IÃ‚ÂÂ did see Spiderman 3, this past weekend and I would rate as high as the 1st, an A! Apparently though, I'm in the minority and no I don't know where Ted went off to.
(What is below is my previous thoughts on the other 2 Spiderman movies):
July 10, 2004
The Battle Rages on: Review of Spiderman 2
I saw Spider-Man 2 today. Now to answer the burning questions: 1). What did I think? It is absolutely fantastic and once again is brilliantly directed by Sam Raimi! 2). Is it better than the first, as some critics have suggested?
In my humble critic's opinion: No, It is equal to the first. I feel that both films are a set of bookends, complement each other as well as standing on their own, as separate entities.
We see that most of cast has grown and matured in the last couple of years, adding depth to their characters. Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker is still wrestling with Spider-Man persona, at one point quitting just so he can have a life, of going to college; holding down a job and perhaps pursue Mary Jane Watson the love of his life. If he isn't too late!
Mary Jane Watson played by Kirsten Dunst is now an accomplished stage actress. But she too wrestles with her feelings for Peter and the sense of wanting to move on. I like how realistic Maguire/Dunst play their Not Peter/Mary Jane loves dance without trivializing it.
I am very impressed by James Franco as Harry Osborn. He seems more tortured both by his own ghosts, as well as those he has inherited from his father, Dr. Norman Osborn, brilliantly played by Willem Dafoe, in the first movie. As this sequel progresses Harry's desires and resentments deepen from winning approval to make Osborn Corporation the best, to avenging Spider-Man for supposedly his father's death, to resisting the temptation of being the next Green Goblin. I was also amazed with every appearance by Harry, how much he looks like Norman.
July 9, 2004 Critics Do Listen!
Today, I got a surprise email, a response from Teddy Durgin.
So, film critics really do listen:
" I absolutely LOVED the casting. Dafoe IS a great screen villain. What I objected to was that ridiculous costume they put him in that hid that magnificently malevolent face of his. He was VASTLY scarier out of the costume in front of the mirror, at the Thanksgiving table. The decision was made not to make the character too scary for younger audiences, to sell action figures, etc. I would like to have seen the Goblin in some kind of prosthetic makeup that still let Dafoe be Dafoe and work his magic."
June 29 2005 — Today I eagerly awaited my email from film critic, Teddy Durgin's review of Spiderman 2. He gave it a rave, I probably will too, when I see it, hopefully over the July 4th weekend or soon afterwards.
What I take exception to is, in Ted's second paragraph he states: "Gone is the silly Green Goblin villain in the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers costume." (I will concede that the costume looks like it was taken from the Creature of the Black Lagoon Collection), But I absolutely LOVED the Green Goblin!!
Here's why: There had already been the Superman and Batman live action movies, so I thought what could the difference be? After all, I had never been "buggie" about Spiderman as a kid. Only reading a comic book or seeing the cartoon here or there.
Then what could have changed my mind, you ask? Simply put: Williem Dafoe. When I saw him recently on the "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," promoting the movie. I had seen him in "White Sands" and "The English Patient," so I knew what a strong, diverse character actor he is. Dafoe plays Dr. Norman Osborne/The Green Goblin. A character I can identify with, perhaps because I too have played a mad scientist once or twice myself.
It is interesting that I used the term "buggie" in my first review of Spiderman and now the villain Doc Ock, is too.
Whom do you prefer?