comment #1

Brian says ...

I would never say that you're "incapable" of enjoying big-studio popcorn movies. There have been a couple recently that you've been pretty enthusiastic about, like Batman Begins and King Kong.

The problem is that you start distancing yourself from your enthusiasm almost immediately after the digital ink is dry. So I would say that you're incapable of standing by your enthusiasm for big-studio popcorn stuff. You always seem to feel guilty or something afterwards.

comment #2

Pelham123 says ...

You can put me in the (apparent) minority of those completely underwhelmed by the first two "Spider-Man" movies and I'm a big fan of both Sam Raimi and Spider-Man. Both are just slogs to get through. That said, being a Raimi fan, I'll probably see the third one out of duty unless word of mouth is bad.

comment #3

JD says ...

You can't lump the first two movies together like that, Jeff. I thought the first film was a mess with no Raimi flair whatsoever. However, in the seocnd film, he was clearly liberated to bring more of his humor and visual style, which made for a far more enjoyable film. And the writing on the seocnd film was not bad. It was actually quite good, which makes perfect sense as it was written by a Pullitzer Prize Winner (Michael Chabon) and one of the great screenwriters of the last 40 years (Alvin Sargent). Hell, Roger Ebert picked it as the best film of 2004 and it scored 93% at Rotten Tomatoes. Go ahead, dismiss it, but dismiss it with a little perspective.

comment #4

Noah says ...

I don't know. I mean, I'm not really looking forward to the third Spider-man flick either. But, Jeff, you have a tendency to be dismissive towards anybody who might enjoy these types of films, as if they are somehow beneath you. You don't like the CG stuff, that's cool, but some folks do and that's cool too.

Miami Vice was not my cup of tea, either, because I felt it was a poorly-conceived, unemotional film but looked beautiful. I feel the same way about the Spider-man films. The Spider-man films tend to be more cheesy but Miami Vice was full of cheese as well. You like movies that you like, other people like movies that they like and expressing your opinion is why we come here, but maybe don't be so pompous about it.

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

True, true. I can remember King Kong, Wedding Crashers, Batman Begins, The Incredibles and....and...um...Sorry, I got nothing.

comment #6

thevisceral says ...

What was that about Spider-Man blowing someone?

comment #7

gatsby1040 says ...

Jeff you're 100% wrong about the Spider-Man films. The first one was a well made popcorn flick, with a couple weak spots, nothing earthshattering, but eons beyond the first Pirates movie.

Spider Man 2, however, stands proudly alongside the first Donner Superman film as one of the finest comic book films ever made. It's just terrific. No, it's not a MASTERPIECE, its a big, splashy adventure film, very well made, with good acting, an amazing screenplay (Chabon & Sargeant deserve lots of credit), stylish direction, and some of the finest action choreography ever filmed. It makes the first matrix film look like a cartoon. Far, far better than even the best summer popcorn movies. I've seen it multiple times, and found it repays repeat viewings. Yes, Dunst is still not flattered by her red hair, and yes, the film stutters a bit going into the final movement, but when Tobey Maguire (an excellent actor, and not typical summer-movie-fare by a long shot) holds up that brick wall and tells his gal he loves her, I get choked up!

You're being a grouch about this one. The third Spidey may not be as good as the second. But we can be sure of one thing-- it'll be better than anything the latest Pirates piece of shit throws at us-- and it'll be worth at least ten of my bucks.

comment #8

Alan Cerny says ...

I'm not going to go in to this movie with blinders on. If it sucks, it sucks. But that's going to be something I come up with on my own, because there is no critic on earth - none - that will dissuade me from seeing this film. That's how good the first two were for me.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say I'd be surprised if these films don't inspire some kid in the audience to say to himself, "Man, when I grow up, I wanna do that. I wanna tell stories like that." How many other summer popcorn movies released in recent years do you honestly feel can inspire that?

comment #9

christian says ...

jeff, you're just plain wrong. you don't have to like SP3 -- and i may not -- but SP2 is a comic book masterpiece.

what's easy about a story that postulates such loss and grief? the "raindrops" montage in the middle is a moment of art hardly the cookie cutter song cue. you can level those acusations at that fantastic 4 piece of shit, but raimi nails almost everything in SP2 -- including the best comic fight scenes in film history and the first time i've seen CG used in a way that didn't make me hate it.

and if you're not moved by the scene where the train passengers lift spidey's body with the new york skyline in the background...well, to quote the PHANTASM tag, you're already dead.

comment #10

Breedlove says ...

I agree with you, Jeff, that big commercial summer movies have gotten worse and worse and are primarily crap these days. I don't know if I'd go quite as far with the cynacism, though. I don't know Sam Raimi from a hole in the wall, haven't even seen his early stuff, but I'm guessing he probably loves movies and pours his heart into making a movie people will love. He's still more artist than businessman, I'd wager. I don't love the Spidey movies but there's much, much more soulless garbage out there. (Sony, please feel free to use the previous sentence in any advertising).

Also, I know Ebert loved Spidey 2, called it the best superhero film ever made, but I don't think it was his #1 film of the year, was it? I'd have to check but I doubt it. Maybe #2.

comment #11

Movie fan09 says ...

i feel the same way.
and i so desperately wanted to love these movies.
you really are better off watching the fox cartoon show.
that had more personality.
x-men one too.

what are you thoughts on batman begins?

comment #12

Edward Havens says ...

I'll try to remember some of this while I have fun watching Spidey 3 in the morning, in IMAX no less.

comment #13

Chris Molanphy says ...

I'm with Jeffrey on this, and on comic-book films in general. I went into SM2 expecting something transcendant, and I liked it fine, but it didn't change my life. I also think Jeff was onto something in his take on Superman Returns last year – with some serious pruning and recasting the leads, it could've been a four-star movie.

comment #14

Edward Havens says ...

Chris, I didn't get the memo... exactly when were superhero movies supposed to change lives?

comment #15

Brian says ...

Ebert had Spider-man 2 #4 that year, behind Million Dollar Baby, Kill Bill Vol. 2, and Vera Drake.

comment #16

Ron Lim says ...

Nevermind the box office. Forget the VAST majority of film critics who enjoyed both Spider-man films. Jeff is right and the rest of us are all wrong. We should be ashamed of ourselves for having a good time at the movies. Don't we know pap when we see it?

comment #17

count.olaf says ...

S2 was no X2, that's for sure

comment #18

MiraJeffAICN says ...

I thought the first Spidey was great and was pumped to see the second one, which had one of the single greatest trailers I've ever seen. I was a tad let down by Spidey 2 because it didn't deliver on the promise that the trailer showed, but I'm pretty confident Spidey 3 will be a return to form for the series. On the whole, I think the Spider-Man franchise has been extremely well done. Neither film is quite as good as X2, but that's beside the point.

The point is that Sam Raimi has been spreading himself too thin. He is responsible for producing some of the worst "horror" films of the last few years. The Grudge films, The Boogeyman films (sequel is filming), and The Messengers. All pretty bad movies. I mean, I expect a little more from the director of The Evil Dead and A Simple Plan. Why can't Raimi come up with a Saw-like franchise, or at least a stand-alone flick with balls. As promising as 30 Days of Night looks, Rise sounds inexplicably bad. He's more miss than hit right now, and hopefully the guy can turn it around in the genre department. But don't blame the guy for cashing in on the Spidey franchise. He's done a pretty solid job and I, for one, can't wait to see the new one. Whether it's great, good, or not good enough, it will still put Fantastic Four and other such nonsense to shame.

comment #19

jeffmcm says ...

The Saw franchise is worse than any of those other horror movies you listed.

comment #20

christian says ...

mirajeff, while you're spot-on about raimi's producing crap, the problem with today's hollywood is the word "franchise" which you used three times in your post. a franchise best describes a hamburger stand, not a film.

but we get what we're served...

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

I have to agree that the first one was mediocre, but the second one improved on it, so I'm hoping Raimi won't disappoint on part 3. I'm not hyped about it, either way, though. I care more about Fantastic Four 2, since I want them to do a good job on Silver Surfer/Galactus.

comment #22

feralkid says ...

I agree with Jeff's comment on the plot slugging along. Especially in Spidey 2. Some of the scenes with Peter and Mary Jane seemed to be moving in slow motion. My wife said it best after walking out of Spidey 2 when she said she could go years without having to see another CGI super hero movie. I think the last well made and scripted super hero movie was Batman Begins.

comment #23

JD says ...

My mistake on the Ebert thing. I didn't check his actual list, but I remember him saying it may be the year's best film (or something along those lines) shortly before the end of that year in an interview.

comment #24

RoyBatty says ...

Change bath tub to hot tub and I might agree with you - a lot of the enjoyment of these films has been the crowd that shares the auditorium with you. Nothing wrong with it, but I'm somewhat with those who say that so far none of these films has been anything special.

Worse, too much of the CGI work looks, well, like CGI work (although there was an improventment in that regard from the first film to the second, they still aren't using enough motion-capture to humanize the movements).

What I think Wells is saying most of all, is that the spunk has gone out of the summer blockbuster. Too many are paint-by-numbers affairs, without any real pizzazz. Summer films used to have real thrills, "ahh" inspiring sights, interesting characters, great lines and scores that found yourself humming days later (or at least most of these things). If you averaged the score for each individual aspect, their combined average was at least 8, 8.5.

These days, that average is more like 6, 7 with one or two rising to barely 8.

comment #25

CarsonDyle says ...

Are people actually EXCITED to see Spidey or are they just going because they know it won't suck like most of the summer crap? My guess is it's the latter.

comment #26

DavidF says ...

JD - Ebert definitely said Spidey2 was the best comic book film ever made or a hyperbole very close to that. I think it had an honourary mention on his end of year list.

I'm not CRAZY EXCITED to see it, but I am excited.
These have been fun, well-executed flicks.
They're not without flaws. For one I've never been sold on Dunst - especially since they've now cast redheaded Bryce Dallas Howard to play the blonde Gwen Stacy while blonde Dunst is...you get the idea.

Overall, from JK Simmons' Jameson to the great Raimi in-jokes in S2, they are very watchable films and better than your average popcorn movie.

S3 could go either way - I'm a bit worried about having 3 bad guys. I'm guessing Raimi wanted to go one way, the studio wanted Venom and he figured, "this is my last Spidey flick. I'll throw it all in." (This reminds me watching Jurassic Park II and thinking Spielberg just went, "fuck it - I'm gonna have fun before someone else steals my 'dinos in the city' idea.")

I don't know why Wells is increasingly shooting down every blockbuster on principle. What makes Ebert so great is that he judges every movie on its own merits. Since he's out of the loop for now, why don't we try to absorb some of that spirit??

p.s. While I love what Raimi's done I still have a linging curiosity of what a James Cameron Spidey would have looked like...

comment #27

RoyBatty says ...

Roger Ebert is the LAST person I want advice from when it comes to any tent-pole, popcorn, blockbuster-type studio film. At some point a few years ago he simply threw up his hands when it came to critically looking at certain films. I don't know if it was the loss of Siskell or he got tired of the shit his editors/public gave him over one too many negative films, but unless it's a foreign or smaller film Ebert's judgement cannot be trusted anymore.

The only comic-book based film I'm looking forward to at the moment is the next Chris Nolan BATMAN, which won't come out for another year.

Ah, the James Cameron SPIDER-MAN with Wes Bentley as P. Parker and a James Horner score. Now THERE'S a Spidey flick I would have waited in line for an afternoon to see...

comment #28

Craig Kennedy says ...

It seems like Ebert's heart just isn't in it when it comes to the blockbusters and frankly that's fine. I don't much count on critics to steer me towards or away from the tentpole flicks.

comment #29

Edward Havens says ...

At first, I was going to say Wells is really going to dislike Spidey 3... but then I thought that if I wasn't all that thrilled with the film, Wells is going to love it.

I do know that Poland is going to love it, with all of its turns into Broadway musical territory.