quote:

---

The third go-round for Sam Raimi's cinematic take on "Spider-Man" isn't as cohesive a package as its immediate predecessor, and generally isn't as satisfying as the original movie either.

So what?

---

It's the statement, "So what?", that causes my confusion; and ultimately, utter dismay. It also reflects my current views towards today's blog reviewers. Does Raimi's third part of an already established trilogy not deserve to be good? That's what I can assume judging by those two words so stragically placed after negative comments about the reviewed film. Today's blogging film reviewers seem to have no heart and/or logic when it comes to motion pictures. Many cinema-goers (myself included and hopefully many others at this board and others) would love to be surprised and held aghast at what wonderous creations we've just seen unfold on a cinema screen, in glorious color and widescreen. Many of us want to be delivered the very best film from the artists who helped create it. After all, with rising ticket prices, our expectations deserve to be high. So why does Raimi and Sony Pictures get a free ride? Many fans were woefully upset and felt betrayed by the third film (for the record, I'm not a fan of either prior film). Did they take the time to consider, "So what?" I'm sure many exclaimed, "So what? At least now I can avoid seeing it again or buying the DVD." My point is this, directed at Dursin and many other internet columnists: what happened to wanting a film to be great? Perhaps there is so much dreck populating the cineplex recently that we should communially lower our expectations for everything. Soon, the studios will start to realize this (as I'm sure they already have) and the dreck will only increase . . . as long as Sony still gets it opening weekend record breaking numbers, right? Dursin's review also has a "weighted" feel to it; as though it's been re-thought many times by its author. It seems to stem in a long line of recent late Spidey 3 reviews in which some critics outright attack the film's detractors simply because "hating Spider-Man 3 is a fad, you're not cool unless you do it". As it so happens, I know plenty of cool people who love Spidey 3; they're my sister's kindergarten class.

So, I may not be qualified to write this criticism being as that I don't hold my own weekly feature on FSM or any other site (though I'm sure I have a few reviews floating around IMDb somewhere), but I felt it necessary because I'm curious as to what the rest of our community thought of modern film reviews, and their required lower expectations.

Nutz

NP> Dario Marianelli's V for Vendetta (*****/*****)

Again, why are his movie reviews a weekly feature of the FSM site? It's not as though he has much to say about the soundtracks of the films beyond the cursory reference to how they are mixed and whether they push his buttons.

This is exactly how I understood the comment, taken in context. Not that it didn't "deserve" to be good but that it really didn't matter because it was going to mop up at the BO anyway.

Why not bring this up at Dursin's own forum? You might get some answers from the "horse's mouth". http://andyfilm.netfirms.com/phpbb/nfphpbb/

[Message edited by estiban miranda on 05-16-2007]

[Message edited by estiban miranda on 05-16-2007]

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
[B] Generally I don't agree with him about films (it's like yin-yang really), but the attitude that a film didn't deserve to be good (which is basically what it amounts to) is a bit dismaying.
[B]

---

Again, Michael, we're on the same boat here (perhaps the Lusitania? ). Dursin has been a reviewer I disagree with on nearly all of his reviews. He just never puts any soul into his writing and it strikes me a "mediocre". I'm not saying anything about the man personally, I'm sure he's a great guy with a good personality but it never comes through in his writing. The reason I still read his reviews is that I'm hoping to find something that's worth it; hopefully I can agree with him someday.

And TJ, your comments tie directly into the whole arguement. Of course it's obvious that a huge franchise like Spider-Man is there to gain ticket and merchandise sales, that's what lends itself so good to the "it didn't have to be good" shill. I'll give you three examples of recent films that fall into similar franchise niches: Hulk, Batman Begins, and Superman Returns. No where in those films did I see just another oppurtunity to get an action figure or a Mountain Dew spot into it. All three films were made by intelligent, story and character driven filmmakers. Two of them didn't quite make their reported budget back in domestic box office, but they still hold a high level of film critics and regular fans that love those movies. They all have stories more interested in delivering questions and characters rather than dazzling action set pieces that don't even turn out that dazzling (I'm looking at you X-Men 3!). So why did Spidey 3 have to fall under the same guide that plagued X-Men 3 and Fantastic Four and Elektra, etc.? The first two films have very high esteem in both critical and comic book geek circles; but I get a very strong impression that very few of the parties involved with Spider-Man 3 gave it much effort. Had they, we would have gotten a much glossier film and I wouldn't have been resorted to this tirade against motionless Hollywood.

"...hopefully I can agree with him someday."

----

Why?