I think I'm gonna go have to go out on a limb here and more than likely be the lone wolf here......
Yeah. Despite how horrible
Batman and Robin was...is...ever will be, I think I'm gonna go ahead and place
Spider-Man 3 on the list of
Horrible Comic Films That I Really Never Want To See Again.
Now while looking at my reasons, you have to take this into consideration:
Gothamite said:
The only real argument I can think of where Doom might actually be right is that you have to kind of take into account that Batman & Robin was made ten years before Spider-Man 3 and high concept films were a different thing back then.
Acting
Almost every actor in
B and R is horribly and cheesy. Yes that's a given. Michael Gough as Alfred is pretty much on Alfred-Autopilot and just trying to stay alive long enough to take his check from this and get one last trip to Aruba in before he settles into the grave. Chris O'Donnell is just being Chris O'Donnell....which is nothing special. And Alicia Silverstone is simply there because they wanted a Batgirl and she was one of Hollywood's "It Girls" at the time. And yes, Uma and Arnold were pretty much just there collecting a paycheck. The only one who seemed to be having any sort of fun was, in fact, Clooney. It's like he
knew that the film was supposed to be mocking the old 60s TV series and decided to really play up the campy, billionaire playboy role of Bruce. Too bad that with all his Clooney Charm, he never really captured the dark, brooding Batman character properly (which ironically was Tobey's problem with his Peter Parker).
The acting
SM3 is not really any better. It's just instead of cheesy, they were all told to just be the same you were in
SM2 only add some super-broody and angst ridden attitude to that. Aunt May was the same old-biddy. Tobey as Peter continued to be boring and stiff. Kirsten Dunst has always been annoying. Always. To be honest, the only 2 people worth seeing in the movie is Simmons as JJJ and a few scenes of Franco hamming it up (see the So Good Pie Scene). But even then, the acting of the film still falls flat due to time constraints meaning there's no room for any real character development since they have so much to fit in.
Granted, these are both "comic book films" and you can't really expect too much from the films (
Dark Knight aside). Both films are also "comic" products of their time. 90s was all about extreme costume armor and quippy dialouge and what big star can they get on screen. The generation of comic films, thankfully often opt to get the actor who will best portray their character and not base their casting on who's the biggest name. But unfortunately, the new generation also has an even larger avenue of cross marketing.
Story
Both are just plagued with too much going and it shows. There's really nothing more I can argue about.
Sure there's obviously a better script with
SM3, but in the end so many things are introduced but not properly executed or followed up on. Why would Silverstone want to be Batgirl for no real reason other than he uncle is the butler of Batman? Harry finally decides to get over his dad's death and be Pete's best friend because the butler told him to "man up"? Sandman is just trying to get some money to pay his daughter's medical bills and has no real motivation to fight Spiderman....but he'll do it anyway because Venom says so?
Shark Jumping Moments
For every Batman and Robin having built-in ice skates....there's Uncle Ben's killer being Sandman.
There's other little things, but too many to mention. While in the end,
SM3 will, in fact, be a better movie than
B and R.....based on the time period of which they were created, they're both on the same level of horrible.