TNT's NBA studio team is excellent, but I swear to God I just heard Kenny Smith argue that Spiderman 3 was better than Spiderman 2 but "1 was the best." I liked 3 better than most, but that's insane; I don't believe he's even seen the movies, nobody could possibly think that.
« Casualty Rates | Main | MSM Rules »
What?
13 May 2007 10:33 pm
Comments (16)
If 3 was worse than 2, I have no desire to see 3. Sigh.
1 was the best.
I was listening with half an ear, but it's possible he was talking about movies with multiple sequels generally.
nobody could possibly think that.
thanks for calling me 'nobody.' i'll remember that yglesias....
A lot of film criticism is essentially, "This isn't exactly how I would have made it," which is boring. The films were exactly what they were supposed to be.
I'd say that all three are exactly as good as each other. They're perfectly matched in tone. I think the films all succeed as comic book films. The cheesy humor, the comic book violence, the earnestness, effing awesome JK Simmons, etc. I happened to love the excess of the third, with three different bad guys, etc. Comic books are really like that. Not all movies need to be the perfectly formed Robert McKee thing.
You heard the TNT crew correctly; I haven't seen three, but of course one was better than two (both are very good).
I didn't like any of them...
though I still shelled out my cash for all 3. Either I'm a masochist or I was the sucker born that one minute 35 years ago.
Wow, I didn't actually know that there were humans who liked 1 better than 2. After seeing 3 this afternoon, I feel its pretty obvious that 1 was best.
Put me in the "Preferred 1 to 2" camp. Haven't seen 3 yet and, based on what I've heard, I'm not in a hurry to.
I wasn't really crazy about any of them, but I did like 3 the best. However, considering how many people disagree with me I'm pretty sure that I'm just straight up wrong about that.
I skip your basketball posts because I just have no interest. I'll now skip your movie/cultural posts because, well, you have no taste. If I want to read the movie opinions of adolescent boys who think throwaway movies are the ne plus ultra of cimema--and expressed in silly "so's your old man" terms ("no one could possibly think that"), IMDB awaits.
adolescent boys who think throwaway movies are the ne plus ultra of cimema--and expressed in silly "so's your old man" terms
There's a certain humor involved in saying this to someone whose old man wrote the script for "Batman Begins" . . .
I liked Donald Duck cartoons. They were short enough to be entertaining.
Conventional wisdom says 2>1>3.
I can understand 1>2>3. Or 2>3>1.
But 1>3>2 (Kenny Smith's position) is indeed pretty crazy. I don't think anyone else here has adopted it.
The endings in all of the Spiderman movies are really weak. To me the making of the super hero was the most exciting part but I applaud Raimi for not making the sequels as soulless as, say, The Mummy 2
"There's a certain humor involved in saying this to someone whose old man wrote the script for 'Batman Begins' . ."
David S. Goyer's, or Christopher Nolan's, kids posted here?
Maybe you're thinking of the movie version of From Hell?
Comments closed May 27, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I haven't seen 3, but I liked 1 better than 2. I think 2 beat people over the head with the great power / great responsibility thing a little too much. It's a message I absolutely agree with and admire the movies for presenting, but I think it was presented with the appropriate level of subtlety in 1.
Also, the 'MJ flees her wedding' scene at the end of 2 seemed improperly motivated to me.
Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 13, 2007 10:40 PM