Spider-Man 3
06-05-2007 21:00 | 19044 views | Gary Couzens | Show Backlinks
Spider-Man reaches its third instalment with most of its principals, on both sides of the camera, still in place. It also assumes that you have seen the first two films – which, considering how much money they made, is a safe bet. By now, the franchise has acquired so much baggage – not just the continuing love story between Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) but a panoply of supporting characters, not to mention three villains, one of whom have character arcs which began in the first film, five years ago. It’s getting a bit much for one film to contain all this comfortably in one film, even one that extends the running time to two and a quarter hours. The frequent result of trying to cram too much in, is a structure that collapses into a series of setpieces and a narrative that doesn’t build as it should. So it is with Spider-Man 3.
The premise this time is that Peter Parker, who by now has reached some accommodation between his life as Spider-Man and his responsibilities towards Mary Jane. Mary Jane’s career is on an upswing, as she makes her debut on Broadway. But Harry Osborn (James Franco) still harbours a grudge against Spider-Man for killing his father (way back in the first film – Willem Defoe’s voice makes a brief appearance here) and begins to take over his father’s old role as the Goblin. Meanwhile, Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), the criminal who shot Peter’s Uncle Ben in that first movie, escapes from jail. Accidentally caught in a radiation test, he mutates into Sandman. And that’s not to mention Venom, black gloop from Outer Space, which infects Spidey’s suit and unleashes the darker side of Peter’s personality.
That’s not all. There’s also Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), a paparazzo who also makes the acquaintance of Venom. Not to mention Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard in a blonde wig), daughter of the Police Captain (James Cromwell). The script also makes room for appearances from other recurring characters, such as Peter’s Aunt May (Rosemary Harris). Many of these don’t have much of a chance to make an impression. Nice as it is to see an actress like Theresa Russell in a mainstream blockbuster, she’s wasted in a one-scene role as Flint Marko’s mother. Bruce Campbell makes a brief appearance - well, did you suspect otherwise from a Sam Raimi movie?

Some of this works. In particular Thomas Haden Church, buffed up from his role in Sideways, actually manages to do something with a role that’s not much more than walking CGI for the most part. Just as he metamorphosises into Sandman and his body disintegrates, Sam Raimi cuts to a big close-up of his eyes: Haden Church manages to invest this shot with more pain than the film can easily bear. On the other hand, while the CGI in sequences like this is impressive as an absurd spectacle, in other big sequences (such as the one where Spider-Man rescues Gwen from a collapsing building) just can’t overcome the big problem CGI has – it simply doesn’t look real. So no danger and no tension, then.
It’s with this third instalment in the franchise that diminishing returns have set in, let alone an inability to edit oneself. This would be a much better film with something like twenty minutes taken out of it. But since people will be going to see it in their millions worldwide whatever you do, who can be bothered to give it another pass in the editing suite?
The premise this time is that Peter Parker, who by now has reached some accommodation between his life as Spider-Man and his responsibilities towards Mary Jane. Mary Jane’s career is on an upswing, as she makes her debut on Broadway. But Harry Osborn (James Franco) still harbours a grudge against Spider-Man for killing his father (way back in the first film – Willem Defoe’s voice makes a brief appearance here) and begins to take over his father’s old role as the Goblin. Meanwhile, Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), the criminal who shot Peter’s Uncle Ben in that first movie, escapes from jail. Accidentally caught in a radiation test, he mutates into Sandman. And that’s not to mention Venom, black gloop from Outer Space, which infects Spidey’s suit and unleashes the darker side of Peter’s personality.
That’s not all. There’s also Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), a paparazzo who also makes the acquaintance of Venom. Not to mention Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard in a blonde wig), daughter of the Police Captain (James Cromwell). The script also makes room for appearances from other recurring characters, such as Peter’s Aunt May (Rosemary Harris). Many of these don’t have much of a chance to make an impression. Nice as it is to see an actress like Theresa Russell in a mainstream blockbuster, she’s wasted in a one-scene role as Flint Marko’s mother. Bruce Campbell makes a brief appearance - well, did you suspect otherwise from a Sam Raimi movie?
Some of this works. In particular Thomas Haden Church, buffed up from his role in Sideways, actually manages to do something with a role that’s not much more than walking CGI for the most part. Just as he metamorphosises into Sandman and his body disintegrates, Sam Raimi cuts to a big close-up of his eyes: Haden Church manages to invest this shot with more pain than the film can easily bear. On the other hand, while the CGI in sequences like this is impressive as an absurd spectacle, in other big sequences (such as the one where Spider-Man rescues Gwen from a collapsing building) just can’t overcome the big problem CGI has – it simply doesn’t look real. So no danger and no tension, then.
It’s with this third instalment in the franchise that diminishing returns have set in, let alone an inability to edit oneself. This would be a much better film with something like twenty minutes taken out of it. But since people will be going to see it in their millions worldwide whatever you do, who can be bothered to give it another pass in the editing suite?



Comments
Member
Posts: 95
The film was OK, it will make millions from sales alone but ALOT of cinema-goers will come out very dissapointed.
I wish the film ended on a high note, i.e a final CGI finale of Spider-Man web-swinging through the city like in the closures of the first two films.
Such a shame the franchise is losing its spark...
Member
Posts: 180
Also I think the movie undermined itself with some horribly bad acting by some no-name actors playing journalists and the Spiderman "Fan Club". The constant fawning over Spiderman seemed contrived in parts. The cheesiness totally ruined any emotional connection with the characters.
Member
Posts: 1817
I wasn't much bothered by the lack of "emotional depth" either - the tensions and misunderstandings between Peter, Mary Jane and Harry are all pretty trite and melodramatic anyway. I spent most of the first two films wondering why the hell they didn't all just sit down and talk about it. At least this time you're never far from an action setpiece - and it is, after all, popcorn entertainment.
Member
Posts: 48
------
“Just because you are a character, doesn’t mean you have character”
Portamento
Posts: 9
I have just come back from seeing Spiderman 3, and I am afraid to report that it really is a mess. The script is lacks imagination, and relies really heavily on coincidence (somehow everyone is somehow related and in the right place at wrong time a little too often), whilst the dialogue is almost stepping into George Lucas levels of cheese.
Worst of all, the action sequences lack any kind of continuity, and in the case of the first major set-piece, are totally impossible to follow. I can only actually remember a few moments that stood out, and they were not a patch on the action that was so well done in the previous 2 installments.
I think as many has suggested, one of the main problems lies with the villans in the film. Willem Defoe and Alfred Molina did a great job of creating interesting and entertaining villans, where as the villans in Spiderman 3 fight for the brief screen time they get, and are never really that interesting.
Worse of all, just when you think you have seen the worst, the finale of the film features an "english" newsreporter character, whose "accent" and hideous dialogue got a rather massive laugh on two occassions in the sold out showing I was in.
A real shame....:(
Member
Posts: 180
Member
Posts: 472
And yes, I liked part two - part one as well, although not so much. I admired that they took time to pace their stories properly and at least attempt a little character development - even if it was admittedly a little soapy at times.
Here, MJ is reduced to what Ebert refers to as an Idiot Plot misunderstanding usually reserved for bad romantic comedies and Aunt May has turned into fortune-cookie woman. Christ knows where the butler came from as has already been observed.
The birth of the Sandman character was well handled ('oops, I've fallen into a random scientific experiment' part aside - what were they experimenting on there exactly? Random never-seen-again-scientists with an experiment. In a pit. In a field. Moving on...) but despite Hayden-Church giving it his all, it was almost entirely irrelevant and could have probably been snipped with no harm done. (incidentally, wasn't Theresa Russell supposed to be his wife rather than his mother, or did I miss something there?)
Something about 3s in super hero movies, then. Chalk it up as a geek rule along with that one about odd-numbered Star Trek movies being rubbish.
Member
Posts: 23
To me this was Harry Osbournes Trilogy. I know that sounds dumb for a moive called Spiderman, but his character arc over the 3 films is the most compelling and he seems to be the character with the most depth and development. His descent and redemption over the 3 films is genuinely interesting, perhaps moreso than Peter Parkers as we have had 3 films ovr which to enjoy it. Mary Jane went nowhere, just as self absorbed as she was in the first films, tedious and whiney!!. Spidey hasnt really developed into a deeper character, he has lost 2 mentors (Norman Osbourne and Uncle Ben) and a best friend and really hasn't become a deeper or more driven character as a result.
Raimi tried to cram too much into this film. I think the sandman should have been the only villain. Venom was put in there to try and please the fans (myself included as a huge venom fan) but it felt very tacked on to the story which is a shame and doesnt do the character justice. If raimi didnt like venom then dont do it, leaave it to someone who can do soemthing with the character. The venom costume was great but brock did not have enough story and vemon had very little to do in the film.
A good film, fantastic in parts and tedious in others. its time for the Raimi family to leave it alone now, they have done a great job in parts and better tan anyone lese i could have chosen to do it. Time to take a step back, go off and do something else and maybe come back to spidey in a few years with something fresh.
Member
Posts: 524
Banned
Posts: 222
Member
Posts: 30
Thank God for Nolan and Del Tora, who knows how to cut a decent superhero.
English Gent
Posts: 20
Squire
Posts: 56
Member
Posts: 71
Member
Posts: 524
Originally Posted by brownpants:
I'll have to rely on my brother to get this for me. ;)
That sounds suspicious.
Member
Posts: 15
Though I may have slept through some of the action; was it really that long?
------
My DVD Collection
Member
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Alexei:
"Few errors I noticed. 1. William Dafoe did do a cameo in person as well as voice. 2. Bryce Dallas Howard actually dyed her hair for the role."
Yeah, funny. Just thought i'd say about a few of the mishaps in the review. Shame posters like you exist anyway.
Member
Posts: 59
WTF was that dance thing? the prof guy said the goop made you agressive not turn into some kinda 70's pop idol reject.
Was there any point to Gwen's character, random blonde that answers QED questions in the morning, and does printer porn in the afternoon.
I think this is an insult to popcorn movies everywhere...
...not even the excellent Bruce Campbell cameo is redemption.
Member
Posts: 50
It is disappointing that the film has received such a luke warm reception. In the context of a superhero summer blockbuster, Spiderman 3 is a quirky off-beat film with plenty of characteristic touches from Sam Raimi and nods to the original comic books.
I can see why people are disappointed, but I can't be too harsh on a film with so many unexpected moments, the 2 songs numbers were a surprise, but 2 dance numbers aswell, that is pushing self indulgence, but I loved them both. The French restuarant skit, the Daily Bugle scenes, these are not scenes you'd ever expect to see in a film with a budget in excess of $200 million.
When it comes to action, the film delivered and easily outshines the first two. Much like The Phantom Menance & Matrix Reloaded these are films that hide fantastic action set-piece, but people prefer to ignore them from some minor annoyances like Jar Jar Binks or Zion rave dances.
The two fights with Goblin and the sewer fight with Sandman were excellent. The finale was not quite up to the standard of these two, but good enough. I felt the finale's of all 3 spiderman films were a little weak and eclipsed by earlier action scenes in each film.
I must also mention the Sandman creation scene, which I felt was a good as the Golem / Smeagol conversation in Two Towers for wringing emotion from CGI. I really felt for the character as he tried to regain his form.
Membre Massif
Posts: 17
------
Nice night for a walk.
I am an agent of chaos!
Posts: 408
I for one am looking forward to taking my son along to this, despite all the negative buzz, because I know he will enjoy it for what it is.
I just hope he doesn't start asking 20 questions when Kirsten Dunst is on the screen.
Contributor
Posts: 299
Member
Posts: 100
In the original comics, Venom was an alien symbiote which I believe Spider-Man found during the Secret Wars storyline. Obviously there was no way they could have worked that into the plotline. I think the Ultimate Spider-Man storyline where it was an invention of his father's, would have probably worked better, but it needed a whole film to tell that story, rather than be shoehorned into a part of the plot here. I suppose they kept fairly faithful to the original concept of Venom, but it could have been more developed in a story of it's own. Of course, Spidey had help from the Fantastic Four as I recall in defeating Venom originally (seem to remember Ben Grimm loaning Spidey one of Reed Richards prototypes - but the fact that they're produced by different studios means you're never going to see comic adaptations remain completely faithful to the original storylines.)
I wasn't sure about the turn that the new Goblin character took. I think he did waver at times in the comics between being a hero and a villain, but in the end, Harry Osborn was just a complete nutjob, like his father. I didn't really buy this sudden swing around in his character at the end, and I thought it detracted from Spidey's victory.
Sandman was probably the best realised. One thing I wish they'd do though, is to let villains stay alive at the end of these movies, for a potential rematch.
The Goblin's 'death' was true to form in the comics. And Norman Osborn did return.
I found the whole dance sequence a bit strange. It didn't spoil the film for me, but I was a bit bemused by it.
I think you've got to take these films for what they are. They aren't aiming to be high art or have really intricate plots, they're supposed to provide a couple of hours entertainment at the end of the day - and it achieved that.
Administrator
Posts: 2314
Brownpants post removed. Let's not post any more insults please, just request a spoiler tag in your comment or report a post requesting spoiler tags.
I removed James Lee's follow-up comment for sake of continuity.
On with your Spider-man 3 backlash :)
Rock N' Troll
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by brownpants:
Seriously, I cant sit through a film for that long without going to the toilet. I'll have to rely on my brother to get this for me. ;)
You can't be 139 minutes without going into the toilet? :confused:
You need to cut off the beer, seriously :D
Originally Posted by dingbats:
The only franchise that never seems to fall into this trap is Superman - but they only ever seem to use Luthor!
"Name?"
"Doomsday."
"The only thing here in your resume says you killed Superman."
"Yup."
"Well, is he dead?"
"..."
"NEXT!"
Poor Doomsday.
Page: 1, 2