This is my first entry in a new ongoing series of mine, Swedile at the Movies. Before I get into the meat and potatoes, I should first address the grading system I shall be using. And that system is...
The Official 'Batman & Robin' Movie Gradation Scale!
This rather ingenious format is based entirely in a film's comparison to the 1997 blockbuster abortion, "Batman & Robin" (also known colloquially as "Batman on Ice!"). "Batman & Robin" was an exceptionally bad film, I think we can all safely agree. How the BRMGS works is it scores, out of 4, how close to quality a film is to this wretched affront to cinema; a lower numerical score out of four means a better movie. Let me break it down for you:
0/4 - An excellent film. Either has no flaws whatsoever, or any conceivable flaws the compulsive nitpicker may find are so minuscule that it does not detract from the inherent awesomeness that is the film. A movie you are generally compelled to purchase or, in the case of Cyber Pirates, download. Some films I place in this category include: Spider-Man 2, King Kong (2005), Casino Royale.
1/4 - Not a perfect film, but for all intents and purposes a good one. While generally quality stuff, there are some unavoidable issues that simply takes away from its awesomeness. One may buy this, but only when they had the money on hand. Films include: Spider-Man, V for Vendetta.
2/4 - Decent to mediocre. While not a particularly bad film, there's noting exceptionally noteworthy about it. It is not a film you would use either of the following to describe: "Oh dude, you HAVE to see this film!"; "Avoid this thing like the fucking PLAGUE!" Some films include: Daredevil, Shrek 2.
3/4 - This is where we start hitting "bad film" territory. It's essentially the polar opposite of a 1/4; An overall bad film, with a few diamonds in the rough. You'd not pay to see these, but if they were on TV and you had nothing better to do, you may watch it. Films: Fantastic Four, X-Men: The Last Stand.
4/4 - There's no avoiding it. This is a bad film. Hope as you may, there's just no reason that you should watch this film. If you're in the theatre and you realize that you're watching a 4, leave right then and there. Just walk out and ask for your money back. You would have to be exceptionally bored or an exceptionally self-loathing individual to watch a film like this again, even for free. Hell, even if they paid you. Films: Hulk, Snakes on a Plane, Batman Forever.
Notice how "Batman & Robin" is not placed anywhere among the list above. That is because there is a special category, one devoted to only the most abysmal pictures...
5/4 - A movie that is not only bad, it is detrimental to your health to watch it. You can tell when you have a 5/4 when you experience physical pain while watching it, not unlike heartbreak. You come out of a film like this a different person than when you began; any innocence you've had is lost. The only permissible reasons to watch a film like this a second time are as follows: For the purposes of a cruel, cynical review; for scientific study; to reaffirm your hatred of the film; for the use of ritualistic suicide. Other than that, one should sooner give up their lives than watch it. This is where Batman & Robin place, which is interesting in that by being 5 out of 4 Batman & Robins, the film is essentially worse than itself.
Okay, with that out of the way, let's get to the review. Ladies and Gentlemen, Spider-Man 3:
Story: The story is really rather good, at least if you're already into comics. The Venom Saga is told, with a few tweaks, very true to the comic book origins. Anyone who likes Venom will not be disappointed. Harry's story of vengeance and taking up the mantle of his father to kill his friend is also well-written, arguably one of the strongest aspects of the film. And Sandman's story, while not exactly canonical, isn't horrible; it's just not exceptional. I'm bored with sympathetic villains. Maybe that's why I liked Venom. The love story in this film is annoying as it was in the first two, but it's even worse in the third installment. Mary Jane comes off as a needy, whiny bitch who causes most of her own problems. But generally, the story is solid.
Action: Dude, this film has it. With three super-powered baddies mincing around, there is a battle essentially around every corner. The final fight itself is exceptional. If you're going to see a film like this solely for the visual stimuli, then this is for you.
Music: I love Danny Elfman. I find he somehow imbues his music with exactly the right emotion you're supposed to feel, and it's a shame he and Raimi couldn't get along. Christopher Young, his replacement, isn't nearly as capable. His conducting of the original Spider-Man theme somehow lacks that soul that Elfman could grant it. And much of his new stuff was also unimpressive, though not bad per se. But I gotta say; I love the Symbiote Spider-Man theme. That just rocks. I want it on my MP3 player. But this still taken into account, it doesn't hold a candle to Elfman.
Comedy: J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. Need I say more?
SFX: The CGI in this film is, how can I put it...a mixed bag. Some things, like Sandman and Venom are handled quite well. While elsewhere, namely Spidey, they give you CGI actors who just don't look real. They look cartoony and kinda doughy. The texture's often off. You can tell when it's a guy in a suit or a computerized stunt double. Still, not bad overall.
Acting: Most actors in this piece are exceptional; Tobey Maguire, James Franco, J.K. Simmons, and especially Topher Grace. These people need to win awards for their acting sometime, somewhere, for some film. Then you have Kirsten Dunst. She's not a great actress. And frankly, I didn't totally believe Thomas Haden Church as Sandman. He's not a horrible actor, sure, and he certainly looks the part. But he just couldn't get passed that haughty southern California accent of his, making him sound less like a gritty New York career criminal supervillain and more like some yuppie from Beverly Hills.
Directing: I'm a sucker for good directing. I think that the director ultimately establishes the mood of the picture, the feel you get when you watch it. And that is all important. And as much as I love Sam Raimi, and as much as there were excellent aspects of this film directorially-speaking, I gotta say... this was not Raimi's strongest work. He simply had too much on his plate for a 2h19m film to tie it all together completely coherently. It's not a total train wreck, but he's really lazy with transitions. He also doesn't make things perfectly clear plot-wise. I had to watch it twice before the plot made a bit more sense. And God-be-buggered, he devoted WAY too much time to Peter and MJ. The aspect of Peter's love life is important to the mythos, but give it a break, man! It's really depressing just watching Kirsten Dunst whine about her career for a third of the film. Nobody gives a damn about Mary Jane. They wanna see Peter kicking ass. He's totally got to have a personal life, but this is Spider-Man 3, not Mary Jane Loves Spider-Man 3 (That's an actual monthly title, look it up).
FINAL SCORE:
1/4
This movie could have been excellent. Even with the business of the rogue's gallery, this film could have easily been totally awesome, to the same level of Spider-Man 2. But for whatever reason, the execution was lazy and somewhat convoluted, the music was sub par, and the CGI wasn't as good as it had been. Too many key players to the first two left the third. But despite these problems, the film is still worth seeing. Great acting, great villains, great action, and even a great story, even if it is a bit cluttered. I highly suggest you see it if you're into the genre, or even if you aren't. You won't leave the theatre feeling like you were ripped off, but you also won't leave feeling completely satisfied. 'Nuff said.
- Silent G
No comments:
Post a Comment