Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Review of Spider-Man 3


I'd been planning to see this movie for over six months before it came out. Friends had bought the tickets a week in advance. I was excited. I sat down for 2 1/2 hours and watched this good movie. And now here's my thoughts, a couple of weeks later.


Things to Consider

One, I'm heavily biased toward Spider-Man. The character has been my idol since I was four years old, I'm not about to give a poor movie review to my favorite comic book character ever.


Two, the critics hated it. That means I'm going to cut it some slack. Most of the critics I disagree with anyway.


The Good

The Acting: James Franco was amazing in this film. I don't think I've ever seen a jollier person turn psychotic so quick in any movie as of late. Topher Grace was also very good, he played the role of a slimeball photographer well. I keep having to remind myself that this isn't Eric Forman anymore, that's he's actually alot better of an actor now than he was then. Tobey Maguire even got a bit better, throwing out a joke or two while he was Spidey. I don't know why I didn't think about this before, but Tobey Maguire would actually make a good villain, based on what I've seen in this film. His imitation of John Travolta was hilarious. Bryce Howard (I think that's her name) was also very good, and quite lovely. I think they casted her perfectly.


The Special Effects: Really, that's all there is to it. This was supposedly the most expensive film of all time to make, and looking at it I believe the reports. The Sandman was done very well, and the web slinging scenes were done a bit better this time around as well. The sheer amount of detail and realism is astounding, if not amazing. I like it when people can integrate that well with the special effects and make it seem effortless.


The Action Scenes: I think I got bruises from just watching the fight scenes. They were all brutal to the core, and well choreographed. Kudos to the guys who designed those.


The Plot: All movies have to hit an archetype, which is a retelling of the Christ event, in some way. Otherwise it's not good. I'd say that forgiveness was the main point of this plot, and that it was executed very well. As many oppurtunities to forgive as possible where present in this movie, and all the classic reactions to forgiveness are present. In fact, there's so much it's almost too much.




The Bad

Kirsten Dunst: She was a little less wooden in this movie, but she's just not Mary Jane to me. Sure her personality is different from the comics, but that's no excuse. A good actor is a must, and unfortunately Kirsten Dunst isn't one.


The Plot: The plot was a double edged sword. On the one hand it was very good, and one the other hand it was too crowded. There's altogether too much going on in this movie to keep track of. Which is unfortunate, becausde it's all good. Well, mostly. There are some parts of the movie that are very hokey, especially the dialogue.


Venom: As a Spider-Man fan, I've obviously gotten comfortable with the Venom of the comics, who looks something like this:



He's big, and he's gross, and he's got that tongue that flops all around, right? It doesn't matter how big the host is, Venom is usually about seven feet tall. And that tongue? He uses it rather liberally, if you get my drift. I couldn't find that many good photos of Venom from Spider-Man 3, so I got a pic of his action figure, which is actually pretty close. Just raise all the lines on his "costume" and you've got it.


Um...yeah. This Venom isn't nearly as big, and don't let the tongue hanging out fool you, it doesn't show up at all in the film. Point is that the Venom of Spider-Man 3 is not nearly as menacing as the one of the comics. At the very least they could have had Venom lick Spider-Man once or twice for the gross out effect. After all, Venom is a perverted version of Spider-Man...

The Overall

This is a very good movie. The philosophy of forgiveness is given a good shakedown,and we get to see all the possible outcomes. The one who forgives (Harry), the one who tries revenge and then repents of it (Peter), and then finally the one who will never repent and dies unrepentant (Eddie/Venom). I put Harry as the one who forgives because he actually takes it a step farther than Peter does and dies for the person who he had spent so long hating. It's a bit bogged down in some parts, but overall, this is a very good movie.


4 out of 5 Webs

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Little Update and a Few Thoughts

Well, I took a look at the New Liturgy books, here's my thoughts on them.


The Good
The books actually have music in them! It's nice to have a pew book that sorta shows how the tones work in musical notation. I realize that most people can't read music worth anything, but it still helps to know "OK, we're moving up, now we're moving down in tone" as opposed to not know what's going on at all.

Some of the terminology has been corrected/cleared up. Moving from Mother of God to Theotokos was a wonderful thing to behold in my eyes, and in everyone else's too apparently. Some of the language was made clearer and better in my opinion.

Also, it's nice to have the Great Vespers with Liturgy service printed directly into the books. Something about that makes sense to me, since Great Vespers with Liturgy is a very common form of celebrating feastdays.

Also some of the Litanies have shown up in longer form (yay!).

The Bad

Inclusive language. Do I really need to say more, honestly? The political correctness movement has finally hit the liturgy. Now we're praying with politically correct words, people. It makes me sick. Saying "Fathers" is not offensive. Saying "ancestors" is, because it makes it less generic and more cliquey. It also doesn't help that the language isn't even consistent throughout the book!

This thing is more like an encyclopedia. We have up to six or seven versions of one hymn right in the book, which doesn't really help anything. How are the people supposed to find them without the cantor telling them where to go, which disrupts the Liturgy? I guess handout sheets are still useful after all...

Overall I think the new "Green Book" is a mixed bag. It has it's good points and it's bad points. Unfortunately the public prayer of the people has to be perfect, or at least not glaringly imperfect, so that way you don't have smartaleck 19 year olds like me picking the book apart. Honestly, if a 19 year old can find surface errors in what was made by a bunch of high seated theologians and bishops, something's wrong. Terribly so.

Mary of Egypt was accidently left at my church, so I'm not able to work on her this week. Father Tom told me to start all over on my undersketch of Thetokos. Oh well, can't win them all can we?