Movie Review
Spider-Man 3
Posted by Neil Miller (neil@filmschoolrejects.com) on May 3, 2007
“With great power comes great responsibility.”
That was the tagline for the first Spider-Man film all the way back in 2002. That film, with its cinematic realization of one of the most popular comic book heroes ever recorded, created what has become one of the most successful movie franchises in the history of film. Director Sam Raimi and the folks at Columbia pictures have built a behemoth of a series so powerful that no matter what sort of movie they make, people will come out to see it. That is great power. Power to rule over the millions of moviegoers, to take there hard earned cash on sheer size and spectacle alone. But with that great power also comes a responsibility, a responsibility to stay true to what has brought the Spider-Man franchise to its current position, sitting atop the highest perch of the cinematic world. And what have they done with such great power? Sadly, they have created what could be the more frustrating and disappointing cinematic experience to come out of Hollywood in the last decade.
The story focuses on where Spider-Man 2 left off, with Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) now deep into his relationship with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (James Franco) still out to avenge the death of his father. Very quickly we are introduced to Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), a photographer out to catch Spider-Man with his pants down and steal Peter Parker’s spot at the Daily Bugle and Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), his girlfriend. Also in the mix is Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church), an escaped convict who is discovered to be the real killer of Peter’s uncle Ben. Marko falls into a weird science experiment and is turned into Sandman. In short, Parker comes in contact with a symbiotic organism from a meteorite that attaches to him and brings his most vengeful (and rhythmic) side. His suit turns black, his heart fills with rage and he goes after Sandman. A great action sequence ensues
In fact, a few great action sequences ensue, which is one of the big draws on a movie like this, we want to see all of the web-slinging action. What we don’t want is a bunch of sap about the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane. For my taste, we get a little bit too much of that and not enough Spidey-on-villain action. The character of Venom, the result of the symbiot meeting up with Eddie Brock, has to be one of the most badass characters in the entire Spider-Man franchise. Sadly, most fans will be disappointed with his story line, as he is severely underused.
Venom is one example in a long line of characters in this film that just don’t feel right, even despite the excellent casting job done Sam Raimi and team. While underused, Topher Grace and Bryce Dallas Howard are welcomed additions. But the problems do not arise with the new characters; they arise with the fact that there is too much going on here. It is an abundance of story that creates an odd out-of-body experience. Too often you are left thinking, “Did that really happen? Are they really being serious about this?â€
The other problem with the film is that it lays down some seriously cheesy moments, far more so than its predecessors. It is common understanding that you have to give a comic book film some leeway when it comes to being over the top, but Spider-Man 3 dances across the line from cheesy to dumb for moments at a time. And though brief, these moments really detract from our ability to enjoy the film. One particular instance is a scene in which Peter Parker, now being controlled by the symbiotic organism, is dancing down he street thrusting his pelvis at an oncoming feast of attractive ladies. It is a scene that was is very frustrating to watch, especially while you are desperately trying to love this film.
But despite by my efforts to really be entertained by this film, the only feeling I have left is sadness, disappointment and frustration. It is by no means a terrible film, but it doesn’t come close to achieving the brilliance of the first two (especially the second one). The action is great, as only a polished mega-cgi studio flick can be; and the cast is well placed in their roles, all showing the ability to recreate some of the more beloved characters of this franchise. But in the end, there are too many of those cheesy moments, too many parts that take us away from enjoying the film and not enough screen time for one of the most badass characters in all of comics. In the end I would recommend seeing this film if you have interest (not as if I was going to stop you anyway), but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t let you down.
Read more articles by Neil Miller
10 Comments
May 4th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Poorly written review. Some good insights, but get a writing style! Check out some grammer books!
“But despite by my efforts to really be entertained by this film, the only feeling I have left is sadness, disappointment and frustration.” — Were you actually trying to be entertained - or did you mean that the film tried to entertain you, but didn’t? The way you wrote it, the failure was YOURS, not the films. Also… “but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t let you down.” Huh? “don’t if it…doesn’t?” Double-negative-ville. You’ve successfully said that it doesn’t let you down. I think you meant it the other way around, but who knows? Crappy writing, lame review.
Curtis
May 4th, 2007 at 2:37 am
Professor? What are you doing here?
May 4th, 2007 at 2:47 am
[…] Spider-Man 3 [PG-13, 140 minutes, View Trailer] It’s time to kick the tires and light the fires on this Summer Movie Season. We have waited long enough and no matter how the movie turns out, we are going to flock to our local theaters to check it out. And thankfully for Sam Raimi and the folks at Sony, it really doesn’t matter whether Spider-Man 3 is good or not, because the film itself was a big disappointment. The story is full of moments that take you out of the story, cheesy dialog and a severe under use of both Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy and Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom. Don’t let that stop you though, as the action scenes and the CGI are too good to miss. If you get into big movies, this is one you will want to see; just don’t freak out if it doesn’t make you want to come back for more. (Full Review) […]
May 4th, 2007 at 3:17 am
Just saw Spiderman 3 that movie was too dumb. Don’t get me wrong, I like dumb moives…thought the first 2 were great as well. but this was just poorly written, so so acting from half the cast, too cartoonish, even loads of continuity errors. The audience at the show was laughing at all the wrong moments.
Surprised to see anybody thought it worked. I guess that’s what $500 million (including advertising/marketing) buys.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:12 am
i have to agree with the review, there were too many loose threads of plot that didn’t connect, too many underdeveloped not-used-very-well characters, and i think the music sucked. the musical scores from the first two made the action sequences a lot better, not corny…i was disappointed
May 4th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Yeah, it could’ve been better. But I saw it as the second half of a drive-in double feature with “Premonition,” which put things into proper perspective. Even a lesser Spider-Man movie is still better than a true stinker like “Premonition.”
Was anyone else amused by the way the symbiote inspired Peter Parker to sweep his bangs across his forehead like some emo kid? :-)
-JLS-
May 5th, 2007 at 4:17 am
Smokin Aces gets an A and Spidey 3 gets a C?! Your grading scale is completely out of whack.
They tried to go grand with the story. Did it completely work, no, but give them points for trying. People complain about how dumb Hollywood movies are, but then cut no slack when some like Raimi try to infuse the story with large themes and ideas but come up short. What made Parker/Spider-Man so interesting in the comics was that he was a regular guy with regular problems. If you cut that for more fighting, you are missing what made Spider-Man comics successful.
You are creating a no-win situation, so it’s no surprise when most times Hollywood doesn’t even bother with the story because it won’t matter since you will complain more times than not. The film is definitely worth seeing, not repeatedly, but it is certainly better than the average film.
I would love to know what Michael thinks is a smart movie if this was “too dumb”. Although claiming that if people liked the movie it’s indicative of being bought by the advertising, comes off as pretty ignorant.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
re: professor curtis’ mssg: you spelled ‘grammar’ wrong, and then you go on to attack the writer’s grammer (sic). well played, sir.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:29 am
Y´know, here´s the thing….I love Spider-Man. I´ve been a Spidey fan nearly my whole life. Sam Raimi claims the same thing. My problem with Sam is that, if what he says is true then why in hell´s name is he taking part in this whole Spidey sell-out fiasco???? I hear Sammy boy going on about how there´s about 50,000 different plot lines going on at the same time,….like this was something to crow about!! The genuine Spider-Man fans out there must (like me) be cringing when they see all the important life changing threads of Spidey´s life being condensed into a milli-second or whatever. Doesn´t Sam realise that the reason Spidey became so popular in the first place was because of Marvel´s belief in a good story,….well told?
Seems to me that by the time those little marketing devils and the soulless producers behind the whole movie making machine have finished poking the movie with their little pointy sticks, all thats left is a pale shadow of the movie it could´ve been. And Toby Maguire as Peter Parker??? You´ve GOT to be kidding!!! Peter Parker on prozaic maybe.
Let´s face it,…this movie and Spidey 1 and 2 aren´t being made for genuine Spider-Man fans. They´re being made to be aimed at ¨new¨ fans. Fans who will buy all the merchandising, and pack out the movie theatres etc and who will inevitably lose interest and move on to the next ¨big thing¨. And it doesn´t matter if you´re an X-Men fan or a Hulk fan or a Daredevil fan or whatever,……you still ain´t ever gonna see the movie you deserve to see or anything like it. All you´re gonna get is a soulless, CGI´d, expensive little mess that´ll ultimately leave you feeling disappointed and slightly nauseous. The problems here are obvious. GCI is an amazing development but it will never match a good story no matter how much of it there is or how well it´s done. But you try telling a movie executive that! As far as they´re concerned, unless a movie ticks all their little marketing boxes then it´ll never happen….20% CGI, 5% product placement, 10% this, 15% that etc etc.
So if you´re one of those people standing in line outside the movie theatres waiting to see this soulless, formula based crap, then give yourself a little pat on the back. Why?……because you´re contributing in your own little way, to destroying quality movie making and sending the production of utter garbage spiraling out of control, ensuring that the studios get rich enough to have the luxury of telling you what you´re going to like next year. Well done, you goddam sheep.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Disappointing opening movie to the summer’s blockbuster releases.
But that disappointment really stems from our expectation to a production like Spider-man.
1 & 2 were good. 3 was less than good though not entirely bad.
Spider-man 3 is just plainly not getting any better.