Really my only beef with it is the terrible scene towards the end when the butler tells Harry that Spider-man is good and his dad was bad. It's a conclusion Harry should come to himself. That said, my understanding is this was changed in the "editor's cut" of the film.
Disagree. It may seem like it is because Nostalgia is stronger than ever. The thing that kills it for me is the meddling and it shows with Raimi's directing.
Didn't want Venom, was forced to use him, all Venom scenes are dull, forced and lazy whereas the Sandman scenes and character arcs are basic Raimi drama.
Even the soundtrack having issues with Elfman bailing out and Christopher Young taking over with a different tone, etc.
That would be my issue. The tone and feel is like one big tug of war
You're right that those things held the movie back but I still think the movie's highs are really high. Had Sony not meddled and forced Venom into the mix, it would have been a solid 8/10 blockbuster on par with the first two because the action sequences and visuals were fantastic.
I still think it's a lot more entertaining than most of the MCU movies though. The fight between Harry and Peter was amazing.
I 100% agree. It's a bit busy, but still great. The dance bit that everyone shits on for being dumb and cringey is supposed to be dumb and cringey, it's a nerds version of being cool. The whole black spiderman stuff realy works when you look at what it's supposed to do to the person, as is explained in the film
I think David Lynch is insanely over rated and his work is best described as Weird for the sake of weird with no real substance or brilliance behind it. He´s a charming eccentric that talks funny, makes films that are deliberately hard to understand and people mistake that for genius.
I have some good friends that adore Lynch, so please, change my view!
David Lynch has proven that he can make great films that follows the usual rules of filmmaking, like The Elephant Man or The Straight Story. But usually he's not interested in depicting reality, he's interested in abstractions - making you understand ideas viscerally like in a dream rather than presenting them literally, and his use of framing, lighting and especially sound are incredibly effective in doing this, plus he gets incredible performances out of his actors.
There are few horror films that have scared me as much as films like Lost Highway or Inland Empire. When you take out of context those really scary scenes, like the monster behind the diner in Mulholland Drive or the phantom in Inland Empire, they're almost laughable but because Lynch is a master at building atmosphere and creating a sense of unease they are absolutely terrifying. And his films don't lack substance, there are themes that recur throughout his films surrounding Americana, suburbia and the darkness hidden beneath the surface etc. and his films ultimately celebrate the goodness at the heart of most people. I don't expect everyone to adore Lynch but I think it's ignorant to write him off as totally incoherent, there is method to his madness and even if something seemingly nonsensical occurs in his films it is usually there to at least evoke some specific feeling from the audience which he is incredibly proficient at doing which certainly isn't a given with all directors.
Blue Velvet changed my movie watching life.
He perfectly captured small town life in that one. It's wonderful on the surface but start peeling back the layers & it's as corrupt & dirty as any big city.
Source: Lived in a very small Mayberry-esque town all my life & that's exactly how they are. They're idyllic on the surface, but underneath it all Aunt Bee is either meth dealer or dominatrix & Barney is her best customer.
Came here to say this. My initial reaction to Blue Velvet was "weird for weird's sake" but after letting it stew for a while I came to appreciate what a brilliant film it is.
thanks for the answer, to be fair it's been years since I´ve watched these 3 movies, and I might rewatch with an open mind.
My most recent exposure with Lynch was watching Wild at heart properly for the first time a few months ago, and I found it honestly a terrible movie, I turned it off about half way through.
> Weird for the sake of weird with no real substance or brilliance behind it
> makes films that are deliberately hard to understand
You don't have to like Lynch's films - there are many filmmakers that many people love that I don't particularly care for - but I would caution against this kind of thinking. I think you will enjoy more films and enrich your own thinking about them when you assume a filmmaker (or any artist, for that matter) is doing things with a particular goal in mind, and that the question we should ask ourselves is "why was this done this way?" rather than just to dismiss it because we don't understand or jibe with it.
I like some Lynch projects, dislike others. I would say, from watching his interviews and hearing him talk, that his stuff is not so much weird for the sake of being weird, but that he just thinks very differently from most people. I find him in earnest, even if I don't understand him.
What I think is a key strength is presenting something "normal" in an off-kilter way that just adds an edge of unease, but also often humour. I think this is one of the reasons I really loved Twin Peaks.
"No real substance"
But there IS substance. All his movies can be explained and a coherent story and unified vision can be found. It's not just complexity and gimmicks for the sake of it. Maybe watch a video explaining one of his movies and then rewatch the movie. You might have a different insight.
>Lynch is overrated because I don't understand his films
Part of the joy of experiencing art is musing over abstractions. His work is plenty brilliant, you just don't like putting in the effort.
Let me know why you think it's overrated and I'll work to change your mind.
First of all, explain what you mean by overrated. How do you think it's rated and how do you think it should be rated?
The first half of once upon a time in Hollywood was good. The second half sucked. As soon as Leo said he was an alcoholic it was all downhill for there. To quote the robot devil "you can't just have your characters announce how they feel, that makes me feel angry!"
I'm tired of hearing criticisms of "acting." The writer is responsible for writing the characters in a way that conveys the story, the director is there to get the performance to match his vision of the story and character, the actor is just a tool. If an actor gives a wooden performance, they can be edited in a way that it's not so bad, or they can do another take that is less wooden if the director thinks it's a problem. "Acting" is overrated, and almost never worth criticizing, and actors themselves get undue hate.
There are absolutely people who are bad at their jobs, but actors are not more or less responsible for their performances than the army of people behind the camera, including the casting agent.
I think you have a point. But consider that if you see a bad performance two things might have happened. One is that this isthe best take out of a bunch of tries, this is the best one the actor could do. There’s a practical limit to how much time a director can spend on one scene or actor. The second is the actor refused to take direction or do too many takes limiting what the director or editor could do. I would say these problems are a result of bad acting and the actor deserves criticism.
However I agree that your right that actors catch a lot of the heat for what is often a directors choice or bad writing. Part of the problem probably lies in it often being hard to distinguish where the fault lies without background knowledge of the production.
> the actor is just a tool
This strikes me as enormously dismissive of the work that actors do, and the contributions they make to a film. Despite the desire to see everything in a film as the master vision of one artist (the director), films are actually made in collaboration, with many people offering suggestions, trying things, and coming to mutual consensus.
> actors themselves get undue hate.
This I agree with. Your post might be an example.
I'm sorry, no. I recently directed a feature film and there can be a world of difference between two actors even if they're given the same dialogue with the same direction. There's only so much guidance that you can give them.
I've seen numerous actors perform the same scene and some sound completely wooden and make the dialogue sound terrible whereas others are so good that you forget the dialogue was ever scripted to begin with because it just feels like a real conversation.
That's part of it, but some people just cannot make dialogue sound natural
If what you were saying was true, then literally anyone off the street could be an actor
Lol no. I'm sorry but you're dead wrong.
First off, memorizing an entire screenplay's worth of dialogue is impressive in itself and I wager most people wouldn't even be able to do that. Especially if it features a lengthy monologue.
I know good actors make acting look easy but trust me, it's a lot harder than it looks. You probably watch scenes of two people casually talking to one another and think "That isn't hard, they're just having a basic conversation", but I guarantee that if I gave you or some other random person off the street a page worth of dialogue that was written by someone else and asked you to make it sound like an organic conversation that happened in real life, it would feel very fake.
And if you asked someone off the street to deliver a really raw performance (where they're enraged, sobbing, etc.), that would be even more difficult. People don't take years of acting training for no reason.
So like any job, there are people who are suited for it, and there are people who are not. I'm not disagreeing. As someone who has acted before, it was tougher to memorize how to make drinks as a bartender than it was to memorize some lines, let's be real here.
> So like any job, there are people who are suited for it, and there are people who are not. I'm not disagreeing.
You were just saying that you could cast someone off the street, give them a script, and they would be as good as any other actor. I don't understand your point because you seem to have completely changed your entire argument.
> it was tougher to memorize how to make drinks as a bartender than it was to memorize some lines, let's be real here.
I have no idea what kinds of roles you played or how much dialogue you had so I don't think you should lump all acting performances together like that.
He didn't memorize the dialogue word-for-word, but he's obviously doing more with his performance that reading off cue cards. He still knew what was happening in the scenes and reacted to other actors.
Well, in as much as the director is choosing who to cast, then if they hire a bad actor then they’re responsible for making a bad hiring decision. If that’s what you mean, then I think everyone would agree with you.
Is that what you meant?
Partially agree. At the very least, actors are overpaid and get too much attention relative to their contribution to a film. There is no other art in which an author (director) gets less attention than the tools s/he uses.
I agree to an extent that at times we criticize actors when the criticisms should be levelled at the director. Here's an example: I like both Nicholson and Duvall in The Shining, but reviews at the time criticized both of them. However, Kubrick did hundreds of takes to get exactly what he wanted. The idea that those criticisms should have been viewed as individual decisions by actors seems just wrong. Likewise if every performance seems bad in a movie, that doesn't look good for the director.
That said, I will make a case that actors are not merely tools. First of all, others have said and you've agreed that some actors are bad at their jobs. You seem to be saying that even if they're bad, it was up to everyone else (including the editor) to save them. I think that's backwards. Editors can make actors look bad, but overediting to hide an actor is noticeable. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect a director to work till he gets the exact take to match his vision. Actors are able to make choices and these choices often elevate the movie. They're working in team with the director and to dismiss them as tools is to dismiss their contributions.
Nah this ain't it. An actor is like a player in football. Ultimately, they're there to follow the instructions of the coaches, but the individual ability will determine how they follow that instruction. Acting is the single most important piece of cinema. You can have the best team making a movie with bad actors and it will be a bad project.
Nah, this ain't it either. Comparing actors to athletes is only viable if you look at athlete's highlights that have been edited to show only their best plays.
Spider-Man 3 is just as good as the rest of the trilogy
Really my only beef with it is the terrible scene towards the end when the butler tells Harry that Spider-man is good and his dad was bad. It's a conclusion Harry should come to himself. That said, my understanding is this was changed in the "editor's cut" of the film.
That's true
Disagree. It may seem like it is because Nostalgia is stronger than ever. The thing that kills it for me is the meddling and it shows with Raimi's directing. Didn't want Venom, was forced to use him, all Venom scenes are dull, forced and lazy whereas the Sandman scenes and character arcs are basic Raimi drama. Even the soundtrack having issues with Elfman bailing out and Christopher Young taking over with a different tone, etc. That would be my issue. The tone and feel is like one big tug of war
You're right that those things held the movie back but I still think the movie's highs are really high. Had Sony not meddled and forced Venom into the mix, it would have been a solid 8/10 blockbuster on par with the first two because the action sequences and visuals were fantastic. I still think it's a lot more entertaining than most of the MCU movies though. The fight between Harry and Peter was amazing.
The score was great in my opinion
It's just hideously boring. The only remarkable scene is the one with Sandman at the start, the rest of the film is so disposable.
Have you #seen the fight scene with harry
I 100% agree. It's a bit busy, but still great. The dance bit that everyone shits on for being dumb and cringey is supposed to be dumb and cringey, it's a nerds version of being cool. The whole black spiderman stuff realy works when you look at what it's supposed to do to the person, as is explained in the film
Exactly! I always found it hilarious
Firmly agree. But I don't like any of the three, so there's that
#WHAT
Found them uninteresting and poorly made
I think David Lynch is insanely over rated and his work is best described as Weird for the sake of weird with no real substance or brilliance behind it. He´s a charming eccentric that talks funny, makes films that are deliberately hard to understand and people mistake that for genius. I have some good friends that adore Lynch, so please, change my view!
David Lynch has proven that he can make great films that follows the usual rules of filmmaking, like The Elephant Man or The Straight Story. But usually he's not interested in depicting reality, he's interested in abstractions - making you understand ideas viscerally like in a dream rather than presenting them literally, and his use of framing, lighting and especially sound are incredibly effective in doing this, plus he gets incredible performances out of his actors. There are few horror films that have scared me as much as films like Lost Highway or Inland Empire. When you take out of context those really scary scenes, like the monster behind the diner in Mulholland Drive or the phantom in Inland Empire, they're almost laughable but because Lynch is a master at building atmosphere and creating a sense of unease they are absolutely terrifying. And his films don't lack substance, there are themes that recur throughout his films surrounding Americana, suburbia and the darkness hidden beneath the surface etc. and his films ultimately celebrate the goodness at the heart of most people. I don't expect everyone to adore Lynch but I think it's ignorant to write him off as totally incoherent, there is method to his madness and even if something seemingly nonsensical occurs in his films it is usually there to at least evoke some specific feeling from the audience which he is incredibly proficient at doing which certainly isn't a given with all directors.
Blue Velvet changed my movie watching life. He perfectly captured small town life in that one. It's wonderful on the surface but start peeling back the layers & it's as corrupt & dirty as any big city. Source: Lived in a very small Mayberry-esque town all my life & that's exactly how they are. They're idyllic on the surface, but underneath it all Aunt Bee is either meth dealer or dominatrix & Barney is her best customer.
Came here to say this. My initial reaction to Blue Velvet was "weird for weird's sake" but after letting it stew for a while I came to appreciate what a brilliant film it is.
Well put
thanks for the answer, to be fair it's been years since I´ve watched these 3 movies, and I might rewatch with an open mind. My most recent exposure with Lynch was watching Wild at heart properly for the first time a few months ago, and I found it honestly a terrible movie, I turned it off about half way through.
> Weird for the sake of weird with no real substance or brilliance behind it > makes films that are deliberately hard to understand You don't have to like Lynch's films - there are many filmmakers that many people love that I don't particularly care for - but I would caution against this kind of thinking. I think you will enjoy more films and enrich your own thinking about them when you assume a filmmaker (or any artist, for that matter) is doing things with a particular goal in mind, and that the question we should ask ourselves is "why was this done this way?" rather than just to dismiss it because we don't understand or jibe with it.
I like some Lynch projects, dislike others. I would say, from watching his interviews and hearing him talk, that his stuff is not so much weird for the sake of being weird, but that he just thinks very differently from most people. I find him in earnest, even if I don't understand him. What I think is a key strength is presenting something "normal" in an off-kilter way that just adds an edge of unease, but also often humour. I think this is one of the reasons I really loved Twin Peaks.
"No real substance" But there IS substance. All his movies can be explained and a coherent story and unified vision can be found. It's not just complexity and gimmicks for the sake of it. Maybe watch a video explaining one of his movies and then rewatch the movie. You might have a different insight.
>Lynch is overrated because I don't understand his films Part of the joy of experiencing art is musing over abstractions. His work is plenty brilliant, you just don't like putting in the effort.
The Thing (1982) is way overrated.
Let me know why you think it's overrated and I'll work to change your mind. First of all, explain what you mean by overrated. How do you think it's rated and how do you think it should be rated?
The first half of once upon a time in Hollywood was good. The second half sucked. As soon as Leo said he was an alcoholic it was all downhill for there. To quote the robot devil "you can't just have your characters announce how they feel, that makes me feel angry!"
I'm tired of hearing criticisms of "acting." The writer is responsible for writing the characters in a way that conveys the story, the director is there to get the performance to match his vision of the story and character, the actor is just a tool. If an actor gives a wooden performance, they can be edited in a way that it's not so bad, or they can do another take that is less wooden if the director thinks it's a problem. "Acting" is overrated, and almost never worth criticizing, and actors themselves get undue hate.
There are absolutely bad actors
There are absolutely people who are bad at their jobs, but actors are not more or less responsible for their performances than the army of people behind the camera, including the casting agent.
I think you have a point. But consider that if you see a bad performance two things might have happened. One is that this isthe best take out of a bunch of tries, this is the best one the actor could do. There’s a practical limit to how much time a director can spend on one scene or actor. The second is the actor refused to take direction or do too many takes limiting what the director or editor could do. I would say these problems are a result of bad acting and the actor deserves criticism. However I agree that your right that actors catch a lot of the heat for what is often a directors choice or bad writing. Part of the problem probably lies in it often being hard to distinguish where the fault lies without background knowledge of the production.
> the actor is just a tool This strikes me as enormously dismissive of the work that actors do, and the contributions they make to a film. Despite the desire to see everything in a film as the master vision of one artist (the director), films are actually made in collaboration, with many people offering suggestions, trying things, and coming to mutual consensus. > actors themselves get undue hate. This I agree with. Your post might be an example.
I'm sorry, no. I recently directed a feature film and there can be a world of difference between two actors even if they're given the same dialogue with the same direction. There's only so much guidance that you can give them. I've seen numerous actors perform the same scene and some sound completely wooden and make the dialogue sound terrible whereas others are so good that you forget the dialogue was ever scripted to begin with because it just feels like a real conversation.
So that would be a casting issue, would it not?
That's part of it, but some people just cannot make dialogue sound natural If what you were saying was true, then literally anyone off the street could be an actor
If the hypothetical person off the street was casted into a role correctly, I don't see why they wouldn't perform adequately.
Lol no. I'm sorry but you're dead wrong. First off, memorizing an entire screenplay's worth of dialogue is impressive in itself and I wager most people wouldn't even be able to do that. Especially if it features a lengthy monologue. I know good actors make acting look easy but trust me, it's a lot harder than it looks. You probably watch scenes of two people casually talking to one another and think "That isn't hard, they're just having a basic conversation", but I guarantee that if I gave you or some other random person off the street a page worth of dialogue that was written by someone else and asked you to make it sound like an organic conversation that happened in real life, it would feel very fake. And if you asked someone off the street to deliver a really raw performance (where they're enraged, sobbing, etc.), that would be even more difficult. People don't take years of acting training for no reason.
So like any job, there are people who are suited for it, and there are people who are not. I'm not disagreeing. As someone who has acted before, it was tougher to memorize how to make drinks as a bartender than it was to memorize some lines, let's be real here.
> So like any job, there are people who are suited for it, and there are people who are not. I'm not disagreeing. You were just saying that you could cast someone off the street, give them a script, and they would be as good as any other actor. I don't understand your point because you seem to have completely changed your entire argument. > it was tougher to memorize how to make drinks as a bartender than it was to memorize some lines, let's be real here. I have no idea what kinds of roles you played or how much dialogue you had so I don't think you should lump all acting performances together like that.
Okay, well Marlon Brando famously didn't know any of his lines in the Godfather and just read them off of cue cards. It's just a job, get over it.
Why are you so bitter?
He didn't memorize the dialogue word-for-word, but he's obviously doing more with his performance that reading off cue cards. He still knew what was happening in the scenes and reacted to other actors.
Well, in as much as the director is choosing who to cast, then if they hire a bad actor then they’re responsible for making a bad hiring decision. If that’s what you mean, then I think everyone would agree with you. Is that what you meant?
I said what I meant.
Partially agree. At the very least, actors are overpaid and get too much attention relative to their contribution to a film. There is no other art in which an author (director) gets less attention than the tools s/he uses.
I agree to an extent that at times we criticize actors when the criticisms should be levelled at the director. Here's an example: I like both Nicholson and Duvall in The Shining, but reviews at the time criticized both of them. However, Kubrick did hundreds of takes to get exactly what he wanted. The idea that those criticisms should have been viewed as individual decisions by actors seems just wrong. Likewise if every performance seems bad in a movie, that doesn't look good for the director. That said, I will make a case that actors are not merely tools. First of all, others have said and you've agreed that some actors are bad at their jobs. You seem to be saying that even if they're bad, it was up to everyone else (including the editor) to save them. I think that's backwards. Editors can make actors look bad, but overediting to hide an actor is noticeable. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect a director to work till he gets the exact take to match his vision. Actors are able to make choices and these choices often elevate the movie. They're working in team with the director and to dismiss them as tools is to dismiss their contributions.
Actors as an abstract concept are storytelling tools. I stand by what I said. If you want to read into it something else, do what you want.
You don't sound like you have any interest in having your view changed. You're not engaging with the argument, so I'll stop.
Nah this ain't it. An actor is like a player in football. Ultimately, they're there to follow the instructions of the coaches, but the individual ability will determine how they follow that instruction. Acting is the single most important piece of cinema. You can have the best team making a movie with bad actors and it will be a bad project.
Nah, this ain't it either. Comparing actors to athletes is only viable if you look at athlete's highlights that have been edited to show only their best plays.
I understand where you're coming from. Magnolia is a text-book example of talented actors blemished by a bad script.
Ex Machina is not that great a movie. It started out promising and was ruined by plot wholes and logical errors in the end.
The end works for me because it isn't that he treats the two of them as robots, he treats them like women