StarDestroyer.Net BBS

One of the people in the editing room just bought a copy of "Spiderman" on DVD. He came in to ask me if I wanted to watch it with him and then have a debate to see if it was better than AotC and LotR. He was, of course, convinced that it was (Roger Ebert said so). Of course, we got done with it, and I didn't even have to have the debate. He wasn't just annoyed at having paid for that movie. He was furious with the movie critics.

I really can't say that I blame him. I think that their statements that Spiderman was a better movie than LotR and AotC were beyond the range of opinion, and into the range of downright dishonesty. I simply cannot find a single criteria by which to judge Spiderman favorably against the other two films. Spiderman isn't a terrible movie, but LotR and AotC are simply instant classics. Even judging Spiderman in the exact areas in which AotC and LotR are weak, one still comes away with no clue how Spiderman can be a better movie. Spiderman delivers dialogue and acting that is just as hit and miss as AotC, and is sometimes worse. The characters (especially Mary Jane) act like utter idiots who are incapable of conscious thought (something that neither of the other blockbusters do), and NO ONE can be called "MJ" except for his airness.

Compared with LotR, Spiderman's soundtrack is far worse. It's scene transitions are terrible, and its plot feels woefully incomplete. Many critics who do not understand the LotR saga attacked the ending to Fellowship, but the ending to Spiderman left an equal number of questions unanswered, and really had no excuse. The villain in Spiderman was weak and woefully underdeveloped, even compared with some of the LotR monsters, and I saw no evidence, whatsoever, of originality during Spidey's fights with his enemies.

How is this a better movie? It's not even better in ANY fields than LotR and AotC. Arguably Kirsten Dunst (we nicknamed her "Dunce" for her inability to discover Peter Parker's true identity during the film) is more attractive than Liv Tyler or Natalie, but the critics were insisting that the acting and writing made Spiderman a better film. Did they get the same versions that the rest of us saw?

This leads me to the question of WHY. I understand what they did. I understand how they did it. But WHY would they WANT to do this? What possible motivation do they have for panning two phenomenal films, while hyping up a poor substitute?

I agree with you that LoTR is a better film than Spiderman.

I disagree that Kirsten is better looking than Liv. Liv is beautiful. IMHO.

As to the critics, is it possible they liked Spiderman more because they read the comics as kids and can better identify with that show? Mabye because he is an American hero? Just some guesses.

It's because it came out just before AOTC, and they were almost falling over themselves in their haste to compare AOTC unfavourably with something else.

It is totally laughable that Movie critics would say that Spiderman was better than LotR. That's just ridiculous. LotR is definately a classic. Aotc might end up being one.

I can see why they might say it about AotC because I think AotC had it's uneven moments but I still thought it was much more enjoyable than Spiderman.

Spiderman was a well done movie but nothing spectacular (pun not intended) but I had more fun with the two Blade movies and the X-Men film than I did with Spiderman. I think that Spiderman got so much hype because it was good for people who were big Spiderman fans, or for people who really didn't know much about Spiderman. I'm not a huge Spiderman fan but I have read a fair amount of the comics, including the recent Ultimate series that in a lot of ways updates certain parts of the story better than the movie did (in some cases the move was better though).

Darth Wong wrote:It's because it came out just before AOTC, and they were almost falling over themselves in their haste to compare AOTC unfavourably with something else.

But why are they angry with SW and LotR? What did those films ever do to them? I don't think they make any more money for promoting one film over another, and critics who rate movies in accordance with their actual, on-screen performance should be rewarded with additional readers as an incentive to make more accurate reviews.

Not to mention the Green Goblin; if Lucas had even dared to put a villain so unrelentingly cheesy in AoTC he would be the recipient of critical scorn for the rest of his life.

And MoO, while critics did unjustly pan the hell out of AoTC, the same cannot be said of FoTR; if you check the reviews at rottentomatoes.com, an astonishing 95% of them are positive. The only two major critics I can think of that did not love the film were Ebert and Roeper (Roeper HATED it, Ebert was lukewarm about it).

As for the panning of AoTC in favor of Spiderman, I don't know what to tell you. Movie critics have always had it out for Star Wars, why should it stop even with an excellent movie like AoTC?

Maybe Lucas' publically expressing his dislike for critics has something to do with AOTC's critical reception. Notice that a lot of critics were more reviewing George Lucas than Attack of the Clones.

Indeed, Spanky. If you check out the review archive for EpII at rottentomatoes.com (an EXCELLENT resource for movie reviews) you'll find loads of full frontal ad hominem attacks on poor GL.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Maybe Lucas' publically expressing his dislike for critics has something to do with AOTC's critical reception. Notice that a lot of critics were more reviewing George Lucas than Attack of the Clones.

I would ordinarily agree with you, but there are so many unfavorable comparisons of LotR when compared with Spiderman out there, and the LOUSY reviews given even to the first SW film, that point to something else. What do the critics want? Why are they doing this?

Tsyroc wrote:I think that Spiderman got so much hype because it was good for people who were big Spiderman fans, or for people who really didn't know much about Spiderman.

I agree: Spiderman was WAY overhyped, and turned out to be a somewhat above-average film.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Maybe Lucas' publically expressing his dislike for critics has something to do with AOTC's critical reception. Notice that a lot of critics were more reviewing George Lucas than Attack of the Clones.

I would ordinarily agree with you, but there are so many unfavorable comparisons of LotR when compared with Spiderman out there, and the LOUSY reviews given even to the first SW film, that point to something else. What do the critics want? Why are they doing this?

Really, I've seen plenty of reviews bashing AoTC and blowing their respective loads over Spiderman, but none doing so to LoTR. Can you give me a link(s)?

IG-88E wrote:

Tsyroc wrote:I think that Spiderman got so much hype because it was good for people who were big Spiderman fans, or for people who really didn't know much about Spiderman.

I agree: Spiderman was WAY overhyped, and turned out to be a somewhat above-average film.

I agree totally. It didn't have any major flaws but it didn't have any eye catching scenes either. I think it would have been a little better if they would have done something different for the Green Goblin's face instead of that big helmet but otherwise it was okay.

The digs against AotC have been well documented here but for some reason the critics don't bother focusing on ALL of the really high/cool points that, for me, made AotC much much more entertaining.

I still can't figure out what they were smoking that made them think Spiderman was better than LotR.

"Inconceivable" keeps coming to mind.

Tsyroc wrote:"Inconceivable" keeps coming to mind.

"Short-sighted fools" as well. :biggrin:

IIRC, didn't Ebert hate SW originally but change his mind after realizing "hey, these films are fucking classics"?

I don't think so.

In his original review from '77, he gave it about 3.5-4 stars.

However, the Washington Post, which published one of the most scathing reviews of AOTC in existence, also blasted TESB when it came out. Star Wars has never been popular with critics. The fact that it is widely regarded as "critic-proof" probably annoys the hell out of many of them, too.

Remember when TPM came out, and the critics went apeshit over "Blair Witch Project"? I seriously see a trend of overhyping anything that will compete with a Star Wars movie in any given year.

The review that most surprised me was the NY Times/fish wrapper review of the movie. Scathing.

Don't get me started on Blair Witch Project. Three dumb fucks lost in shrub. Oooohhh scary.

Vympel wrote:Don't get me started on Blair Witch Project. Three dumb fucks lost in shrub. Oooohhh scary.

I actually liked Blair Witch Project. I thought it was a good movie with a reasonably solid premise, but better than SW? Come on.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Vympel wrote:Don't get me started on Blair Witch Project. Three dumb fucks lost in shrub. Oooohhh scary.

I actually liked Blair Witch Project. I thought it was a good movie with a reasonably solid premise, but better than SW? Come on.

It was OK, but all the cursing turned me off. I mean, yes, my friends and I talk like that, but for god's sake, I don't rent a movie to get 2 hours of dialogue where 'fuck' is every other word. Jeez.

Number one. It is Spider-man not Spiderman. Note the hyphen.

LOTR
Spider-Man/AOTC

In my mind this is how it goes. LOTR was just kick-ass. Spider-man had some good moments, though it had some flaws. Kirsten Dunst looked sweet, but she is no Gwen Stacy. I would have preferred MJ appearing near the end comforting Peter over the death of Gwen Stacy at the end funeral. Peter would push her away because he now knows he cannot become close to somebody like that or she might end up like Gwen. Then it shows his intense walkaway with MJ in the background. Also, I have mixed feelings about the GG suit. It makes sense, but I liked the comic one better. His dialog was also cheesy as hell. Also, some of the acting was sub-par especially some of Spider-man's in costume stuff. However, this is not to say I didn't like the film. I thought it was pretty good. I am biased in that Spider-man is one of my favorite characters, but the movie could have been better. I liked the acrobatics and the CGI was good. He moved like Spidey. The first half was also pretty good. And I dug the famous Uncle Ben line and the whole Ben subplot. It was especially poignant because I already knew what was happen. The sense of inevitability was nice.

AOTC was decent but flawed due to the acting and writing. Anakin and Padme had spotty acting. The action was good but the romantic subplot needed a lot of work. Lucas needs to find someone to help direct and to help write.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Vympel wrote:Don't get me started on Blair Witch Project. Three dumb fucks lost in shrub. Oooohhh scary.

I actually liked Blair Witch Project. I thought it was a good movie with a reasonably solid premise, but better than SW? Come on.

I liked the orignality and the way it was filmed. But honestly, I thought the plot kinda sucked, especially the ending. And way overhyped.

The other one that critics these days seem really supportive of is Harry Potter. They're always comparing it to LotR (for obvious reasons), and while most of them correctly select LotR as the superior movie, there are the occasional ones that declare HP to be better. I have no CLUE what they're looking at. It doesn't seem right, to me.

Harry Potter was COMPLETELY uninvolving.