Spiderman 3 Better Than Amazing
- Thread starter VulcanJedi
- Start date
I liked all 3 of the Spider-Man movies, even 3. I hate Amazing, a lot. Andrew Garfield is one of the worst actors I've ever seen in a major movie (his reaction during the uncle ben death scene was so bad I was wondering how he got hired in the first place) and the horrible story/script didn't help. I'll take McGire dancing over Garfield being more wooden than a tree any day. Also, while Emma Stone was pretty much the only kind of ok actor (even though her part was still written horribly) I actually liked Dunst as MJ, and not even a half way decent actor could make Stacy anything more than annoying. The whole story of Amazing was just horrible. It is one of the worst superhero movies I've ever seen. I may hate The dark Knight more, but Amazing is just bad. Catwoman is better than Amazing, and Catwoman is horrible.
Yeah, the goal post gag was OTT (borrowed from and early Smallville!) and should've been cut. But that's a minor moment in a movie full of much better ones.
But what it didn't have was the novelty and post-9/11 goodwill of the first movie, or the compelling character arcs, superior script, engaging villain and memorable action of the second one.
As for the OP's comparison, ASM has better performances, more interesting characters, a more exciting story, more nuances and a more consistent tone than SM3. It's definitely the superior picture.
I don't agree that any movie can affect the quality of another one, but I do think you're on to a key point here , namely that SM3 has the same weaknesses of the first two: trite dialogue, clunky plotting (especially vis-a-vis villains), a thoroughly old-fashioned tone that aims for timeless charm but often feels twee and stale, a wooden, personality-free MJ, a supporting character (Harry) who's almost always more interesting than our hero, and a rather damp lead performance...
But what it didn't have was the novelty and post-9/11 goodwill of the first movie, or the compelling character arcs, superior script, engaging villain and memorable action of the second one.
As for the OP's comparison, ASM has better performances, more interesting characters, a more exciting story, more nuances and a more consistent tone than SM3. It's definitely the superior picture.
Wow, a lot of difference of opinion here. Just goes to show that there's no objective standard of what's good or bad. And that is why it's good to have different interpretations of a beloved character like Spider-Man or Batman or Sherlock Holmes or whoever. That way, someone who doesn't like one version might love another -- and some of us are lucky enough to like both.
I vastly prefer Andrew Garfield to Tobey Maguire's dopey, morose Peter Parker, but that's pretty much the only thing ASM has going for it.
If I had to watch Tobey McQuire "cry" on the screen one more time I was going to be the one to toss a football at something. Probably through the movie screen.
Really these:
Are pretty much the same in my book.
Really these:
Are pretty much the same in my book.
I preferred Maguire as Peter, but I liked Garfield more as Spider-Man.
I think Maguire and Garfield are both very talented actors, but I'm not sure they've been at their best in Spider-Man.
You mean like The Evil Dead? Must admit, Spidey having to save MJ from a tree rapin' would have been an interesting turn of events.
Now I want a film where Spider-Man and Ash team up against the Deadites.
Maguire was okay, but I never really felt he was playing Peter Parker; rather, I felt that Peter Parker was reinterpreted as a Tobey Maguire type of character to accommodate the actor. Whereas Andrew Garfield played a character much closer to the Peter Parker I know. Maybe a bit edgier and angrier than Peter is usually written, but that's actually pretty consistent with how Stan Lee wrote him in the early issues, as a guy with a chip on his shoulder about the bum deals life kept handing him and a desire to show up his naysayers.
Similar threads
