SpiderMan 3, or, How Not to Make a Threequel.

I understand that other movie going folk have different tastes and interests than my own. To those other folks (i.e. YOU): just remember that as you read this.

What made SpiderMan 1 a good movie was the character development and emotional content. SpiderMan 2 was also an enjoyable movie for much the same reason, although I was concerned that the balance between CG and story had tipped a bit towards the former.

Perhaps it is a disconnect between the comic book world and my vision of what a movie should be. Peter Parker (Tobey McGuire) is getting too old to play a character that is *so* naive. Does the comic book character likewise act about as mature as a 15 year old boy vis-a-vis interpersonal relationships? I'm not a comic book reader, so you'll have to educate me (i.e. hint hint, post a comment).

Back to the disconnect - I think I expect a high degree of 'realism' in my movies. Not the CG versus live set type of realism. The 'realism' I want is a realism in the characters themselves and how they interact with the plot and each other. I expect believability of behavior in a given circumstance. My expectations were unmet by SpiderMan3.

I suppose it was a so-so movie in its own right. If my expectations had not been raised by the two preceding installments, I would not have been so disappointed.

My only comment about the special effects: Did they recycle some sounds (and more?) from Star Wars I, The Pablum Menace, for SpiderMan3?

Nevertheless, my opinion is that #3 was really much more like #2 (the bodily function, not the sequel) and wholly underserving of the opening weekend sales it received.

And everything I just said here about SpiderMan3 applies to X-Men III except that (a) X-Men 1 & 2 were better movies than Spidey 1 and 2; and (b) X-Men III wasn't quite as disappointing as Spidey3 as there were many great scenes.

Come to think of it, had I known what SpiderMan3 would be to watch, I would have opted to stay home and watch Xmen III on DVD.