing Spider-Man 3 and I know Todd McCarthy doesn't deal in spoilers, I clicked in to see what the Variety film critic had to say about the most recent chapter in Sam Raimi's arachno-tastic action series -- and the guy had some pretty rough things to say about the movie. His main complaint seems to be that the flick is too broad, too comic-booky, and perhaps beholden to a rather underwhelming screenplay. Praise for Topher Grace and Thomas Haden Church, but an unsatisfactory grade for screenwriter Alvin Sargent -- and when discussing the scenes between Peter Parker and the female leads, the critic uses the words "dull" and "unimaginative." Yikes."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," says Mr. McCarthy. He also feels the SM3 plot "would have proven more satisfactory for a late '60s cartoon-hero TV show than for a new-century blockbuster." He praises the action scenes and the special effects, but feels the whole crew is just sort of going through the motions at this point. Just one guy's opinion, of course, but McC seems to make some pretty valid points in his review. I just don't know if I'll agree with those points until after I see the flick for myself.
Expect Mr. McCarthy's rather negative review to get a lot of angry comments over on the Spider-Man 3 Rotten Tomatoes page. (He already has 23!) AP film critic Christy Lemire got a whole bunch of nasty comments (172!) after having the audacity to express an early (and negative) opinion of that crazy 300 flick, which just goes to show you how "important" critics are when it comes to the inevitable blockbusters. Then again, McCarthy didn't like Pirates 2, which I loved, and therefore Spider-Man 3 could still rock.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-24-2007 @ 11:32AM
Kyle Beabo said...
As long as it's better than the travesty that was X-Men 3 I will be happy.
http://kylebeabo.blogspot.com/
Reply
4-24-2007 @ 12:21PM
Fred Philbie said...
ANY movie review is one person's subjective opinion -- whether it's Todd McCarthy, Roger Ebert, or Harry Knowles. Regardless of their credentials, their opinion has as much to do with what your enjoyment of the film will be as that of any random person you pulled off the street. Ignore the critics and think for yourself.
Reply
4-24-2007 @ 1:06PM
Dickens said...
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the Variety critic wasn't familiar with the source material...
'nuff said.
Reply
4-24-2007 @ 1:40PM
movieac said...
Well said Fred. Spiderman 3 is critic proof anyway.
Reply
4-24-2007 @ 4:24PM
Kevin said...
The critics opinion of the enjoyment of the movie is certainly subjective, but his ability to judge the quality of the film is something else entirely. Considering that these movies are not made to win artistic awards, and are therefore for entertainment purposes, I would say it really doesn't matter what the critics say. Blockbusters are nearly universally destroyed critically, then go on to be precisely that...blockbusters. Unfortunately, what made Spidey 2 such a great pic was that it merged a fantastic thrill ride with a deeper plot and attention to character development. Given the early word I've heard on Spidey-3 that may not be the case.
Reply
4-25-2007 @ 1:10AM
Fred Philbie said...
Sorry, Kevin, but I don't agree. A critic's ability to judge the quality of a movie is entirely subjective as well. If there was some objective basis or criteria for determining the "quality" of a movie, and critics were somehow skilled or gifted with the insight to recognize it, then they would all agree on which movies were "good" and which ones were "bad." But they don't agree. It's completely subjective. And the fact that you're already basing your opinion of SPIDEY 3 on the "early word" you've heard means that you're already letting other people influence your opinion about a movie you haven't even seen yet.
Reply
4-27-2007 @ 9:01AM
moreauch said...
Are people really surprised that Spider-Man 3 will probably suck? Doesn't anyone remember the first two? Although 2 did improve ever so slightly on 1, they're both an embarassment. I just saw part of 1 on TV the other night -- shudder. I've seen junior high plays that were less embarassing. I'm an indie filmmaker from Michigan myself, so I'd like Sam Raimi to succeed, but it's time we admit that the guy is a hack. He shows some good moments here and there, but usually in smaller (earlier) movies. Like so many in Hollywood who get a taste of success, he's begun to believe his own b.s. and doesn't work hard enough any more. After Batman Begins and V for Vendetta came out within 18 months of each other to show other filmmakers and audiences what a graphic novel movie COULD be, I'm amazed that hacks like Ratner and Raimi don't get it.
Reply
5-04-2007 @ 8:43AM
Jonathan said...
SPOILER ALERT (kind of)
Well, after seeing the 12:01 am show, I agree with the review in all areas. Liked the special effects but the story was lame and the actors were sleepwalking. Too broad is apt - film tried to be something for everyone. And cameos are supposed to be just that - not, 'ok everyone and now, here's Bruce Campbell!' Thanks for coming Bruce and next up- Stan Lee, right after this message!' The whole MJ & Peter dichotomy was forced and unbelievable. Harry Osborn? Why even bother with it, other than to wrap up the story line from I & II. Making Flint Marko Uncle Ben's killer and trying to make him a sympathetic, misunderstood criminal in the end so Peter can apologize? Please. And finally... McQuire spent more time in the Spidey suit WITHOUT HIS MASK ON than with it on. Ugh! Suffice it to say all of the fanboys in the theater were pretty upset with this flick. And my 13 year old said that maybe next time we'll just go to the Saturday afternoon matinee.
'nuff said.
Reply
5-08-2007 @ 12:11AM
michael said...
People love to be critical of movies. It must suck for a movie experience to suffer because of one's own critical analysis of the movie being watched. However, it's an amazing bit of freedom to simply get engrossed in a story and root for the good guys and loathe the bad. In that light, Spider-Man 3 was very enjoyable for me, enjoyable without the burden of the task to remember each offense the production crew made to my heightened sense of taste and criticism. Enjoying a movie is much better than looking for flaws. If you are reading this and your first instinct is to point out how i am wrong, then i'm probably talking about you.
Reply