By Frederic Germay
The single film critic that I have more respect for than anyone else in the business is Richard Roeper. It seems as though we have the same expectations when it comes to the film experience, yet he gave one of the year's most anticipated movies, Spider-Man 3, his trademark thumbs down. Not only that, but the guest critic filling in for Roger Ebert also gave Spider-Man 3 a thumbs down.
I was severely disappointed because I couldn't wait to see Spidey 3. I thought the first movie was amazing, and the second movie was even better. With the exception of Batman Begins, I was prepared to label the second movie as the best comic book movie ever made! In the months leading up to the release of Spidey 3, I downloaded every trailer and watched every single talk show appearance, desperate to uncover bits of the elusive plot of the third film. However, the moment I saw Ebert and Roeper's two thumbs down, I was devastated.
I quickly went to many different websites that compiled mass quantities of reviews from various critics, and it seemed as though some loved it, and some really, really hated it. I abstained from watching the movie, unwilling to tarnish the near perfect image of Spider-Man that I had in my head, until about a week ago.
I couldn't resist the urge any longer, and I went into the cinema expecting the worst. However, I actually enjoyed the film. Sure, some elements of the movie were corny, and sometimes downright irksome. For example, I had to turn my head away during the dance numbers, and Topher Grace didn't exactly deliver a convincing performance.
There were some incredibly funny moments, such as J. Jonah Jameson's always scene-stealing performances. The three villains were all very fascinating in their separate ways. Eddie Brock was highly uninteresting until he made the transformation into Venom, and I really wish that Venom had more screen time, since his character does have a rather large role in the comics. Thomas Hayden Church delivered a solid performance, despite a few brittle lines. I thought his villainous appearance made Sandman the most powerful of all the villains.
James Franco's Harry Osbourne was boring during his 'amnesia' stage, but once he regained his memory, he instantly became the best villain of the film. Franco delivered, in my opinion, the best performance of the movie, despite the fact that his villainous form was somewhat a copycat of his father. Kirsten Durnst and Bryce Dallas Howard do little to aid the storyline except serve as eye candy, which they poorly perform, as well. Aunt May could be removed entirely, as could many other elements of the story.
I can't believe that the guest critic actually labeled the graphics as 'cartoony,' because I thought they were amazing! All of the action set pieces were really well done, and the final climatic battle with all of the characters was one of the best action scenes I have ever seen.
Despite these evident shortcomings, Spider-Man 3 is still worth the price of an admission ticket. In comparison to the previous Spidey films, this one is definitely not the best, but it still is worth watching seeing as it does deliver a sense of closure and satisfaction. Spider-Man 3 is a top-notch B-movie and that isn't so bad at all.
I give this movie 8/10.
|
