what you mean about excess - often these things are a chore for me to
sit through, even though I appreciate the craft that went into them
and even see how many others could be having a great time -- but not
necessarily me.
This one, though? Thought it was light on its feet, and I loved the
little characters that kept popping up - Bruce Campbell, of course,
but also J.K. Simmons (the editor, again) and his secretary
(Elizabeth Banks, I think it is, who's ferociously sexy), and Peter
Parker's neighbors (especially the gawky girl with the crush on him);
and I liked Gwen Stacy's characters.
I don't know - there seemed to be a suspicious amount of life that
managed to make it out from under that huge budget.
On May 8, 2007, at 2:17 PM, ahar47earthlink.net wrote:
> No offense, Matt, but you must have been in a magnanimous mood
> when you watched it! LOL!!
> It reminded me a bit of Pauline kael's comment about Spielberg's
> "1941" --"it was like having your head stuck in a pinball machine
> for 2 hours!"
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Soergel
>> Sent: May 8, 2007 10:56 AM
>> To: "ahar47earthlink.net"
>> Subject: Re:
>>
>> thanks
>> On May 6, 2007, at 3:06 PM, ahar47earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For nearly it's first half, Spiderman III was as enthralling,
>>> lively and humorous as its first and best installment.
>>> About that point the film gets tangled up in its own web of
>>> disjointed plotting, uninteresting, weakly developed villains and
>>> wearyingly protracted f/x-enhanced brawls.
>>> Throw in the cliche of the hero's evil side and troubled romantic
>>> affairs and one questions the sagacity of Oscar Wilde's observation
>>> that "nothing succeeds like excess."
>>>
>>> Arnie Harris
>>> 59, Lawtey
>>
>
2 comments:
Analyzing the creative merits or lack thereof of something like "Spider Man 3" is pointless. The franchise was bullet-proof for a third film no matter how good or bad, something the producers knew so well that a $250 mil. budget wasn't even a gamble. Like the horrendous "Matrix" sequels, quality makes little difference to the legions of devoted fans.
I guarantee "Pirates 3" could be taunted from coast to coast as the worst film ever made and will still break all box office records.
However, there is a personal double-edged sword to critic-proof films of late, in that it finally proves once and for all my theory that such persons are impotent prattlers who should go out and get a job.
Enjoyed your comments,
That jerk Shayne.
I guarantee "Pirates 3" could be taunted from coast to coast as the worst film ever made and will still break all box office records.
However, there is a personal double-edged sword to critic-proof films of late, in that it finally proves once and for all my theory that such persons are impotent prattlers who should go out and get a job.
Truer woids were ne'er spoken!
Some weeks back I e-mailed Soergel (the critic) and made that very point, and indeed asked him if he felt like he was shovelin' shit against the tide as far as raising anyone's movie aesthetic--he somewhat succinctly said "yes".
Methinks people are so desperately starved for diversion and escape from reality that they'll plunk down their $9 to see ANY new film that opens, no matter how wretched the critical consensus!
S-I-G-H, Twas always thus!
Post a Comment