Change Your Image
Foot_Freakin_Master
Reviews
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Maybe the most debated, but probably the most fun of the three Spidey movies.
Hmm, I wonder what everybody expected. I can't remember many times when there were so many expectations about what a movie should contain, with the movie judged on that. I try to think about objective ways to judge Spidey 3.
In general, should a comic book movie be fun? Should it have action and effects? Should it have interesting characters? Should it be Shakespeare? My conclusion is that this movie was fun, had great action, and had interesting characters. Did it have flaws? Sure.
It could have been tightened up a little, with some judicious editing.
Uh...I can't think of much else that was a real problem, and is not just personal expectation.
A villain not getting enough screen time. A problem to some. To me, it worked fine, with a reasonable potential for his return in a future film.
Too many villains. A problem to some. To me, I thought it added to the fun. Who would Spider-man have to fight next? I liked the team ups.
Silly situations. Well, this is about a comic book hero. To me, it blended humor with drama. It actually had more adult drama, with career disappointments, jealousy, and egotism included. Freud would have loved it.
A few too many plot elements. Maybe. I could accept them, even if I really didn't need all of them. A few of them were a stretch, but then real life can be even stranger.
Too little character development. To me, this was a non-issue. I didn't need to know all the nuances of each villain. I already know Harry, plus I thought Peter and Mary Jane actually had more depth in their development than in either of the first two movies.
Acting. Well I thought Toby thankfully had more to do than just act like a nerdy, shy kid. Kirsten looked strained, but that worked with a person encountering career, self-esteem, and jealousy issues. I think most of the characters worked well with their parts. Were they developed well? I did not need them all developed in-depth. I thought, for instance, that Gwen and Miss Brant were just fine in their parts, with the potential to provide more competition for Mary Jane in the future.
Here again, I have heard comments that the movie was stupid. That's astounding considering the number of truly stupid movies I have encountered. I am usually the worst critic. I went in reading reviews and thinking this would be a disappointment. I liked the movie because it doesn't take itself too seriously. It was able take chances and blend humor, drama, and action. I can accept the few minor flaws. I will say that I hope the next Spider-man goes a few different directions with the characters and situations.
What else can I say? It blended wonderful, enjoyable silliness, adult issues, and rousing action and effects. It probably lacked the freshness of the original and the technical qualities of the second. For me, it will be remembered as what a good comic book movie should be: Great fun, with surprising depth.
Widow on the Hill (2005)
Flawed and Disappointing
I started off being interested somewhat in the movie. It appeared it might be serious drama, dealing with death, grief, and healing, with some realistic human conflict thrown in. Alas, it didn't hold up.
I need a movie with somewhat consistent and believable characters. Too many characters in this movie were portrayed as extremely gullible and inconsistent. Look, I know this was not supposed to be Shakespeare, but come on, I need some quality in script and characterization.
The acting was alright, the writing not so much. At one point, James Brolin's character is berated for showing up at a picnic under-dressed. He states that ordering him around will not work. His new wife says that if he goes home and changes she will rip his clothes off later. That is a howler. This movie had a few unintentionally funny lines.
It was hard to care about Jame's Brolin's character. When he so readily gave his first wife's things to his new wife, even allowing his daughter to be snubbed, I lost most of my sympathy. Who really cares what happens to him. I must confess that I did not finish the movie. If it did a 180 in quality in the last 45 minutes, let me know. It was just unpleasant to watch and so predictable I felt there was no need to finish it.
Schindler's List (1993)
The Best?
This is a complex issue, but I still think this is the overall best movie I have ever seen. The characters, acting, storyline, cinematography, and general atmosphere and emotional depth combine to make a movie like no other.
Haunting, exciting, once in a while funny, gripping, rewarding, moving, significant, etc, etc. Wow!
It may paint a slightly rosy picture of Oskar Schindler, but, remember, it is a movie. I think this picture almost perfectly blends a documentary and cinematic feel. I is literary, artistic, and substantial.
I love Casablanca. Citizen Kane is a classic, maybe the best by many standards. But Schindler's List is movie of the modern generation which achieves classic status by both prior and current critical standards.
It is the last "great" film I have seen at a cinema. No doubt there are great films I have not seen. Any suggestions?
Titanic (1997)
Mediocre at Best
I was so excited at the prospect of seeing Titanic. I anxiously waited for the film to begin. By the end, I knew that I never wanted to see it again. What a disappointment.
I suppose the special effects and set design were great. Perhaps some of the scenes were enjoyable. But the acting was only so so. The story was lame, the romance banal. The Billy Zane character was a true joke. Plus, so much of the movie lacked credibility. Wouldn't the character played by Kate surely have drowned before being able to be rescued? An overlong study in mediocrity at best. James Cameron gave us a dud.
I admit some of my disdain is in response to the great marketing rush. I feel as though the movie was being jammed down my throat. Nevertheless I stand by my criticisms and have found many people who agree with me. Skip this and watch A Night to Remember.