McCarthy dings "Spider-Man 3"

email this story
read comments (25)
post a comment

Defend your own fort and make your own judgments, but Todd McCarthy's review of Spider-Man 3 -- "the three main characters and the film itself stuck in a rut...a dip in quality and enjoyment [from Part 2]" -- strikes me as a bit more straight-from-the-shoulder than Michael Rechtstaffen's review in the Hollywood Reporter.

Am I saying this because McCarthy is saying what I've been suspecting would be the case all along? Yes. It's no secret that I'm predisposed to trash Spider-Man 3. (And I don't like living in this place at all, let me tell you. I wish there were reasons to expect something better. Harboring prejudicial feelings feels like you've got a cold in your chest.) But you don't need to look into Professor Marvel's crystal ball to formulate a pretty good idea of what's coming.

McCarthy is a widely respected guy who, by my standards, gets it right fairly often. (His biggest boner was dissing The Big Lebowski when it had a special Sundance screening way back when.) His review and reviews like it will mean absolutely nothing to the fanboy hordes, of course, but at least they (as well as others of discerning taste) now have something to give them pause.

"The three main recurring characters get stuck in a rut and the same can be said of the film itself in Spider-Man 3," he begins. "After the significant improvement of the second installment over the first, new entry reps a roughly equivalent dip in quality and enjoyment, with Spidey now giving off the faint odor of running on fumes.

"This devaluation shouldn't hurt at the box office, at least at first, as the vast majority of the fans who turned the first two into $822 million and $784 million worldwide grossers, respectively, will cram multiplexes around the globe to see the first blockbuster of the summer.

"A sense of strain envelops the proceedings this time around. One can feel the effort required to suit up one more time, come up with fresh variations on a winning formula and inject urgency into a format that basically needs to be repeated and, due to audience expectations, can't be toyed with or deepened very much."

No rave from Rechtstaffen<< previous | next >>Harvey replies to Patrick

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 21, 2007 at 11:15 AM

comment #1

D.Z. says ...

"After the significant improvement of the second installment over the first, new entry reps a roughly equivalent dip in quality and enjoyment, with Spidey now giving off the faint odor of running on fumes."

Still couldn't be as bad as when they chose to give him a clone in the comics, right?

Posted by D.Z. at April 21, 2007 11:46 AM

comment #2

SHR says ...

Imagine a "film critic" reviewing two other critics' reviews before having even seen the film...and liking one of the reviews more than the other. The height of both arrogance and ignorance, IMO.

Posted by SHR at April 21, 2007 11:52 AM

comment #3

Ron Lim says ...

SHR: 100% right on!

Posted by Ron Lim at April 21, 2007 12:00 PM

comment #4

bachelorcool says ...

I'd always been brought up to let a movie be innocent until proven guilty, i.e. until it's seen. Why this negative anticipation/analysis of something that may well turn out to be good as much crap?

Posted by bachelorcool at April 21, 2007 12:06 PM

comment #5

gruver1 says ...

Wells to SHR and Ron Lim: And seasoned pundits who said at the beginning of the Iraq War that many, many Iraqi citizens would die along with thousands of U.S. soldiers and for fraudulent reasons...how arrogant! How oculd they possibly have an idea what would happen? Talk about disreputable.

The "Spider-Man" movies are swanky servings of pulp CGI corporate swill aimed at the inner 12 year-old in all of us. I am in touch with my inner 12 year-old (and God help me if I ever lose touch), but even when I was 12 I wanted a little bit more than what "Spider-Man" movies provide.

Imagine fanboys like Ron Lim and SHR saying that the jury is out and who knows about Spider-Man 3...maybe it'll be wonderful! WHat does McCarthy know? This, to me, is the height of wearing blinders and shoving the needle in your arm.

The "Evil Dead" Sam Raimi isn't dead, but he's certainly been hibernating. Raimi is a corporate whore who's been putting some of himself and his movie-love into the Spidey flicks -- they're not atrociously made and Raimi is certaily talented at this sort of thing -- but he's basically been doing what he's told in order to MAKE MONEY and pay for his kids' education -- that's mostly what's been going on all these years.

Sony and their partners are going to pocket the dough -- your hard-earned wages, fanboys! -- and in exchange for what? For an okay, passable, shoulder-shrugging, not-that-good but not-too- bad communal woo-hoo experience with friends on a weekend night.

Posted by gruver1 at April 21, 2007 12:18 PM

comment #6

Jeremy Smith says ...

The fanboys I know who've seen SPIDEY 3 don't even like it.

Posted by Jeremy Smith at April 21, 2007 12:23 PM

comment #7

Earl Hofert says ...

Wow, between comparing Spider-Man 3 to Iraq and then attempting to claim with a straight face that he is still in touch with his inner 12-year-old, Jeff is so dry that he is positively arid. To paraphrase Mamet, he is so dry that when the Sahara desert sleeps, it dreams of him.

Speaking of your inner 12-year-old, are you going to be giving him a short-live column anytime soon?

Posted by Earl Hofert at April 21, 2007 12:25 PM

comment #8

Noah says ...

Comparing films to the Iraq War? Come on, that's just preposterous and unnecessary. This is fucking Spider-man.

While I was not the biggest fan of the last Spider-man flick and I'm not looking forward to the new one, it's not something that really pisses me off like it seems to piss you off, Jeff. I mean, this movie isn't offensive to me in the same way that the third Pirates movie is. There is some joy to be had from these flicks. It's a summer popcorn flick and I highly doubt that when you were twelve years old, you would've felt ripped off when you walked out of any of these Spider-man flicks. Or were you too busy reading Focault and writing the great American novel?

Posted by Noah at April 21, 2007 12:28 PM

comment #9

wholovesya says ...

The Variety review is spot on. And Jeremy is right. A lot of fan boys are going to go in and be very disappointed afterward.

Posted by wholovesya at April 21, 2007 12:34 PM

comment #10

Geoff says ...

SHR's post doesn't make any sense. We all try to glean their opinions and knowledge of the film from reading reviews before the movie is out. And Jeff, a critic in his own right, should be able to analyze the reviews and draw conclusions. He's not losing sight about the fact that he hasn't seen the film yet. He covered all his bases in his posts. You guys are just pissy.

Posted by Geoff at April 21, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #11

EOTW says ...

Jesus fucking Christ, we get it Wells. You want the movie to fail (it won't) and you think it sucks (haven't seen it yet and don't make my mind up about a flick before I see it).

Posted by EOTW at April 21, 2007 12:48 PM

comment #12

Jeremy King says ...

You know that interview with Kirsten Dunst where she said she can't imagine returning for a fourth film without Raimi. Her quote was, "It's disrespectful to the whole team, I think, to do that. And audiences aren't stupid. It'd be a big flop without me, Tobey Maguire or Sam. That would really not be the smartest move."

Would anyone really miss her if they made a fourth one without her? For me, she's one of the worst aspects of these films, and I'd be relieved if that crooked-tooth bitch got replaced by someone that I didn't want to push into oncoming traffic every time I see her onscreen.

Posted by Jeremy King at April 21, 2007 12:49 PM

comment #13

tholl-yung says ...

Imagine a bonehead gets to come here and tell Wells he shouldn't or can't or isn't quaqlified to deconstruct and discuss the early trade reviews of the same work.

Imagine the arrogance and ignorance of that person. I hope s/he is humbled and starts feeling lucky and fortunate, like s/he should. The bonus for the rest of us is we get it explained back to her/him in Iraqi terms -- how great is that?

Which reminds me, Wells left out the best part of Richard Corliss' response to Peter Bart.

Posted by tholl-yung at April 21, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #14

Sean says ...

Jeff

When you start comparing Spider-Man to the war in Iraq, you have been in LA too long; your head is buried too far up Hollywood's self-important ass.

The idea that you don't see how 'Spider-Man' is coming from the same Sam Raimi that made 'Evil Dead' makes me sad for you; I see the same hyper-kinetic pure (but shallow) filmmaking in both series. And in 'Darkman' and 'Quick and the Dead' (though neither of those is good, they both keep ya watching solely on the stylish directing).

Posted by Sean at April 21, 2007 1:56 PM

comment #15

christian says ...

raimi has been a lifelong fan of the comic. he was the perfect director, altho cameron's take would have been interesting.

since the SP films are raimi's first entry into real big studio filmmaking and box office, why shouldn't he go wild? i
think SP2 is raimi at his best, mixing the horrror violence of the doc ock hospital attack to the character moments that revolve around simple things like getting a pizza delivered on time.

my 12 year old nephews love these films and there are far worse role models than spidey...i'll go into SP3 with hopeful expectations.

Posted by christian at April 21, 2007 2:22 PM

comment #16

tholl-yung says ...

I'd like to read a story about how Sony got Spidey to Tribeca.

Posted by tholl-yung at April 21, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #17

zoey says ...

OK...I don't know much about comic books, but does that mean those Spiderman comics from the late 70's, early 80's that I have that feature Spiderman in black will be worth more?

Posted by zoey at April 21, 2007 3:17 PM

comment #18

jeffmcm says ...

A lot of these reviews are also starting to sound like that resentment that piles up when a movie/franchise/filmmaker becomes highly successful. Like Spielberg in the mid-80s - groupthink grousing in order to have something to say that'll sell more papers.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 21, 2007 5:19 PM

comment #19

le corbeau says ...

I don't have a prejudice against Spiderman movies, they're high quality productions for their type, but I defy anyone to watch the trailers and not feel the creeping yawn of deja vu overtaking them. It's another debate about personal responsibility, another act of vengeance toward the guy who killed Uncle Ben (and how come the rest of you aren't laughing that the plot revolves around "Hey, wait a minute, actually THIS guy killed him! And in Spidey 4 we'll find another guy, and another guy..."), more angst with James DeanFranco and more will-he-or-won't-he with Kirsten Dunst... not to mention that I seem to remember another recent trilogy much occupied with "going over to the dark side"... I'd be happy to buy these as the summer blockbuster gold standard, but this one's not giving me anything that seems at all new.

Posted by le corbeau at April 21, 2007 6:37 PM

comment #20

Rich S. says ...

Jeff just likes the negative review because it uses his pet phrase "fumes."

At least I respect Jeff for acknowledging that he's rooting for the film to fail. I don't think he's done that before.

By the way, Jeff, what was your favorite scene in Evil Dead? I saw it in the theater on release and I've probably seen it at least 5-6 times since. I'm wondering what scene you particularly enjoyed?

Posted by Rich S. at April 21, 2007 7:46 PM

comment #21

Chris Willman says ...

I think McCarthy is trustworthy and gets it right as much as any critic alive. And if he dissed "Big Lebowski," that's just further proof to me of his near-infallibility.

Posted by Chris Willman at April 22, 2007 12:22 AM

comment #22

christian says ...

when mccarthy gets it wrong he gets it real wrong. he didn't get SCHIZOPOLIS...

Posted by christian at April 22, 2007 12:27 AM

comment #23

Verhoeven02 says ...

I don't think it's fair to call Raimi a "corporate whore." Neither of the two earlier films are personal favorites, but you can feel his genuine love of the material in them. Now, I love Evil Dead 2, and would to see him take another stab at the material, but I don't see him shilling for corporate dollars with dispassionate efforts, like say, Speilberg's career nadir in "The Lost World," or Verhoeven's in "Hollow Man."

Besides, what childhood comic book lover wouldn't love to have millions of dollars to bring his vision to the screen. I have no problem with Raimi choosing to do so.

Posted by Verhoeven02 at April 22, 2007 8:54 AM

comment #24

ArchiveGuy says ...

So Wells buys McCarthy when he tells him what he wants to hear (Spidey 3 is same-old same-old) but he doesn't buy McCarthy when he tells him what he doesn't want to hear (Spidey 2 was, you know, good).

BIG surprise!

Posted by ArchiveGuy at April 22, 2007 10:07 AM

comment #25