When the second part of the franchise of Sam Raimi and Marvel “Spider-Man” showed not only excellent results in the reviews of critics, but also collecting a huge amount of money, the producers did not doubt that profitable cooperation is worth continuing. Naturally, Sam Raimi returned to the director's chair, and all the key actors returned to their roles. The third part promised to be the most ambitious and ambitious, but not everything with this film went to plan.
Peter Parker enjoys being both an ordinary photographer and Spider-Man. He finally managed to confess everything to his longtime lover Mary Jane and they begin to build a very warm relationship. Life seems to be getting better and you can stop and just enjoy the moment. However, it will not be long, since a mysterious symbiote alien arrives from space to Earth, who joined Peter’s body and gradually overcomes his mind with his dark ideas and thoughts.
Along with this, Peter Parker has to deal with Flint Marco, who after escaping from the police was in a closed facility, where an unexpected incident occurred, and he turned into the elusive Sandman. Now he is everywhere breaking the law, which adds a headache to Spider, who now has a lot of problems because of the symbiote.
Finally, the third enemy of the hero becomes his good friend Harry Osborn, who can not forgive Peter that he was one of the causes of the death of his father. Harry begins to explore the development of the Oscorp Corporation and gradually turns into a new Green Goblin. And Harry doesn't care that Peter is already full of enemies and problems. Overpowered by hatred, Harry wants Parker’s death and does not even mind using Mary Jane, who is again helpless in the face of danger.
The producers wanted to show much more in the third Spider-Man, and therefore demanded Sam Raimi to include in the film a lot of new characters, villains and unexpected situations. All this led to the fact that the film is maximally overwhelmed with events. Instead of revealing Peter Parker’s soul throwing, as well as more seriously revealing his relationship with Mary Jane, the film constantly moves to action, which in some places is very much. In addition, Parker comes up with a new possible love interest in the person of Gwen Stacy. And that's not to mention that he's competing with Eddie Brock, who also wants to work for the newspaper and has been supporting Peter. But this is not all the details of the plot, which breaks under itself. But what must be admitted is that despite the abundance of different plot elements, Raimi still tried to put them together and in general it did not turn out as bad as it could be.
Spider-Man 3 was not the best movie in its trilogy, but it is still exactly the blockbuster based on comics that audiences needed, although many did not suspect it at the time. And I say this from the height of the years since the premiere, when we saw a lot of frankly bad adaptations of graphic novels.
7 out of 10
2007-2008 is such a barrier, a transition period, a global economic crisis. There was a movie explosion in those years. At the same time, the rapidly soaring era of the new cinema of the beginning of the zeros was ending, and something new was being picked up with Iron Man and Transformers, perhaps. Harry Potter confidently went to the finale, the original trilogy of Pirates of the Caribbean ended (the subsequent sequels will simply be boring). In fact, if you take what really hurts the heart, causes anguish, nostalgic longing, then this is the period of cinema from the second half of the 90s to just 2007-2008. Even Disney’s last feature-length 2D (drawn) film came out almost the same time (Princess and the Frog, 2009)...there will be an almost complete dominance of 3D graphics. Remember at least Avatar (2009), where almost 2/3 of the film consists entirely of computerized graphics.
What is ruining empires and corporations? Greed. As far as I remember, our franchise was conditionally ruined by the greed of both the main actor and the producers. After the story of the spider will try to reanimate: once unsuccessful, the second time – with the help of Tony Stark for the most part successful, the third will already be in animated form with an African-American hero (hello BLM, etc.) – this version is unusual, I even the first cartoon remained here online so far, since I bought it.
But I don't want to say anything. Everything that ends is good. So, for example, what Marvel ended up doing with the universe, I didn't like -- there's no end, there's no end, there's no endless viewing, there's not enough life. Therefore, the original trilogy about the spider is a masterpiece, since it ended in time.
The circle of hatred closed to the third part. The main hidden antagonist of the franchise "woke up" after learning in the past film that Spider-Man is his close friend, who is now like a blood enemy, turns out. But that's one thing. There is something else, extraterrestrial, but this is already reflected in the title and posters.
Otherwise, like this movie and the franchise as a whole, the trilogy is lucky that it was not affected by the time of BLM, mita and other things that will come later. It's a clean time. It's an almost original transfer of comics to life without the third-party and questionable creativity that became mainstream towards the end of the tenths. There is violence, but still as much as possible without tinnitus, without hard words, etc.
The film itself differs from the previous presence of a large number of villains, to weave which into one conditional plot, the writers probably had to try even with the condition of more than two hours of timekeeping. In a good way, the writers crammed three short films into one. Of course, this option introduced confusion in the film, but as an experiment everything turned out well.
Even then, Stan Lee was given a microscopic role with words. And again there was Bruce Campbell, who all three films plays different characters in cameo – I don’t know for any merit he was crammed into the franchise, but I first focused on him, first noticed that he is here.
Anyway, epic, epic, of course. Zero, 90s, we'll miss you, but we probably won't really come back to you. I'm even surprised. Hollywood seems to have escaped from us, but today a couple of Western American series with fresh seasons on the KP appeared. There is always something to watch fresh. Freshmen are not far behind us.
As for our film and its main character, by the beginning of our movie, his beloved already knows who Spider-Man is. It would seem that for love all the barriers are destroyed, but there are. . .
Like the previous parts, the film does not fall on everything that was known about Spider-Man from the comics and animated series of the 90s. The image of the hero himself and all 3 films were killed and sacrificed to the wishes of the director, who shot some of his atmospheric whiny "Amelie" or "Flashdance" about young losers who do not know where to go from the poor neighborhoods of New York. If Raimi made a movie about that, I could take it, and there would be heartfelt conversations with Grandma, love for the skin that gives half the cast in the film, mockery from the chef, worries about the stage theater, a friend with memory loss, escaped from prison crying father ... Such a film could exist. But when Spider-Man was used as a platform for this, you stopped! They are two different concepts, they can be easily separated, their existence in the same film is ridiculous. Each character has had time to cry, and it happens every 5 minutes. Is that why we sit down to watch Spider? Three villains, but they're all leaked. Canon with the death of Uncle Ben canceled, now it turns out that in the first film Parker killed the wrong person, and no one is to blame, the gun shot himself. The worst part of the movie for me is that Parker had a second superpower by pure chance. There was no such absurdity anywhere else. A star flew, fell in a random place, a little boy from it picked up the infection - this could happen in some budget-free film in the program "Disney on Fridays". But this happens to someone who has long been a superhero. Total scripted squalor. In the animated series, Spider received the symbiont not by chance, but because he rescued people in an accident when the shuttle fell on a bridge, i.e. the event logically follows from the dangerous work that Spider was engaged in. And here it's just sewn in white threads. Like the whole script. Maguire isn't Spider to me. It's the kringe fool Raimi cast for just having the same faces. Mystique of the century, which alas swallowed too many.
The first two Spider-Man films, of course, were naive, partly stupid, sometimes even delusional, but they were soulful and somehow managed to balance on the line between a simple naive comic book film and outright nonsense. The third film with a rumble falls from this delicate tightrope into the abyss of delusion, stupidity and openly disgusting game of Maguire.
The latter is the main problem of the film. I do not know and frankly do not understand how director Sam Raimi could not notice and still let in the final version of the shots from his, let me say, the game, and not to achieve at least some plus or minus normal appearance or at all, in the end, change the script.
Peter Parker will face changes in himself, with a huge number of experiences. And Maguire has to act out the tears, the evil pompous and insolent Peter. And he can't handle it at all. Just walking down the street and dancing (who looked, he knows what I mean) cause drops of blood from the eyes and a desire to quickly forget what you just saw. These are some kind of curves of a low-grade graduate on a cabbage somewhere in the outback, and not an actor who plays Spider himself!
As for the plot, there are so many holes that it looks like a piece of Maasdam, not a movie about a superhero.
And (I remember) the trailer and the poster were just yelling at us that Venom was coming. And we all waited for him. However, half of the movie is already going on, and it is not really on the screen. Moreover, in principle, much on the screen can not wait. It won't be long before it disappears. And the second villain, Sandman, in general, I think, is in this film only because he is, in fact, an interesting special effect and he really wants to show.
Alas, the final from Raimi turned out to be blatantly bad in every way. However, after many years and re-watching, I can’t say that the film is outright hateful. Of course, it is very disappointing, but if you suddenly stumble across this movie somewhere, you do not switch. Because it's still our good old Spider-Man from childhood.
Peter Parker and Harry Osborne have been best friends since childhood, but it so happens that Peter is Spider-Man, and Harry's father is a green goblin - a supervillain defeated by Spider-Man in the first part of the series. In the second part, Harry learns that Peter is Spider-Man, and now he intends to do everything to get revenge on his father’s killer. Only Harry does not know that his father accidentally killed himself while trying to kill Peter, and even if Peter Parker killed Norman Osborn in the heat of battle, Peter himself would not be guilty, because the cuckoo did not move away from him, he did not attack with the intention to kill. The relationship between Harry and Peter is devoted to the main storyline. But there is also the story of the Sandman and the storyline of Eddie Brock - a competitor photographer Peter Parker.
To begin with, attention is paid to at least 5 main characters. That's too much for one movie. Due to the fact that there are too many characters’ stories, only the sandman, who does everything to cure his daughter, was perfectly revealed, in my opinion. Mary Jane and Harry's relationship with Peter always seemed to me a little unhealthy, and in this part of this unwell attention was paid more than halfway. Speaking of the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane in this film, on the one hand, the destruction of the romanticization of unrealistic relationships is good, on the other hand, if Mary Jane were not the embodiment of the meme woman moment, then what is happening on the screen would be a little more appropriate, or it would be a chic drama about the relationship. But due to the fact that the relationship of these three in this part is not in a good way strange, I believe that, as the finale of the trilogy, the film was hardly successful.
I’ve heard the opinion that it’s a good thing that Mary Jane was portrayed not as an emotional genius, but as a fool from the suburbs, who yesterday was riding in a car with the main buller of the school, and now with her low self-esteem, psychological need for a daddy who didn’t love her, is trying to build a career as an actress-singer and a relationship with an inexperienced but loving superhero boy. It is believed that this is the norm, firstly, because it is the comic book canon, and secondly, because the average woman would behave the same way. I’m not going to argue with that, because I agree on a lot of things, but it often has a negative impact on my appreciation of the characters as well as my perception of the drama of their relationship. The drama of the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane turned out to be good, but not particularly interesting.
Of the minuses, I will also note that the atmosphere in this film is good, but it is the worst in the trilogy. Probably because of what I described above. The city doesn’t look so romantic anymore. One battle. Battles, battles and more battles. A superhero with one villain, then another, again with him, then with a third, then with the first, then with the wall. I don't like that. I like the first and second movies for Peter Parker’s life, not for ‘pif boom boom smash shazam’.
However, there are advantages to the film. First, Peter Parker's emo scenes are a masterpiece. Some of the best scenes in film history, I've watched them dozens of times. There are few of them, but they are enough. How good he is... Tobey Maguire and James Franco are amazing actors who played their roles perfectly. Third, the soulfulness of the first parts of the trilogy echoes: comedy, soundtrack and beautiful dramatic scenes, thanks to which I was imbued with the drama of Harry Osborn and Peter Parker.
Unfortunately, Spider-Man 3 doesn’t have the right priorities, so there’s too much, too little. For an amazing series of films, the finale could have been better. But how good Maguire is. . .
Uncle Ben once told Peter Parker that the greater the power, the greater the responsibility. Peter's life has changed since then. He's been through a lot. But now it seems all right. But there are more tests ahead.
I'm really sorry that Sam Raimi only made a Spider-Man trilogy. There were a lot of interesting things to come up with. But it turned out that the 2007 film put an end to the adventures of Peter Parker performed by Tobey Maguire.
The third part shows us three villains that are very difficult to defeat. Some of them were given more screen time, some less. It's understandable. It’s hard to reveal each character in one movie with the same degree. But here is the story of the Sandman told in detail.
The story of Harry Osborne is also well written. In the third part, he appears as the New Goblin. Now he's ready to take revenge on Peter Parker. But what will come of it?
There is also a character in the film like Eddie Brock. A familiar name?! Everyone who loves Spider-Man stories knows him. I remember him from the 1994 animated series. In this picture, he is presented as not the most successful photographer. Brock was played by Topher Grace. And I like this Eddie more than the same character played by Tom Hardy.
Cool shot some action scenes. For example, the battle between Spider-Man and the Goblin looks spectacular. Or a battle between the same Spider and Sandman. Even the collapse of the building by a crane looks quite impressive. But the final battle is not in my action-top. Yeah, I wasn't impressed by the big Sandman. But for Spider-Man during this fight at some point became scary.
So, who's the main character in the movie? Joking. I remember. Peter Parker struggles with his dark side. Well, it happened. Can he get rid of the black suit? It's not that simple. Raise your hands if you like bad Parker. Not exactly for me. But he's not completely bad. Just angry and likes cookies with milk.
I like this movie, but not completely. There are small disadvantages that prevent you from putting the maximum estimate.
So, the viewing of the third part is finished, and even somehow you do not want to go through the shortcomings and advantages, because the creators and heroes have already become familiar with you, you know all their clicks and troughs, remember “all their cracks”, and treat small things with condescension. You're already waiting for little-eyed Peter and his bow sponge, a half-open mouth and an empty look by M.J., and a mountain of special effects and timekeeping in two hours with a guck. And parting with them is like saying goodbye to some mini-stage of life where all these people accompanied you.
But if this text is intended to be a review or at least useful for those who are just beginning to watch, even if it gets lost in the host of similar texts, of which almost three hundred have been written over 15 years, then you will have to dig into the film. By the way, it is significant that this figure is comparable to the reviews for the first film and that it is a hundred times more than the reviews for the second. I suspect that it is still in the annoying mistakes made by the director, screenwriter, actors and others, which, unfortunately, will not be able to pass.
Peter Parker outdid himself. To all his inherent punctuations were added wagging his pelvis on Broadway and hairstyle from the hairdresser's "Smile", as well as tapping in a restaurant and kissing a classmate. In addition, he showed himself a little narcissistic, for in his attempts to console the girl, he all referred to himself, his beloved. And this is despite the fact that he is declared a loser! “Say, girls, can you love and shit at the same time?” In other words, the character remained the same, but also gained some unattractive features. The rage on his good face is charming, and the scene where he says not the most pleasant things to Harry is completely unconvincing. Yes, one silent Franco with his changing face here takes a hundred points out of a hundred.
Indeed, there is a lot of tearing. But, I must say, in some moments it is justified – in the final, of course – but in some places it looks ugly, alas. Maugham wrote in Theatre that true emotions cannot be beautiful, cannot be theatrical. An actor doesn’t have to cry, he has to make the audience cry. In this, as it seems, the art of acting is to be persuasive, but not to go into crude naturalism. And Toby has a great example, in the same series of films, what is said perfectly demonstrates Franco: tense cheekbones and moistened eyes are enough to empathize with him.
Now the villains. The sand demon, of course, eclipses Venom, but significantly inferior to both the Octopus and the Goblin. And Venom is, sorry, a disaster. By the way, I, not familiar with the Marvel universe, learned that the former photographer dressed in black tights and grew fangs is called Venom, only from the credits. That is, a person who has not seen any comics or cartoons will not understand who and what it is. And the time he was given indecently little - in general, he was called only to team up with the Sandman, finish off the Spider. In general, the big drawback of the picture is that the disclosure of antagonists with such timekeeping is given scanty time.
In general, the “creation process” of the villain surprised – in each film it is the result of scientific developments, by the way, but here I was struck by this. Flint fell into this sand quarry with a bunch of sensors and radars – and what??? – the physicists working in this space did not see that there was a person?! did not feel a foreign body? How's that? Or are they villains too?
As for Goblin Jr., James Franco stood the bar, and in general he is one of the main decorations of the trilogy. His destructive motivation is understandable, his behavior during the period of amnesia is interesting, his activity after memory recovery is complex and exciting. And, of course, he is very sorry.
I'm not going to talk about Mary Jane, there's nothing new to say. But the characters of the second plan again please. In previous reviews, I did not mention the wonderful memetic editor-in-chief of Bugle, whose comic seriousness and explosiveness pleasantly brighten up the bland narrative. Sweet and reasonable Aunt May, again amused Ditkovic and his daughter. Here she is. It is a beautiful French restaurant.
Still strong special effects, I think that on the big screen of the cinema it was really impressive.
Traditionally, I don't rate. Thank you. Despite everything, the trilogy is beautiful.
Whatever we face, whatever feelings are raging in our hearts, we always have a choice. It depends on our choice what we will become, and we can always choose the right path.
I watched the third part of Sam Raimi’s trilogy about a year after the premiere, not yet aware of the ambiguous opinions of fans. I really liked the movie and watched it more often than my predecessors. Then I began to notice some of the flaws. Let’s see why the triquel is so cursed, and why I still like it.
Five years later, Peter Parker’s life has improved. He successfully combines his studies under Dr. Connors, work as a photographer and a second, superhero life as a friendly neighbor of Spider-Man, protecting New York City from crime. The relationship with Mary Jane is better than ever, and Peter is about to propose to her. And just when everything is fine, several serious problems arise at once: in the Daily Bugle, Peter has a competitor - a wily and complacent reporter Eddie Brock, who is ready to steal his place as a staff photographer; the name of the real killer of Uncle Ben - Flint Marco, who becomes the Sandman as a result of a random experiment; and finally, Harry Osborn, who has learned the villainous alter ego of his father and the identity of Spider-Man, takes the formula, becomes the New Goblin and goes on the path of war against his former friend.
The first thing that attracts the triquel is the comparative increase in storylines, then you can speculate whether they overload the film too much. Maybe it’s a lot of events, but I don’t think the film spoils it – on the contrary, it’s a new challenge for the hero who literally forces him to fight his demons. The triquel clearly shows (and seems to be one of the first) what will happen if a hero who fought on the side of good begins to succumb to his dark side, and what consequences this is fraught with.
Still, it was in the third part that my favorite action scenes of the Raimi trilogy were. Not just because there were more than expected, but because of their diversity. If earlier Spider-Man faced with one supervillain, now he faces as many as three, and each has its own unique abilities, its own unique style of combat. The chase from the New Goblin cannot but evoke memories of its predecessor, only it becomes more technologically advanced. The Sandman battles were unlike anything we’ve seen before – really, how do you fight a man who can literally break into millions of grains of sand? And finally, the third adversary, who has all the same abilities of Spidey, but who completely lacks the concept of compassion. This variety of action makes the triquel the most dynamic and exciting of the trilogy. Well, how to forget about the signature opening credits for Danny Elfman’s masterpiece music, which now already use frames and scenes of previous parts? This is one of those elements that make this series whole, complete, connected.
All actors return to their famous images, at the same time discovering new facets of their characters. Toby Maguire for the third time (and perhaps not the last) plays the now cheerful and positive student and photographer Peter Parker, and the friendly neighbor of Spider-Man. Just at the moment when everything seems to be fine and he managed to find a balance between ordinary life and heroic, Peter again has to go through many tests. First, find out who was responsible for Uncle Ben's death. And the hero, who has blamed himself for so many years that he let that criminal go, will have to face again the one who deprived him of the closest member of the family – this is a serious test for both Peter Parker and Spider-Man, who can unleash anger. Immediately there is an unusual opportunity – a mysterious black suit, giving Spider-Man new sensations and more power (another eerie moment of transformation), and at the same time affecting Peter himself, making him more confident, tough and even insidious. Toby perfectly plays these two facets of Peter Parker’s character – a kind, humble, compassionate young man and a cruel, daring brawler (with the famous dance). You watch this transformation with anxiety, believing from the heart that Peter will make the right choice.
Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) is the dream come true for all fans: Peter and Mary Jane are finally together! They are young, happy and in love, and their relationship is very harmonious – Mary Jane supports her character and wants to help him in difficult moments, despite her own crisis. Here, the relationship of the heroes will be tested for strength (now it is clearly shown what threatens the disclosure of the personality of the superhero) – jealousy (here everything is complicated by one legendary heroine from the comics), confusing relationships, quarrels and threats to life.
The most positive hero is still Aunt May, who has tremendous spiritual strength and wisdom, and will always find the right words to help her beloved nephew.
One of the best storylines of the film (and the entire trilogy) is the development of the character of Harry Osborn (James Franco). Beginning as a humble student in the shadow of a successful father, always looking for his approval, and now he seems to find it – having experienced the same formula and taken his father’s place as the supervillain of the New Goblin, and trying to avenge Spider-Man for everything. But at the same time, experiencing a complete transformation of himself, which will eventually lead to one of the most dramatic endings of superhero cinema.
Never ceases to surprise us and the most beloved minor character of the trilogy – the permanent and phenomenal editor of the Daily Bugle John Jameson (Jay Kay Simmons), who now screams less (which is very funny to watch), but does not lose hope to catch Spider-Man with “dressed” at the crime scene.
Two legendary comic book villains are introduced into the film at once - Flint Marco (Thomas Hayden Church) and Eddie Brock ( Topher Grace). Let’s start with Sandman – his backstory looks more tragic than all others: who embarked on this path to save his family and is still tormented by guilt for previous crimes, Sandman can no longer stop. He is not so much a villain as a tragic hero. Especially against the second villain. I know this Eddie Brock is treated the same way as Deadpool's first appearance, but the atmosphere of the movie is perfect. A dexterous, sneaky reporter, eager to achieve fame by any, even illegal means, and distinguished by a vengeful nature. And having adopted the power of an alien symbiote, he becomes Venom, embodying pure evil, rage, bloodlust and ruthlessness.
I remember I was very much waiting for the news about the fourth part, which was also to be shot by Sam Raimi. But, alas, this was the final part of the iconic trilogy. Ahead of us are Dilogy and MCU (with especially high hopes). And the trilogy of Spider-Man ends on a strong dramatic note, forever leaving a mark in the genre of superhero cinema.
9 out of 10
This is the final part of the trilogy, which Sam Raimi has directed. This time, Peter Parker will meet not only the famous Ven and Sandman, but also his demons. He will have to look into the darkest corners of his soul and understand who he is and who he wants to be.
It's been five years since Peter became Spider-Man. Now he is trying to balance his life between exploits and personal happiness. But everything begins to fall apart when Harry Osborne begins to actively try to avenge the death of his father, he is fully convinced that Peter Parker is solely to blame for this. Here comes the symbiote, which is familiar to comic book fans like Venom. He penetrates almost into the heart of Peter, awakening his dark thoughts and desires. He becomes someone else. When you succumb to darkness, then it becomes so easy to break all accepted laws and norms, to go against everyone who crosses your path without feeling the pain of conscience.
The plot becomes quite fascinating somewhere in the middle and Tobey Maguire was able to perfectly betray the dark side of his character. This is the only time in the trilogy that I really liked Toby. He was perfectly able to convey his inner darkness with gestures and face.
Even in the film, the viewer is introduced to journalist Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who loses everything because of Peter. And he easily accepts an alien being as his salvation. The most interesting thing is that Venom did not manifest himself in Peter as he did in Eddie. Maybe it all depends on who the person is. Proving once again that in every person there is both good and evil, and only choice determines us.
In principle, the film turned out not bad, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. But I’m not going to reconsider.
I also liked this part, especially here there are two villains, and it becomes even more interesting. . . 10 out of 10. P. S. Well, that's all, ended the epic with Spider-Man performed by Tobey Maguire, and a pity, and even though in 2007 Sam Raimi, as well as Maguire, Dunst and other actors decided to continue the franchise. Planned as a fourth and fifth film, sixth, seventh and so on. At the same time, the idea of filming two sequels at the same time was considered. Amid Sony's talks with Marvel Studios, on December 31, 2014, Sam Raimi said in an interview that he didn't like his third Spider-Man work. Presumably, however, despite the success at the box office, this led Raimi to refuse to shoot the 4th part, which was later restarted with the film by Mark Webb. /Wikipedia/
Taking on 'Spider-Man' in the early 2000s, Sam Raimi proved in practice that he knows and knows how to work with serious studio projects. He invited the main interesting actors, made Tobey Maguire the star of the first tier and paved the way to the characteristic images for J. To Simmons, whose editor J.J. Jamieson became the hero of a mass of network jokes. And if the first 'Spider-Man' was a little raw in terms of plot development, the second became a reference film, which is still difficult to beat all subsequent directors who took up the rethinking of the story of this superhero.
Through trial and error, Raimi found the middle ground, the balance on which to shoot 'Spider-Man' and the audience expected that the studio would give Raimi the opportunity to continue his work and he would be able to brilliantly complete a successful trilogy. But it didn't turn out the way it wanted. Sony really wanted 'Spider-Man 3' probably collected a billion dollars at the box office and for this they forced the director to make three villains at once and each take time. And Raimi had to tell the friendly drama between Parker and Harry Osborn, not forgetting about the romance with Mary Jane. Here even Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese would most likely have shrugged.
One of the key villains of the film was Venom, who received a very faint incarnation. It turned out to be jerky, a little childish and completely unafraid. But Venom is one of the most beloved antiheroes among all the opponents of Spider-Man. He's just touchy and a little funny, it's clearly not what we all wanted.
Another villain who does not let Peter Parker live quietly becomes Flint Marco, or Sandman. He has his own drama about Peter Parker's past. In general, the character turned out to be quite voluminous and interesting, but he constantly has to share time with Venom.
Finally, Spider-Man’s last opponent is the Goblin Jr., Harry Osborn, who continues to hate the superhero because of the death of his father. It's like the older Goblin went crazy. His son needs revenge and he will ruin the life of his hated friend with all his might.
In fact, in the third 'Spider-Man' many strong dramatic moments, but they are very poorly connected. The director remodeled the picture more than once or twice, it is clear that he tried to build a balanced and moderate spectacle, but it did not turn out as desired. At least Venom should have been put off until the next movie, which never happened. Yes, and Peter Parker sometimes behaves well just disgusting, especially if you remember that well-known dance on the street.
But even though there is a lot of negativity in ' Spider-Man 3', it does not negate the fact that our favorite actors have appeared again in it and in general the trilogy has received an uneven but interesting conclusion. Of course, if you wanted, everything could continue, but Sony had her own plans, which did not include Raimi and the company.
7 out of 10
'Spider-Man 3' is a mess. I don’t know, maybe there’s a boiler in hell for me because I’m not a fan of Toby Maguire’s Spider, but if you ask these fans about the third part, there will be very few people who call it the best movie. Everything presented in this picture resembles trampling on the spot and the inability to adequately prescribe the plot. Hell, the character of J.K. Simmons in this film was catastrophically small - that's how bad the situation is.
Part of this perception can be blamed on fake marketing. Remember what the trailer said. We were promised to show Peter Parker’s struggle with himself, and this threatened to become the character’s most formidable conflict, and the black suit, fueled by the power of an alien contagion codenamed ' Venom', attracted additional attention. Actually, '' I liked it because the plot revolved around the conflict of the character with himself, his essence and the attempt to combine the life of a superhero and a simple guy. What do we have in 'Spider-Man 3'? What a drama, here's another chapter from the series about ' Luboff, relationships and cherub affairs' between Peter Parker and Mary Jane. There’s no time gap between the movies, I don’t believe in the chemistry between the characters. It creates a feeling that the character Kirsten Dunst has rolled back to the image from the first film - in case of which he is ready to suck half of New York. They tried to dilute the situation by adding Gwen Stacey (Bryce Dallas Howard), but her character was disposable and memorable. And this despite the fact that in the comics the plot with her was of great importance.
Another stillborn conflict is the line with Harry Osborn (James Franco). He learns the secret of his best friend and intends to avenge his father’s death by becoming the second Green Goblin. I'm still tormented by the question of why Peter didn't resolve the Harry issue when it was five minutes long. Just say 'Dude, your dad tried to kill me, but he died.' But no, as a result, we get another enemy of Spider-Man, who half the story is generally sawed out of the plot by a reception from Latin American TV series - convenient amnesia.
Based on these two storylines, you expect Venom to show Parker's dark identity when he takes over. I did, but not what everyone expected. If you know the comics, or the 1994 animated series, then remember that Venom increases the power of the host, making his character worse and worse. Here, giving Spider-Man a stylish black suit, Peter became less cruel than a buffoon. Yes, yes, I'm talking about the image of an emo-Parker who tries to be macho, winking at girls and dancing outside a clothing store. I still hate to talk to Toby Maguire fans and this is your hero. Can you really forgive your favorite character for such a clown?
Apart from Green Goblin 2.0, we have two other bad guys, and tying them all into one picture is pretty problematic. The character of Flint Marco/Sandman performed by Thomas Hayden Church is of interest to me, because he commits his crimes in order to get money for the treatment of his daughter. Among other things, we are given a taste of personal drama when it is revealed that Flint Marco is connected to the murder of Uncle Peter. That's fine, but as the script treats Eddie Brock, it's just a full paragraph. The most formidable enemy of Spider-Man, raised on hatred of Peter Parker, in this film is represented by an ordinary feeble photographer who himself tried to make a scumbag, but was exposed and fired. And he got Venom's powers just... because he was in the right place at the right time? And even becoming a gallbladder, during the conversation, he constantly showed his face, which disappointed those who adore the black symbiote. I don’t know if Topher Grace is a good actor, but Venom is not his role.
How could Sam Raimi, who discovered the genre of superheroics, receive 250 million in his hands, do this with his offspring? How many times do we see, in fact, a repetitive character script when we had a lot of opportunities for something new? Too many characters, too many empty dialogues, too many misunderstandings. But you know, there are three little details that for me personally dilute the picture and make it more bearable:
1) Bruce Campbell as a jack of all trades. In the first film, he was a wrestling host, in the second he became a chapeldiner, here he got a job as a waiter. If the fourth part was not canceled, it would be great to see him in the image of Ash from '' from the same Reimi.
(2) Peter Parker's cabaret dance. Yes, Parker's behavior throughout the film raises questions and many people don't like that scene. But let’s be honest, if you look at it as if you came, threw yourself and went to dance, it looks cheerful.
(3) Universal pickup phrase from Mr. Ditkovich 'You're a nice woman, I'm a nice man'. Take advantage of your health, I do not regret anything for readers. I didn’t do that, but I believe in you.
The film was a victim of a conflict of interest between the director and the producers. Sam Raimi wanted to add Sandman, and to make the confrontation with the hero personal, rewrote his own history. Consider the circumstances of Uncle Ben's death. Dennis Caradine was clearly the only one involved in the crime. Neither police nor witnesses mentioned the second thug. Where did Flint Marco go then? He didn’t have sand power yet!
Ah yes, Sandman's daughter will later sell acid cigarettes in 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'.
Venom was added to the film at the request of the producers, against the will of the director, so almost everything related to the black suit and Eddie Brock is so ridiculous. I say 'almost' because I loved the fight between Dark Spider and Sandman that left Marco in the trumpet.
By the way, there starred two actresses who will later appear in 'Jurassic World'. Gwen Stacy in heels will be running away from Tyrannosaurus. And the daughter of the man who Parker rented a room is a computer girl to whom a colleague unsuccessfully approached.
Finally, let’s talk about the 4th film. He's asking for it. Kurt Connors has appeared in two movies and never became a Lizard, which is very strange. Bruce Campbell flashed in all three parts, there were persistent rumors that his character is Quentin Beck, Mysterio. It was also said that film 4 would feature Black Cat, played by Anne Hathaway. The latter is particularly funny, given that Anne played a similar character in a Batman movie.
7 out of 10
(roughly 100th minute of the film)
Spider-Man 3: Enemy in Reflection
Let's think about it, guys. Kasha! Not as bad as Batman and Robin. Not as bad as the Fantastic Four of 2015. But Sam Raimi really got it wrong. There's one villain in the first movie. There's one villain in the second movie. There's three of them! Probably for crazy fans.
The funny thing is, I scolded Franco in previous films, and by the third, the actor had changed a little. Subjectively, James is more suitable for nasty heroes. After all, when he is one hundred percent face, you get a full hat. Yes, so there is no problem with Franco. His storyline, hand on heart, is digestible. Goblin, Jr., will do!
But about Venom and Sandman is controversial. At first glance, it may seem that the Sandman is superfluous, but Raimi tied this character to the previous parts (specifically, to the storyline of Uncle Ben, and Spider-Man is rooted in this story). Plus, the Sandman skips dramatic notes (unhappy dad, daughter, wife). Church always had a sad face. Dirty, but working move.
Venom was needed to give Parker a choice. Everyone wanted to see the evil Spider-Man. That is, a vicious circle – both antagonists (seemingly) are necessary, but they are not fully disclosed (especially the second). One must be removed, i.e. put in other parts. With my brains in hand, I would have taken out Venom!
Because Venom had two squares at once, Topher Grace is just gray. You cannot give such a bright villain to a weak actor. And the second miss - Toby (surprisingly) somehow badly played Spider-Man under Venom. Remember, I used to walk around dancing in a black jacket. What is this game? He's just creepy, not complacent. To the girls rolled up - a-hee-hee, no words.
Gwen Stacy? Another joint (the scriptwriters clearly did not steam), calmly change Stacey to any blonde girl (the image is poorly spelled out). It's really a pile. That remains – our beloved J. Jonah Jameson, with him more or less cool, Simmons low bow, decorated the background. As a result, choosing between the three parts of Spider-Man, I will stop at the second (with Octopus), as you already understand. And for director Raimi, the Evil Dead trilogy will remain number one!
Stan Lee is an eternal memory!
P.S.
Ash “Kill everyone” – appears in the 52nd minute!
6 out of 10
The web curls, curls, and one of the main creative successes of Sam Raimi acquires new meanings and characters. And if those new faces are conditioned by the rather vast Marvel universe, then the characteristics (and already more often raised philosophical questions in history) go beyond the angular framework of “bad / good”, acquiring, practically, the basis for a parable. The latter, of course, does not reach, but Spider-Man becomes something much more than just a storm of petty crooks and an idol of young people. The hero of Maguire is a standard and sample of superhero cinema of his time and does not underestimate this moment even leaving the professional team of Danny Elfman, which was replaced by no less talented Christopher Young.
Peter Parker is the same student, photographer for the Daily Bugle and exemplary nephew of Aunt May. But, as you know, such quiet people often have a very extravagant hobby. Peter’s hobby is to put on red and blue tights and release a substance that is completely unnatural for a person. Seriously, our hero is an avenger who keeps the entire underworld of New York in suspense. On the path of the protagonist already came across gas-inhaled goblins and mad scientists. Now the Spider will face forces much more fantastic and “massive”.
It is quite interesting that on this, somewhat surreal background, the emotional content of the lyrical part increases: the characters of Toby, Kirsten (which is noticeably prettier from the previous parts), James Franco , Topher Grace and Thomas Church really experience, compassion, anger and love. It looks very dynamic (especially visual) and beautiful. We also worked on the combat system - now the scope of duels is wider and more diverse. This case is reinforced by a slightly bolder humor (again with Simmons at the head), which, in general, adds to the noir picture that has become quite chic. Thank God without exaggeration (well, except that the emo-image of Parker ... although, for 2007 canonical).
And it's all very exciting. The franchise, no doubt one of the pillars of the genre, fell into the right and professional hands. Although Raimi himself does not recognize “The Enemy in Reflection” as a successful film, it would be wrong to deny that the film is developing without stagnating. And, it must have been right to end the series about the arthropod savior of America on this note. It turned out well and, even, somehow sad, kindly sad.
8 out of 10
'Spider-Man 3' - the final part of Sam Raimi's saga about the hero's superhero adventures in tights. The film still evokes mixed emotions and leaves mixed impressions, and let’s see what’s wrong with it. All lovers of coming into contact with alien symbiotes - welcome.
Peter Parker is finally doing well. He is finally in a romantic relationship with MJ (who now shines on Broadway), and his alter ego Spider-Man is an acclaimed New York hero who is about to be handed the keys to the city. But of course, you can not build a plot on this, and the long-suffering Spider again has everything rolling under the tail.
The third 'Spider' offers many storylines with a bunch of villains, even one of which would be more than enough for the film. We have the classic love snot between Peter and Mary Jane (as long as you can, writers), the storyline of Harry Osborn and his alter ego of the New Goblin, the storyline of the Sandman, the storyline of Eddie Brock/Venom and the storyline ' Dark' Peter Parker, obsessed with a symbiote. Not so little, right? Of course, most of the subplots are poorly disclosed (except for the three times chewed love snot), and all of these individual stories lack some depth. Of course, the writers did everything possible to provide the picture with drama, and in some places they very much succeeded. For example, the insanely atmospheric and emotional moment of the first appearance of the Sandman, when he collects & #39; himself literally on grains of sand, but of course several such scenes are not enough to give the viewer a full sense of each individual story.
However, oversaturation with plots gives one plus - the hero will have to face a bunch of various villains with different behavior patterns, which means the viewer is waiting for a stunning action. And in that part, the movie is really good. The action scenes in the tape are spectacular, dynamic, well staged, and the graphics in general are not bad in most cases. And of course, you can not forget to mention the incredibly cool final action, and the duet of Spider and Goblin, united to defeat more powerful enemies, literally plugs all modern superhero team action.
I completely forgot about the cast - everything is fine here, the actors for the last film gave their all, and for the first time in the trilogy I do not even want to scold anyone from the original lineup. Tobey Maguire merged with his character literally to the last cell, even if he continues to sometimes give out completely ridiculous facial expressions, and only in the role of 'dark' Peter looks quite interesting (even if these moments have spawned a bunch of memes and criticism). Kirsten Dunst looks like Mary Jane again, her character is interesting again (as much as possible for the role ' Girls in Need'). This time James Franco is very good in the image of the antagonist. I also liked the newcomers - from Bryce Dallas Howard turned out a very colorful Gwen Stacy, and Thomas Hayden Church very well played the role of Sandman. Unless Topher Grace is like Eddie Brock and even more like Venom, but the family is not without a freak. The supporting characters are still beautiful - Aunt May played by Rosemary Harris and J. Jon Jamieson, played again by J.K. Simmons. And of course Mr. Ditkovich with his legendary ' You're a nice woman, I'm a nice man!'
Coming to the finale - 'Spider-Man 3' it's still a great superhero action. Yes, there are more flaws in it than in the previous two parts, and almost all of them are related to the script, but still the tape looks decent. No matter what, I recommend watching.
Oh, are you calling a girl? If you call a girl, tell her: "Listen, you're a nice woman, I'm a nice man."
Spider-Man 3: Enemy in Reflection
The trilogy, which began in 2002 and continued in 2004 and 2007, is the first superhero series to be completed by the same core team that started it. This ensures that viewers have a certain degree of continuity. But the great failure of the third film is that it lingers for an incredibly long time over a silly romance between Peter and the long-suffering Mary Jane. Yes, too many villains, too many pale plot strands, too many romantic misunderstandings, too many conversations, too many street crowds staring high into the air and shouting "Spider!" Spider! Spider! I love it and I don’t want to find fault, but I’ll have to!
The film's problems, as they are, could be a product of the franchise's popularity. In each of the first two films, Sam Raimi was cautious enough to give us only one villain (apart from the daily speculation of J. John Jameson, played brilliantly by J.K. Simmons). There are more antagonists here and attention to the bad guys is limited by the amount of time that is allocated for the soap opera, which is the life of Peter Parker. Expectations were sky-high, and I wonder if that pressure plays a meaningful role, overworking the director and his grip, missing the fact that bigger and louder is not always better. Peter and his alter ego, Spider-Man, are icons. His girlfriend, Mary Jane, is making her Broadway debut. And, uh, Peter's fine at university. The only problem is that his former best friend, Harry, continues to harbor resentment. Harry has discovered his father’s secret room full of bombs and physiology-altering chemicals, and he uses them to pursue his goal of killing Spider-Man. Meanwhile, Harry isn't the only one Peter will have to face. Flint Marco, a swindler who escaped from prison, has fled to a restricted area where radiation turns him into a creature made of sand. And yet, a certain microorganism from space arrives on Earth.
Yes, cinema feels like a rebirth of the motives and ideas of its predecessors. Peter must fight his inner demons again. Mary Jane eventually plays a damsel in distress for the third time. The 2nd film was excellent, with a great antagonist. He had a personality. Take the Sandman. He has, at best, a marginal interest and is absurd. Think of Doc and his ascent to skyscrapers thanks to his formidable mechanical tentacles, and now look at this dust storm. It transforms from a pile of sand into a creature that looks like a snowman that has stood all winter. It can be pierced with pistols, explosions, but then, somehow, it restores bodily integrity. How does he feel on an emotional level? Molina always told us exactly how Doc felt, and sometimes with a vengeance. We see a black microorganism. He arrives on Earth, landing maybe 20-30 meters from Peter and Mary, but his arrival somehow escapes the attention of the legendary Spider Sense. As a result, we have an epic scene when Peter goes through a difficult period, showing his bangs, dancing, walking the streets, watching admiring glances and feeling like a hot thing.
The director and cast faced a gruelling production schedule. How can he be successful? On the other hand, one of Maguire's great gifts as an actor is that he can be narcissistic and nerdy while still retaining enough strength and character to be a believable superhero. His portrayal of Parker and Spider is both sensitive and powerful, and littered with moments that are both humorous and painful. While the story itself is a bit disjointed, drawn behind disparate sub-tasks, it maintains its old storylines. Spider-Man’s scope is too ambitious, as he confronts three villains at once and touches on many profound issues, such as revenge, faith and forgiveness, each of which could be expanded. The result is that the movie feels a little cramped, and the script is not as focused as the first two films. However, Spider-Man 3 has moments that surpass anything we’ve seen in its predecessors. Peter appears at the jazz club where MJ works. In a farcical cabaret performance, he shows his piano skills and dance moves. There is no doubt that the third film tries to capture the most, with its complex emotional connections and wild humor that keeps it from taking itself too seriously.
You know what? I don't care. I love him. In an age of cynical cinema, the third film, like its predecessors, boosts a pulse that resonates as strongly as box office. Raimi has always focused on the human side of this character. Peter's real opponent this time is his own arrogance. He is so obsessed with his media image that he does not notice that his girlfriend MJ is a talentless singer. Raimi still manages to show deeply personal experiences, even in villains. Miss...
And while I have an interest in John Watts and Tom Holland with their creation, Sam Raimi's trilogy makes a small but notable impression. That Spider-Man 3: Enemy in Reflection was the final installment of the classic franchise is hard to believe. I don’t want to believe it at all. Despite the negative reaction of the director, the 3rd part is considered as cool superhero film as the previous parts. The number of supervillains has been a progression to create, and maybe refine, the plot and its context. In the first half of the film, the main character learns about each negative character in the course of the action, and then they will come together and confront the one who has damaged the “new image”. Not to mention the fact that Spider will rush his best friend, previously being an enemy.
Naturally, there were partial deviations from the main storyline, but this does not spoil the biography of the hero, in this case, the Friendly Neighbor, trying to make sense of himself after the appearance of a symbiote who clings to and creates Spider-Man in black with strange psychological characteristics. As for the rest of the characters, their biography could save the whole movie by watching the deleted scenes. Speaking of villains, everyone knew that Raimi did not want to introduce Venom to the 3rd part, and only the Sandman should appear instead. But it's impossible to accept. The fact is that each director, some of them even with difficulty, make attempts to create not only an external, but also an internal image of a negative character. Even at random you could imagine in your head, then “describe” and describe the person, and then embody on the screen. The outcome of each director’s performance was considered successful, and if not, he seeks to make the next character so that he was even more angrier than the previous one. Raimi Eddie Brock turned out a man with a positive and, at the same time, cunning character. And this version looks much more original than its cartoon predecessor in 1994, whose aspiration was to teach Spider-Man a lesson for the fact that he allegedly “held it to the full program.” Therefore, it was not necessary to get so hot because of the fear of presenting an alien character and its carrier. With Sandman, the situation was different: Raimi spent most of his time creating a character with the property of being part of sedimentary rock, and artificial material from rock grains. But this "most" had a biography of a negative character with elements of drama. And each scene shows Flint Marco not as a villain, but as the cause of earlier circumstances. He was kept behind the scenes until he came up with a motive for an early crime - the murder of Ben Parker, Peter's uncle. However, this idea is very strange and, first of all, superfluous. This is where the director could come up with something else. There is no point in discussing the New Goblin, since everything is obvious after the end of Part 2. In Part 3, the enemy eventually became a friend again.
Whatever arguments were not laid out, it’s still unclear why Raimi reacted so painfully to every page of the script to create Part 4. If David Koepp were to go back to Sam to write the story, the chances of filming could increase. In addition, it was known that the writer of the 1st film was in contact with Sony Pictures, which could negotiate with MARVEL for the general benefit. It was a big mistake for Raimi to leave the project. I can’t imagine that if the director of the classic trilogy continued to make sequels, and in parallel, John Watts was working with Holland to create his Spider to expand the Marvel Cinematic Universe...
Dreams are true as long as they last. Aren’t we living in a dream?
Tears are water, there are clouds between us.
The web stretched to the end, and by the very end of the "Vondeful" performance, one thing can be said: Spider-Man was wonderful! He is truly amazing and exceptional; he kept a stamp in every frame; he made you love the hero even more (although, it would seem, where else?)... the third, the final act, turned out to be really rather crumpled and uncontrollable: this happens when you set a goal and given a limited amount of time, and you, knowing that this is your last work, try to invest in it to the fullest, to show and give the world what will then be a memory, a pleasant return to the past that will never let go.
. . yes, Spider-Man in this part knew all the depths of the Fall and darkness; he had a whole host of enemies as never before and as never before, but the most important, dangerous, invincible and important enemy was himself. Deep psychology, multiplied by such a heartfelt and touching heroism, expressed in a brilliantly selected musical accompaniment - this is no longer the level of "Marvel", "DC" and similar to it "Disney" - this is more than Kino. Simple human drama and so many tears shed by dimmed faces already tired of the constant pursuit and slaughter of heroes, as an expression not of breaking in them, but of unprecedented valor and endurance; no one gave up and lost himself, and, if so, he quickly found; and after - Time, "inexorable Time", put everything in place, thereby announcing, not the fall of the star into the depths with subsequent oblivion, but, on the contrary, the reign of the infinite , it quickly found; and then - time, it is capable of warming us up to that moment. .
Now with films from the Marvel Cinematic Universe has long been not new, when on the screen in the framework of one film meets a number of dressed superheroes and supervillains. In the second half of the zero it was still a curiosity, and the triquel “Spider-Man”, perhaps, acted as a pioneer on this soil in the recent history of comic books. Of course, we don’t take into account the X-Men movies, since it’s originally a story about a group of good mutants versus bad ones. The creators of the trilogy were originally going to make a film with several enemies and set them against Peter Parker, but first the film about the Green Goblin followed, then about Doctor Octopus and only for the third time the audience was presented with three characters with superpowers at once, in addition to Spider-Man.
There’s a nuance here: in the case of the first two movies, the supervillains were well crafted – it was clear why and what they were doing. The story focused on one villain, which allowed him to be revealed to the viewer from all sides. In the case of the third part, it was somewhat crumpled. For example, personally, I have no questions for Sandman — his story is told succinctly enough to understand his purpose and intentions. Also, I have no questions about the new Goblin, after all, we are dealing with the storyline that has developed since the very first film, so here we see its logical conclusion. There are questions for Eddie Brock, aka Venom.
Of course, anyone who knows the Spider-Man universe knows who it is. Eddie Brock is a photographer for the Daily Bugle, just like Parker. And with Parker, they have an eternal confrontation and can be called enemies. And then, by the will of fate, Eddie Brock becomes the carrier of the symbiont, thereby turning into Venom, the antihero, and concurrently one of the most dangerous enemies of Spider-Man. Hatred of Peter after the merger with the symbiote not only did not disappear, but on the contrary, intensified.
This is not explained in detail in the film: Eddie appears in a few moments, of which we understand only that he is Parker’s rival for the Daily Bugle, and that he is dating Gwen Stacy. Of course, we are shown two moments that make Eddie literally hate Peter Parker, but more specifically the character is not revealed to us. We can say that there should have been a solo film dedicated to him completely, which would reveal the viewer Venom as a character. But this film never came out in the universe of Spider-Man Sam Raimi, then followed by two reboots, and the “Venom”, which this year will finally see the light, of course, the film is a completely different Venom.
Despite the obvious drawbacks, I think the Spider-Man triquel is a very worthy film. Like the first two parts, the film is still full of thoughts about high morality, heroism, responsibility for strength and more. Here the main characters are perfectly worked out, their actions are extremely understandable, especially after the two already released parts, where we saw the development of the characters. Also here in moderation of jokes, to the extent of drama, enough action and cool for its time special effects. Cinema must be viewed by fans of comic books, but only after watching the first two parts.
The first time I saw the movie, I really liked it. Venom, black suit, good graphics. Unfortunately, watching this movie is bad. Bad from the quality of the plot to the main villains. I saw nothing new in them, ordinary, tasteless enemies. Like the main character himself, and even before the appearance of the costume, he behaves like a pig, that you do not show him empathy or support, but on the contrary, you want him to have failures.
Actors' play isn't on top either. Kirsten Dunst is generally very bad at playing his role, although what is there to play? Is the girl in danger? I don't think it's that hard. Well, so everyone's beloved Tobey Maguire also, not the best of all, plays his role, and to be honest, when his body was taken over by a symbiote, he is generally terrible. The villains are also not the best in the Raimi trilogy. The Sandman is so bad.
The only thing in the film is good is the graphics and special effects, Venom, the explosions of the battle are performed perfectly and at the highest level.
But the plot, acting, motivation and behavior of the characters simply can not make the film even a little interesting.
5 out of 10
The first two parts of Spider made a huge impression on me. The third part came out, which I also watched. And although the film turned out to be quite good, I liked it less than the first parts.
But the main plus of the film is that this time the main character Peter Parker already has 3 villains: Sandman wields the power of sand, Harry Osbourne becomes the new Green Goblin and the strange black liquid that eventually takes over J.J. Jameson's son and turns him into Venom (a separate movie I'm really looking forward to, and I want him to have an 18+ rating). Now on to the pros and cons.
Actors and their play. The same actors and the same game. Plus.
Special effects. It is in the top 5 most expensive films. The budget is $258,000,000 so that the special effects of the film in my opinion are the best in the entire trilogy (I mean in the first trilogy, in all I think the best special effects of “High voltage”).
Humor. He's present. And that's a plus, too.
Plot. That's not a minus, but it's not a plus. The plot is medium. Even though Peter Parker has to fight himself, he has to fight two villains.
The last part of the first trilogy was slightly worse than the first two. However, despite this, she remains positive. My assessment:
I want to dedicate this review not only to the third Spider-Man movie, but to the entire trilogy.
No matter what we face, no matter what feelings are raging in our souls, we always have a choice on which depends what we become. (c)
I can't help but confess my unbounded love for Spider-Man. An ordinary student, who by chance received incredible superpowers, at one time became a role model for me, as well as one of the main symbols of my childhood. And I fell in love with Spider-Man both in comics, and in the unforgettable animated series of the 90s, and in a wonderful trilogy of films Sam Raimi. Few people can imagine how much I adored all three Peter Parker films as a kid, and it just so happens that I’ve watched each of them ten times, no less. However, if from the first and the second film I now feel the same emotions as the first viewing, then my opinion about the third film has changed somewhat over time. Naturally, I still like it, and I will gladly review it again, although the triquel has a couple of drawbacks and in some respects looks weaker than its predecessors. But the trilogy as a whole is certainly remarkable.
First of all, it is worth noting the situation this time facing the main character. It would seem that Parker has already passed many tests and proved that he deserves the title of hero, but this is far from the case. Now Peter goes to that stage of life when you have to endure the three main fights that make a hero: with his mistakes, with his enemies and with himself. Each of these fights in the picture is given enough time. Perhaps most intriguing was Parker’s inner conflict. It is also nice that the film is not without unexpected plot twists, and, of course, thanks to their presence, the new story of Spider-Man looks in one breath. However, the most important thing in all this is that throughout the entire timekeeping, you can feel the soul that Sam Raimi put into his brainchild and saved, starting from the very first film, even though he quarreled with most of the representatives of the crew of the first two films during the pre-production stage of the third film. But quarrels are quarrels, and the fact that the skillful hand of Sam Raimi made the Spider-Man trilogy a classic is indisputable.
In general, the spectacular completion of the franchise is as important as its spectacular start. And I must admit that the triquel with this function coped almost hurrah. And this was reflected not only in the plot, but also in the semantic aspect. If the original film proved us the inseparability of the concepts of “power” and “responsibility”, the sequel made it clear that there are things in life more important than our desires and ambitions, the triquel in all its glory revealed the problem of moral choice. Sometimes we find ourselves in extremely difficult situations, faced with dilemmas, but we always have a choice on which our future outcome depends. With a beautiful and vital thought, the picture put an end to the difficult path of the hero. A decent one, but a point. Equally important are the emotions that the picture evokes. It is almost entirely based on catchy and really worthy drama and sincere empathy. By the way, the first time I saw the movie, I literally burst into tears.
We didn't forget the action. At first, it may be a shame that the master of special effects John Dykstra, who received an Oscar for his colossal work in the previous film, left the project, but the newly minted Scott Stockdick did not fail at all, but even on the contrary, surprised. First-class special effects and virtuoso action warmed up the atmosphere of the picture, adding a powerful wave of dynamism. I especially want to mention the final battle - so juicy and spectacular mass scenes on the fingers can be counted. In short, the visual part is a complete delight.
Toby Maguire in total as an actor has not changed and plays his role perfectly and believably, however, as in the previous parts. However, in some places he was annoyed by his behavior, in particular, the moment where he danced in the middle of the street looked extremely stupid. For the rest of the Toby I want to praise. Kirsten Dunst was somewhat disappointing. Yes, I understand, she got such a long-suffering heroine, but Kirsten could put more emotionality into her, as she did in the first two films. But who really did not lose a hundredth share of his acting talent, it is James Franco. His hero is still interesting and capable of causing maximum compassion. Personally, I cared more about him than anyone else. Rosmarie Harris and J. K. Simmons is very, very good, I have nothing more to add. Of the antagonists, I can say positively about the hero of Thomas Hayden Church, he has a completely understandable motivation, and potentially he is cool. But Venom performed by Topher Grace looked completely uninteresting and cardboard. I also really liked the charming and positive Gwen Stacy, perfectly beaten by Bryce Dallas Howard.
In general, “Spider-Man 3: Enemy in Reflection” is a very drive, dynamic, insanely spectacular and pleasant blockbuster, which may be inferior to the previous parts, but does not lose at all. Of course, I will miss the beloved hero of childhood, but on the other hand, the trilogy is completed, as befits – dignified and spectacular.
8 out of 10
Thank you all for your attention and pleasant viewing!
P.S. I don’t know how many times I’ve revisited all three parts of this beautiful trilogy and how many times I’ll revisit them, but I will forever be grateful to Sam Raimi for this story. To those heroes. For the atmosphere the director created. In short, Ramie a great guy.
The final installment in Sam Raimi's trilogy, which could actually be quadrology. Despite the greatest amount of drama in this film, in part because of Parker's symbiote corruption, there's a lot of humor here, and even, again, in symbiote corruption. Many viewers and critics argue that this is the worst part of the trilogy. And to some extent we can agree with this. Who's to blame? The fault of the head of Sony, who demanded from Raimi to cram more villains, then sell a lot of toys and other “joys” for the film. Venom is the main enemy of Spider-Man, who is shown at the end, as well as following in the footsteps of Harry Osborn’s father, who has acquired power and a supersuit with supertechnology. What a pleasure to see his glider! And the main, or rather the most frequent villain here is Sandman, who was assigned an unexpected plot twist, which is aimed at a happy ending. As a result, we get too many plot narratives that are difficult to follow. And the director wanted to make the masterpiece again, as he managed with the second picture, but the money decided everything, and Raimi had to shove everything into the film and save it, but he failed. And the barrage of criticism fell most on the director, who, in my opinion, did not deserve it! Now the studio bosses give the rights to the “spider” back to Marvel. This is what happens when you chase money. Now Sony is losing money. But I'm talking about the movie, not where Sony is right now.
Plot. As I said, there are a lot of offshoots in the plot, of course interesting, but a little hard to follow. If the first film began with becoming, the second with everyday life, the third immediately lets the viewer know that it is aimed, again, at love, no longer a relationship, but the love between Peter and MJ. And then everything falls on the viewer: the symbiote arrives, the formation of the Sandman, the relationship with Harry and so on. But the film starts captivating again when the symbiote finally takes over Spider-Man. And it's full of joints. For some reason, Parker removes the mask from himself, as if it were his usual suit, painted black, and when he gets bored, the suit does not want to leave the owner, feeling what he wants to do with him. But why was it easy to make an easy-to-remove and stored suitcase – it is unclear! And yet, some did not like, but very interesting, and at one point funny, the image of Parker himself, without a costume. And here they showed the nasty Peter more in ordinary life than in the Spider costume, which then affected the relationship with the key characters. Showed as "dark" Peter, so to speak, reacts to J. J. Jameson and Mr. Ditkovich, and as, roughly speaking, uses Ursula Ditkovich, and tries to seduce Jameson's secretary Betty Brant and Gwen Stacy. This is given enough time in the film, while the continuation of this theme - Venom - very little. Venom here is "the villain to be defeated at the end." Again, the drama affects the film, everyone here forgives each other and weeps. For such determination Raimi can be safely praised!
The soundtrack, written now by another composer, as I have written in previous reviews, in my opinion is a kind of one main soundtrack and changes according to the tone and drama of the film, as if something is added to the music. Special effects with Venom and Sandman, especially when he is just soaring sand or when he is a huge monster, are extremely good. But in Spider-Man, towards the end, when he loses his mask, you can see Tobey Maguire's uneven face glued together with a computer superhero. Otherwise, the film contrasts well with the previous parts of the trilogy and, of course, looks very bright and interesting!
7 out of 10
The final part about Sam Raimi's Spider-Man isn't that final. According to some information, Sam Raimi was going to continue the franchise and shoot Spider-Man 4. However, the Enemy in Reflection was coolly received by critics and many viewers. In addition, the budget of the third film was a giant 258 million dollars, and the studio wanted to reduce the cost of producing Spider films by restarting it. In my opinion, it was not the best idea. While the third film does have more blunders than the first two, there are a lot of new things in it – certainly good ones. But many people wished to simply ignore it and still to this day are torn apart the enemy in reflection. By the way, I have this movie probably my favorite of all Spiders. Take it as you like, but now I will try to highlight all its advantages over previous and subsequent films.
Since I mentioned the budget, let me start with what we got for this huge amount of money. And we just got an incredible picture and computer graphics, which is still impressive — I watched this movie yesterday. Graphics here in places surpasses even the latest Spider movie – High Voltage. There was a lot more drama added to that. And the first thing we get from these two things is the Sandman. The moment he first gathers from the sand; the way he doesn't immediately manage to pick up his child's medallion; the soundtrack written for the film is simply delightful. In this episode, I always literally shudder. The graphics are great. It's just brilliant.
In the future, we will see great action scenes again. The episode of the construction crane accident was filmed in detail and incredibly cool. Michael Bay usually shoots such moments, similar to those seen in Armageddon, The Island and Transformers. Just like this. Everything is shown from the thick of events. In modern Marvel movies there are too many generalized confused shots, where everything explodes and flies in different directions. At such moments, you don’t really care about the main characters, because you already know that they will succeed. But Sam Raimi does not show such a moment from the outside, everything is filmed from the inside. The way Spider-Man caught Gwen Stacy falling has not yet been surpassed in any movie. Although the new Superman and saved 20 times his Louis Lane, but so epic he has not yet done it.
I’m going to focus on my favorite Spider-Man movie. Black Spider fights Sandman in the subway. In the first two reviews, I emphasized what I really like about Sam Raimi’s trilogy, that his Spider-Man fights with his fists, and his muzzle really looks like a real battle. Then there was only acrobatics, starting with the films of Mark Webb. So, going back to the subway moment, this muzzle looks even more impressive - an embittered Spider-Man versus Sandman who fights back with huge fists. Well, the way he flies pieces of face from the blows of Spider is something.
It is also worth saying a few words about the drama that impregnates the Enemy in reflection. Drama is everywhere. Harry finally finds out the circumstances of his father's death. Despite this, their friendship with Peter is replaced by hostility. Peter himself, trying on a black suit that clouds his prudence, ruins his relationship not only with a friend, but also Mary-Jien. The fateful circumstances of the death of Uncle Ben, filmed in black and white, are also revealed - emotions are just over the edge. Well, the equally dramatic motivation of the main villain - Sandman. All this turns into a very sad ending. This is also the highest score.
Venom deserves special attention, although he is not enough in the film. But he's definitely cool. And those who say that he turned out badly and did not like them, frankly lie. Venoma is impossible not to love, he is a beloved villain from the animated series of childhood.
Separate applause deserves cameo Bruce Campbell — it is certainly the best of the milestones of the three films.
The last thing to note is the original soundtrack for Black Spider-Man. The music is very good.
In the compartment, all this turns into a very powerful movie. A great picture with live computer graphics, combined with drama and an excellent soundtrack leave an incredible impression. A couple of stupid moments, for which this movie is poured liters of shit, can not make it bad. This is still the link of the best film adaptation of Spider-Man.
Good day, everyone! Just watch a good movie.
Alas, the third part of the trilogy of Sam Raimi about Spider-Man turned out not at the level of the first two, but much worse, although not quite a failure. If the second part received an Oscar for special effects, the third, not without reason, did not even receive nominations for the best special effects. It is because in the third part of them, although very much, but they are quite average. And the people, meanwhile, expected even greater scale than in the second part, waiting for the confrontation of Spider-Man with three enemies at once - with the second Green Goblin, with the Sandman and with Venom, as well as an internal struggle with himself. The trailer for the film was amazing, predicting all this. But it just so happens that the coolest scenes of the film are the ones we see in the trailer.
However, in the film we also see a rather stupid development of the line "Peter Parker - Mary Jane Watson". It seems that in the third part it was already openly sucked out of the finger. Peter begins to annoy in the front row, saying the words “she’s my girlfriend” – for some reason this scene seems disgusting. Then there will be a scene in which he kisses Gwen Stacy in the same position in which he kissed her in the first part. And then she really doesn’t understand that it could be very unpleasant for her. In my opinion, this obvious “stupidity” of the plot, which is completely out of place, is a huge disadvantage of the film. And of course, Peter Parker is still working for Jameson, whose son his fiancée escaped to Peter. Only that Jameson to Peter for some reason does not make any claims on this score at all. Clearly, the script was written in a hurry, clearly did not seek to understand the nuances.
The film added amnesia of one of the characters, in addition, suddenly it turned out that the one we thought when watching the first part, that this is the murderer of Uncle Ben, this is just an accomplice, but the real killer is the unhappy father of a sick daughter. These are the twists and starts to mean that the franchise is steadily degrading. Not surprisingly, this movie ended. It would be sad if they made Spider-Man 4 and it would get worse. Perhaps it is better to end on a note that sounds a little fake, but not the worst possible. That’s what Spider-Man 3 is all about. You can't call him completely bad. I don’t doubt that some of the action scenes we saw in the trailer look great. But in the final action scene, you're thinking more about what Mary Jane Watson is wearing than what's going to happen to her. You don't care about the characters.
In general, Spider-Man 3 is not a failure, but it still feels that this film, the darker of the previous two, was, unfortunately, much worse than the previous two parts. It can be seen, even several times. Many scenes still look easy. But still, I have a feeling that I still, at the very end of 2016, can revisit the delightful trailer for this film, but the film itself does not leave the best impressions. Too much has been done for a fast-paced box office, and too little has been done to keep the film positively in the memory of many generations, much less than in the first two films of the trilogy.
The third part of Spider-Man was the best of all. The more villains in the picture, the better for me. And the final part of this trilogy was the richest in the opponents of Spider-Man.
Many people claim that the storyline is monotonous, but in my opinion, the final battle covers all these shortcomings. The final fight against Venom and Sandman is a real action game for me. That was just great! Thank you to the creators of the picture for this ending.
Thomas Hayden Church is perfect for the role of Sandman. It's a hundred percent hit. Topher Grace, I thought, was too young for Eddie Brock. But I can’t say that this actor played badly. His emotionality and obsession with the main character were in place. James Franco chic! I applaud his acting skills standing up.
This trilogy is complete. Maybe too sad. But it is this ending that will make you remember this picture forever.
10 out of 10
I have to say, I love Spider-Man, not just movies, but comic books. I always feel sorry for him as a superhero because he’s always alone. I love movies with him too, but what I love most is the Sam Raimi trilogy. I think Raimi has made some really cool and brilliant Spider-Man movies, and I love all three movies, including the one that many don’t like.
I don't just like these movies, I love this gloomy noir atmosphere of seriousness that all the early superhero movies are made in. Not just Spider-Man Raimi, but also the "Nollan Batman," the "X-Men" trilogy, the "Fantastic Four," all these films made in an atmosphere of seriousness. And that's certainly a good thing, because in these movies, superheroes are not perceived as clowns, and villains are not a set of cliches, and you take these films seriously, unlike, for example, Marvel movies, where everything is presented as a comedy. Someone, seriously, took the "First Avenger". Confrontation.
And on the third Spider-Man, I decided to write a review to protect myself from criticism. One thing that everyone won’t argue about is that the film is flawless. In fact, as in the previous films, there are great fights, the battles are so intrigued that I myself cried out for joy when Harry appeared to help the spider. So what, what, and in action and fights the film can not be blamed.
Secondly, the atmosphere of seriousness and gloom persists. Yeah, I know about Peter Parker's dance, and it pisses me off, too, because it looks really stupid and stupid. But that's just one weak point, otherwise the atmosphere of the film is good. Some people say that after this dance you don’t take Spider seriously, I didn’t have any problems with it. I still felt sorry for Spider, I admired his exploits, and when he was caught by Sandman and Venom, I really worried about him. The difference between Spider Raimi and all the Marvel movies is that it's serious and you're really worried about the fate of the hero, but in the Marvel movies, where everybody's crooked, say, did anyone worry about Tony Stark or Steve Rogers or Black Widow? So I'm not.
Or some say that there are too many villains, did not have time to reveal all. It’s like, but I had enough, on the contrary, I was glad that unlike the previous films, there are three villains at once. And I had enough of them, including Venom. Or they say Parker's acting like an asshole beating up Mary Jane. So he was under the influence of Venom, what was wrong? So he hit her, which made him angry.
Conclusion: I think the third Spider part is the cool, chic, true example of what a superhero movie should be. Serious and gloomy. And I sincerely regret that Raimi didn't make a fourth film. Now, I don’t regret not doing the sequels of The New Spider-Man, I don’t care about the Marvel Spider. But the fact that Raimi did not shoot the fourth, where Mysterio was supposed to appear and be resurrected by Venom, I regret. Spider-Man Raimi is a sample of a real superhero that you want to follow, unlike the idiot that Spider made in “Confrontation”.
10 out of 10
If altruism had a unit of measurement, the hero in red and blue tights would be his accountant. Everyone knows the reason Spidey dedicated himself to fighting New York City mudslides suffering from the Bonaparte complex. It is all the more surprising that our arthropod once did not break off the loops and did not start simply exterminating the villains, instead of handing them over to the stupid-headed police. For a reason, an episode from the animated series dedicated to an alien parasite that took possession of Spider became decisive. For the first time, everyone saw the former Samaritan intentionally hurting loved ones and getting high on his own abilities. The oily organism turned the hero into a potential killer, and it only worked to increase popularity, but who is interested in one-sided cleansers? The introduction of the dark side in the film trilogy could give it a new impetus, which would make you forget about the clown numbers from the first films. Instead, it was a tearful nonsense, after which the tough fighter against evil had to go away to Jerusalem. Closer to the Western Wall, that is. And that's the best part! There he would not have been allowed to dance on the main street with the orchestra.
What is the logic of a good guy who suddenly becomes a powerful scumbag? The right thing to do is to beat the faces of the offenders without any further apology. It would even be interesting to see the rage on Tobey Maguire's puppet face. You didn't. Is there anything else about the film at all? Of course not. The third picture of Sam Raimi is filled with so many snot that here even poor Mary Jane appears as a fatal seducer with a claim to the main role. Not for long, though. In one episode, a girl is sent to the floor, and this is the fairest result of her entire stay on the screen. She is pushed by baby Peter, who suddenly became blackened and twisted. Along the way, he begins to suffer from lapses in memory, bouts of cretinism, and makes him only dullly remember the animated prototype, which instilled fear interspersed with respect. The case could have saved Venom - the legitimate carrier of the alien symbiont - but too late he was whistled to save the picture. It would be beyond the power and entire platoon of the most charismatic villains of the Spider-Man universe.
Speaking of our favorite scoundrels. Why Sandman was suddenly introduced into the plot, and immediately into the central role, is beyond reasonable explanation. This is an unremarkable character who was few in the comics and who was not in the series at all. And it becomes cinematic only as a platform for special effects. Apparently, Raimi was enough. As well as the insignificant, merged into the New York shower role of the younger Green Goblin. Although he doesn't look like a Goblin, he's more like a stunned skateboarder whose board lost its wheels and started flying. But all this is not so important compared to the blasphemy to which Venom was subjected. The most ruthless of Spider’s enemies appeared in the film as a specially invited star or under duress. There is no disclosure of the nature of the matter. Under the oily mask, we see the trilogy’s characteristic slick face of a loser who was kicked out of a bakery for wrong recipe. Such a gaggy loser can be put in a duet with anyone and it will still be hopeless. Three villains in the picture, and all of them do not even stand next to Doctor Octopus, whose image was ruined only by cunning tentacles.
The much-publicized film turned out to be so bad that Peter Parker's famous dances give it some particularly perverse charm. It is a real talent to disfigure the whole image of the hero. From now on he is neither positive nor negative, neither noble nor mean, nor brave nor cowardly. He's just nobody, an empty place with a double chin and always round eyes. When you look at Maguire, you are amazed that he was once considered (and not without reason!) gifted. Of course, to a certain extent, he was a victim of talentless directing and a stupid script, but even complete nonsense on the screen can be done convincingly. In our case, the young man showed no desire to break away at least a few steps from the image of the eternal whiner. This guy knows how to roar beautifully - we remember the first film, but since when did tears become a decoration of the comic book? And if you remember that everyone is not lazy here, then one can only wonder at the luck of Sam Raimi, who avoided quartering by fans for all his “achievements”.
To be fair, a reputable director has earned the right to fail with one film. The fact that since then he has not come close to the superhero theme is indicative. But Raimi ruined the whole trilogy! His numerous mistakes with caste, countless plot jambs, incomprehensible placement of accents indicate that Sony put not on a thoroughbred horse, but on a lame horse that drools for any reason. “The Enemy in Reflection” became the apotheosis of the inability of this director to cope with an interesting character, instead of which a primitive mattress with an incurable inferiority complex was obtained. And to tell you the truth, the whole environment fits him. For talented actors, such as James Franco, forced to play amnesia, it is shameful and insulting. No one knows what was going on in Raimi’s head all these years. Maybe he sincerely believed that the comic book hero is too complex, and not suitable for children's movies. In this case, the logic, albeit flawed, is traceable. However, Spider-Man deserved a better fate, and his first cinematic incarnation of a place in some particularly dark and damp basement, where there are always many of his zoological brethren.
The previous two instalments of the Spider-Man superhero franchise, I really like, are great movies with a heroic atmosphere. And like the third part should be the normal conclusion of the trilogy, but it turned out different.
Spider-Man 3: Enemy in Reflection is the weakest in the trilogy. The mess in the script is the main problem of the film, there are many storylines: the superhero life of Peter Parker and the plots of three supervillains. And they develop poorly, Eddie Brock’s motivation is illogical, the sandman’s boring storyline is boring, and Peter has become very vulnerable. In the film, he sheds tears about 3.4 times.
And suddenly the third part became darker, more dramatic, which is not a plus. The previous parts were simple, light and adventure. And the third film is gloomy and very sad at the end.
But the third part is not so bad, it turned out to be more than average. The acting is good, especially James Franco played well and Toby Maguire is not bad. And the special effects came out great, the visual range is great. And the villain Venom was nice to see, although the character washed away, but this is his first appearance on the screen, but we are happy with what we have.
In general, the average film, it is not so bad, but not perfect. Sam Raimi could do better, Spider-Man 3: Enemy in reflection watchable, although the previous parts were better.