Theatrical Review of Spider-Man 3

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

Note: You might find a few spoilers in the following reviews. Proceed with caution.

The Film According to John:
Filmmaker Sam Raimi and stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst couldn't miss with "Spider-Man 3"; it's got a built-in audience that would watch the film no matter what the critics say. Can't blame them. The first "Spider-Man" movie they did was pretty good, except for some herky-jerky CGI, and the second movie was terrific, for me entering the pantheon of all-time great superhero flicks like "Superman: The Movie" (1978), "Batman" (1989), and "Batman Begins" (2005). But after such a great second entry, I must confess, this third "Spider-Man" disappointed me greatly. Maybe it was too much to expect Raimi and company to top themselves again.

I should have suspected something was up after watching the film's trailer several times during the months before the picture opened. The trailer was anything but promising, and, in fact, it left me bewildered as to exactly what "Spidey 3" was about. As it turns out, the trailer wasn't wrong; the movie is more than a little confused on the subject of what it's about.

Here's the thing: "Spider-Man 2" succeeded because it had a coherent plot line, a strong villain, and, most important, a big heart when it came to Peter Parker (Maguire) and his relationship with his girlfriend, Mary Jane Watson (Dunst), as well as with his own alter ego. It wove Peter's superhero adventures tightly into its story line about his problems with Mary Jane and his individual identity crisis. But this third time out, Raimi drops the ball. The plot is fragmentary and disordered, the villains too many and weakly divided, and the personal conflicts poorly defined.

I mean, the narrative here is all over the place. It's got good guys turning bad, bad guys turning good, good guys turning into bad guys turning into good guys, bad guys turning into.... The preschooler sitting next to me fell asleep about fifteen minutes into the film and didn't wake up until it was almost over. I felt the same way.

Let's see: There's Peter's onetime best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), deciding to follow in his dad's footsteps as another evil Green Goblin. There's a semi-sympathetic villain with the comic-book name of Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), who turns into a gigantic Sandman for reasons too silly to explain. There's a glob of substance that shows up in a meteorite and turns anybody it touches evil. Naturally, it attaches itself to Peter and turns him to the Dark Side. Then there's Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), a new kid on the block trying to take Peter's place on the newspaper, and Gwen Stacy ( Bryce Dallas Howard), a new girl on the block trying to take Mary Jane's place in Peter's life; the list goes on.

The only characters who make any impression are fantasy-adventure icon Bruce Campbell as a snooty French maitre d' in a fancy French restaurant and "Spider-Man" creator Stan Lee as a passerby in Times Square. As in the first two "Spidey" movies, Campbell's bit part appears to come right out of a Monty Python routine, and his and Lee's appearances add the only moments of fun to the proceedings.

Then there's Peter's relationship with Mary Jane, which worked so well in movie number two but seems labored and muddled here. We thought, didn't we, that they had come to an understanding of one another by the end of the second installment? But here their whole relationship falls to pieces, as jealousy and indifference and ridiculously bad communications take their toll. Actually, it seems like Raimi and company just wanted to inject as many interpersonal complications into the story as possible to give it some sort of artificial heart, so he started making up contrived romantic melodrama to fill in the dead spots between action sequences.

And about those action segments: What with Raimi's multitude of quick edits, close-ups, and not-always-convincing CGI special effects, plus Christopher Young's pounding musical track turned up to the threshold of pain, they come off as more frenetic than exciting. Frankly, I was glad when each of them was over, except that I knew it meant getting back to more cloying dialogue, which wasn't any better. This is the most glaringly mechanical, manipulative, and sentimental "Spidey" movie of the trio, what with alternating fighting sequences and dramatic scenes, flashbacks to Peter's uncle's death, his dear aunt's constant attention, a little girl who longs for her convict father, a kindly old butler straight out of the "Batman" series, and all the ardent, romantic entanglements we encounter along the way.

Here's what I was thinking as I left the theater: Raimi, who not only directed but co-wrote the screenplay, must have had half a dozen different story ideas in mind for future "Spider-Man" movies and couldn't decide which one of them to use for number three, which he figured might be his last. So he used them all.

I reflected further that if he did have to employ multiple villains, why not have divided the movie into chapters, like an old-time serial, using a different villain in each one, with cliff-hangers to boot? As it is, "Spider-Man 3" feels forced, cluttered, oddly dead, and way, way, way too long at 140 minutes. Raimi could have deleted a good half hour or more without anybody's noticing.

Yeah, the movie's still got the cute and naively charming Maguire and Dunst as its leads, but this time out they're pretty much on their own and asked to cover practically the same ground they trod in the first two films. Given the enormous $258,000,000 estimated budget for this movie, you'd think somebody would have given a moment's consideration to the script.

John's rating: 5/10

The Film According to Jason:
Only three other comic book-turned-movie franchises have as many or more installments than "Spider-Man": "Batman" and "Superman" (each with five theatrical films total) and "X-Men" (three entries). Whereas each of those series were run into the ground with a virtual revolving door of creative talent-directors and writers coming and going on all of them, "Spider-Man" has been relatively quiet behind the scenes. Sam Raimi directed all three, and the main stars remained constant through the films. With a group on board who created arguably the best comic-book movie ever ("Spider-Man 2"), why does the third entry in the web-slinger series not live up to expectations?

Raimi and crew carried the weight of lofty expectations on their shoulders. The first movie out of the summer gate, "Spider-Man 3" introduces new allies and new villains, yet is a rehash of the previous two films. Everything is coming up roses for Peter Park (Tobey Maguire) and MJ Watson (Kirsten Dunst): She is starring in a new Broadway play, and he has fully embraced his responsibility. Peter's former best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), continues to hold a grudge for the perceived death of his father at the hands of Spider-Man. While on a romantic getaway, a black goo attaches itself to Peter and MJ's scooter, unknowingly transforming Peter into "Black Spider-Man" later in the film.

Concurrently, convicted felon Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) escapes from prison and finds himself mutated through the same sort of experiment that turned Parker into Spider-Man. His mutation allows his body to turn into sand, thus leading to the moniker "Sandman." Somewhere along the way, a staff photographer job opens at the Daily Bugle and… Know what? Forget it. At an astounding 140 minutes, I could spend the rest of the review explaining the plot. Suffice to say buildings are attacked, people's lives are put in danger, and we get another obligatory shot of Spider-Man in front of the American flag.

Perhaps it is the endless hype we've been subject to over the last five months for the film or the expectations based on the previous installments, but "Spider-Man 3" doesn't quite deliver what it promises. Sure, the action set pieces are expansive and the characters all do what they're supposed to do; they just don't do anything new or fresh. How many times have we seen Mary Jane taken captive by the big bad guy and Spidey have to save her? How many scenes did we have with Peter coming to grips with his powers? And how much more destruction can the city of New York REALLY go through in these movies before they tell Spider-Man to take his merry bunch of mutated villains somewhere else?

"Spider-Man 3" suffers from the same things last summer's deeply flawed "X-Men: The Last Stand" did: the theory that bigger equals better. Bigger fights, bigger explosions, better CGI, longer run time, more villains, more story lines. Honestly, this film is crowded to the point it almost feels rushed. Two new origin stories (Sandman and Venom); thankless roles for James Cromwell and Bryce Dallas Howard; and territory that's been covered previously. Peter vs. Harry, Peter and MJ troubled romance, Peter figuring out how to live a normal life and be Spider-Man, Aunt May's Words of Wisdom. There's even a bit of retro-continuity from the first movie about who really killed Uncle Ben.

Ostensibly, this film is about forgiveness. Oh, everyone's forgiving everyone else for every little thing they do. And they make dramatic productions out of it. On this note, it truly feels like the end of a series. Every storyline is wrapped up with a bow (some nicer than others), and, frankly, it's a bit too neatly done. The only person who doesn't receive forgiveness is…wait, that would a spoiler, now wouldn't it? Let's just say the forgiveness theme is played with all the subtlety of a dump truck running into a nitroglycerine plant. That is to say, not very subtle. There's the promise of a new day at the end, even before the ill-advised epilogue. Just as every "Star Trek" movie needs to end with the Enterprise warping away to their next adventure, "Spider-Man" films need to end with the web slinger patrolling the streets of the city. Why? It's one last moment for the audience to stand up and cheer, to know someone is there (however fictional) to watch over all of us, and to see our hero in action for what could be the last time. It doesn't happen here, sadly.

(Watch for a jaw-droppingly convenient revelation by the "Houseman" at the Osborn estate at the end of the film. Of course, he couldn't say anything previously. Why, exactly? And, again, of course, this moment of truth is so ridiculously dictated by the plot and not the characters, someone should have caught it somewhere in the script process.)

MJ and Peter's problem this time is his absorption into Spider-Man. He has a police scanner in his run-down apartment. While trying to comfort MJ, he starts talking about his experience as a hero. She never tells him she's been fired from the musical. Communication plays an even bigger part in their relationship problems than the Spidey suit does. MJ runs to Harry, they kiss, he remembers his history with Peter following an early movie battle and memory loss...it's all very comic bookish. None of the characters act remotely in the ways they did in the first two films. MJ turns into a jealous caricature of herself, and Peter takes his duty too seriously. However, when lives are at risk, is there such a thing as "too seriously"?

Topher Grace, as the newly-hired Daily Bugle staff photographer Eddie Brock, Jr. is so intent on landing the job and making something of himself (I assume to prove to "girlfriend" Gwen Stacey he's worth her time) that he doctors a photo of Spidey stealing money. When Peter calls him out on it, he acts offended and sets up the inevitable Brock-as-Venom vs. Spider-Man finale. Why shouldn't Peter have turned him in? Anyone with an ounce of integrity would have done it. And since this encounter enraged Brock to the point of needing the black goo to turn into Venom, his entire reason for being is flimsy at best.

Let's address this goo for a second and what it does to Peter. Supposedly, it allows him to unleash his true feelings and desires. He's aggressive and arrogant and frivolous, buying a new suit while he lives in the same apartment he did in the last film. His escapade in the bar with Gwen--really all about rubbing MJ's nose in his newfound "confidence"--in which he performs more moves than Tom Cruise in "Cocktail" is laughable out of place. It's actually embarrassing to watch Maguire playing the piano while dancing and constantly looking at his former squeeze for a reaction. What makes him want to be the old Peter again? Is it the act of throwing MJ to the floor? Does he feel so badly he wants to get rid of the goo? The story allows him to have a moment of clarity which is never gives to Eddie during the final battle.

It's terribly convenient, also, that in this film the police realize they made a mistake as to Uncle Ben's murderer. The spiky haired blonde guy who fell to his death in the first film was just an accomplice; the real killer was Marko, who was really only stealing the car to get money for his sick daughter. Sweet and noble…but still illegal and criminal. Why is it every villain has to have a heart of gold? Are there no pure bad guys left in comic book land? Besides that, it's taken two years (in movie time) for the cops to fess up to fingering the wrong guy? As if to tell the audience "Yeah, we know you don't believe it, but if you see it enough, you will," we're treated to seemingly endless flashback sequences to Marko killing Uncle Ben. Over and over again. Didn't buy it the first time, not buying it the fifth.

So what's good, you're probably asking? A good deal, actually. As mentioned before, the action pieces are well done, if a bit dizzying to follow. Especially awe-inspiring is the first sequence between the New Goblin and Spider-Man as they twist through alleys and try to avoid one another's weapons. The entire supporting cast is back, including J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), Dylan Baker (Curt Connors) and Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson). Hands down the funniest scene in any of the three films occurs early in "Spider-Man 3" in Jameson's office. After the opening drama and action, it was a welcome (and well done) respite.

The effects, of particular note Sandman's transformations, look real. As the wind blows, grains of sand fly off him in his granular form. If you watch closely, you can see each grain of sand. And the acting, for all the story rehashes I've lamented above, is solid enough to carry most of the film. In a vacuum, "Spider-Man 3" might have wowed all of us. But movies aren't made in a vacuum, which is to this one's detriment.

On the scale of 1 to 10, "Spider-Man 3" rates a solid 6. It's a noteworthy bookend to the franchise (if this is where it does end) and an enjoyable diversion from the norm. But as good as the previous two? Not likely.

Jason's rating: 6/10

---

---

---