Let me start by saying that I was a Spiderman fan growing up. Thus, I know what occurred in the comics and where Hollywood has changed the story. Despite that, I liked Spiderman and Spiderman 2. Spiderman 3, however, is a different story.
Now don't take that the wrong way. I didn't hate Spiderman 3, but I did think it reeked of Hollywood tampering.
The story for Spiderman 3 starts where 2 left off. Spiderman is now looked upon as a hero and not a menace. In turn, Peter Parker is on top of the world. He's got a good job getting pictures of Spiderman and he's got the girl of his dreams. Mary Jane is now a broadway star. Aunt May is alive and healthy. Crime is down. Yada yada yada. In fact, the only dark cloud is Harry Osborn, Peter's best friend, who blames Peter for his father's death.
So things are good for Peter, but that doesn't last long. (Here's where I'm going to try and keep this spoiler free. I WILL talk about things you've seen in the previews.)
Peter's relationship with MJ hits some bumps. I won't go into the "whys" or "hows", but I will say that Gordon makes an excellent point about these issues in the Spiderman 3 spoiler thread. To sum up, you'll probably think less of MJ. By the way, now is a good time to mention that Kirsten Dunst actually looks better in this film than the previous two. I never bought her as a supermodel, which MJ is in the comic, but in this movie she got a new makeup person or something because she looks a lot better.
Ok, beyond the relationship, Peter also has Harry on his ass about the death of his father, a new villain named Sandman is running around New York, a new photographer at The Daily Bugle is stealing Peter's job, and a mysterious substance has formed a new suit for Peter that's all black.
Let's start with Harry. I like James Franco, the actor, and think he's actually stolen a lot of the scenes in the series. His portrayal of Harry Osborn has been really consistent, but the writers didn't do him any favors in this film. Well, I should say, they didn't do him any favors in the last half of the film.
The whole Sandman story is fantastic. Really. It's the best part of the film, BY FAR. Thomas Hayden Church, whom I've never been a huge fan of, is terrific as Flint Marko aka The Sandman. The whole storyline from his introduction, to where he got his powers, to his final scene are all very well done. Sure, some of it's Hollywood crap like him becoming sand storms and traveling that way, but whatever.
As for Eddie Brock, the other photographer, let me just say that I hated the casting of Topher Grace. Nothing against Topher, but Eddie was a monster jock in the books. The casting just never seemed right. After seeing the film, I can honestly say that Topher can act and did a great job. He actually made me respect his abilities. That being said, I still think it wasn't a great casting choice. It worked here because of the liberties that they took with the character, but that actually makes my argument stronger.
As for the suit, bravo to the writers for not trying to cheapen its origin. The less said the better. And since, you've seen the previews, Venom should have been bigger. A lot bigger. Not height, but in muscle mass. I did like that they went away from making him a webslinger like Pete. In the comics, Pete's webs were chemical (he invented them), and not a part of his powers. So when the suit went elsewhere it would've taken his powers, sans webbing. That's what Venom was like in the books. Any web-like effects were actually extensions of the symbiote costume, not real webbing. By the way, they explain NONE of this in the movie. In fact, they do take some more liberties with Venom's abilities.
The overall story is weaker than the first two films with Peter under a spell caused by the symbiote costumer, MJ being essentially a whiny, selfish bitch, and Pete having to deal with these villains. The first rule of movie making is "The antagonist makes the story." Someone forgot that rule here as little time is spent building up the true bad guy and instead the focus is on the "good" characters.
I really believe they made a mistake in their direction here. The Sandman's story was plenty to fill a film, they didn't need the rest for this sequel. They have 4, 5, and 6 for a Venom story. If they wanted more action via more villains they could easily do minor side bits with other Spidey foes who wouldn't make a great full movie villain like Mysterio, Rhino, the Vulture, etc.
It hurt the surrounding characters too. Aunt May's role was much smaller this time around, which goes against the lore of Spiderman. J. Jonah Jamison, who was well written in the first two films, was nothing more than comic relief in this movie.
Although, I'm hoping that Peter's landlord and his daughter were clues as to who the main villain will be in 5.
Also, in terms of pacing, let it be known I'm a HUGE stickler for characterization in movies, however it's supposed to be interesting stuff. There were scenes here that dragged on and on and on and on and on and on. The pacing was just a mess. They'd rush some scenes and let others go on way too long.
I'd also like to point out that there's a scene with Peter in a club that is just terrible. It's insultingly cheesy, pointless, and was embarrassing to watch. I honestly felt bad for Tobey McGuire (sp?) that some idiot writer thought it was needed.
Speaking of idiot writers, does Hollywood think we're all clueless morons or what? When Peter's "good" he looks normal, but when the suit is in control, he goes emo. What the hell was that? Didn't the dialogue do enough to explain what was happening to him? Did we really need the suit to do his hair...poorly?
Look, Spiderman 3 is the worst film of the series and it's all because Hollywood thinks we're idiots, because they think the audience is stupid, and because they're trying to jam 40 years of story telling into 2 hours. Relax Hollywood, take your time. Understand that this is an established property that, now sit down for this, people liked before you touched it. Stop rushing the story and put some trust in your audience. They know why Peter's being a dick, they don't need you beating them upside their heads with it.
Overall, I think Spiderman 3 reeks of arrogance and has a rushed feel. I think Raimi and crew figured this might be the last one so they'd thrown everything in and the product suffered for it. It's not a bad film, but it truly could have been so much better. I think that's what irritates me about it.
The action and some of the acting are awesome, but the storyline, as discussed, leaves a lot to be desired.
This movie actually makes the first two look like miracles. Here's hoping they slow down the pace and bring in Kraven the Hunter for part 4.
6 out of 10.
Spiderman 3 Review - Attempting to be spoiler free.
I know. But I think it's where we live, now.
When someone mainstream has the insanity and the balls to claim 9/11 was an inside job on national TV... and the rest of the media culure does not openly say she's a fruitcake....
Welcome to the new reality.
Therefore, no more patriotism in spideman.
When someone mainstream has the insanity and the balls to claim 9/11 was an inside job on national TV... and the rest of the media culure does not openly say she's a fruitcake....
Welcome to the new reality.
Therefore, no more patriotism in spideman.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Spiderman 3 director on Spiderman 3: wow, I fucked that one up.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."