Though my current readership here is probably quite low, the general feedback (mostly negative) that I've heard around Spider-Man 3 has got me thinking about my film posts. I mean conventionally what I have done thus far is put up a synopsis and my 2 cents (I wouldn't call it a review really), as to whether I found the film entertaining or not from quite a personal stand point, with the odd standout points, that made me feel one way or another about it.

An interesting email trail between myself and a friend of mine led to me seeing that a lot of critics approach their reviews quite differently to what I have been doing here. Take for example: The Guardian and their review of the film. Please do read it to see what I am saying. Even in the initial blurn before he decides to dicuss the actual film, he just sounds plain bitter about the fact that there are sequels of films around. In fact that whole blurb merely says to me "Summer is here & there are too many sequels thatI'll review, boo hoo".

As you read on, it's more than apparent that the guy did not enjoy Spider-Man 3, my issue with his review is not this though, my issue is with the way he goes about saying this. I do find the Guardian reviews generally quite painful to read because they just attack the writers, actors and directors quite personally. Like a cussing match in the playground that were one-way.

Nothing wrong with that in theory, I mean if they didn't do thair job well, they may deserve it, & even I've done it in the past, however they should get their facts straight and they really don't in this case.

"All superheroes have to be "dark" now of course, to demonstrate their seriousness and non-geekiness, and Spider-Man is no exception. This, evidently, is the film in which he goes over to the dark side"

What is he talking about? Peter was still geeky, his talk of the physics of acoustics in the opening at the theatre & the fact that he takes the sample of this new suit to his professor at college to analyse are just a couple of examples to show he's still a geek. As for all superheroes having to be dark.. Let's see ... Superman Returns wasn't dark, Fantastic 4 wasn't dark, The Incredibles wasn't dark, you get my point.

Next up, "Peter Parker gets bitten by a sort of sticky, spider-webby stuff that has peeled off a meteor recently crash-landed in Central Park - and, er, that's it. A meteor. That's the only explanation. A plot development that must have caused writer-director Sam Raimi a good 20 seconds of Biro-chewing."

Again, get your facts straight, Raimi didn't write the source material himself, it's based on a comic book after all, he can only adapt it so much, else it wouldn't be the Spider-Man story. I mean we've suspended our belief enough to accept he got bit my a radioactive spider that gave him powers, so why the hell is a meteor so far-fetched?

The film did have its weaknesses, but these were not it. Anyway, moving on to a good rant on another blog that I ocassionally post on over at madaboutmovies.net. Now this man didn't think much of it either, but it was easy to read by comparison & to empathise with him, because he is explaining it as a spidey-fan, his expectations and how they were not met. Funnily enough though it is a rant by a fan rather than a review it covers more structural analysis than the above stated so-called review did, okay so the guy that ranted also has a site called Cinema Fusion but that's not the point.

Extract: So, do I blame Sam Raimi for the mess that was Spider-Man 3? Not completely, but of course, to an extent. First and foremost, it just felt like his heart wasn’t in this movie. He was determined to make it known that he didn’t want Venom in the third movie. When it was finally announced by the studio that Venom would make an appearance, the reluctance in his words were apparent. He simply didn’t want to do it - but Marvel producer Avi Arad told Raimi, “You did the first two movies for yourself, do this one for the fans. They want Venom.” .. full post

Back to my mail trail mostly about the film and these two articles, we narrowed it down to one major difference in approach that was apparent: If you know the characters well (via the comics) you're looking for a real life-version of Spiderman, else a real-life Superhero film about a man who becomes The Human Spider.

So, should an ideal film critic approach the film as a film only, to see whether it stands on its own merit and delivers all the complexities of story, plot, character, action, drama & development? Should it also be taking in to account what's gone on previously in the film world to perhaps compare with? (ie; groundbreaking stuff, or not?).. or should it suffice to just do what I do and just blurt your initial reaction?

I'm not suggesting I plan on any huge changes here, though I am toying with the idea of breaking down a film into its structural components, I think that'd be interesting from a writer perspective, just for practice, but anyway .. Your thoughts??