Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    12A
  • Running Time:
    139 minutes
  • Released:
    2007
  • Country:
    United States of America
  • Director:
    Sam Raimi
  • Starring:
    Tobey Maguire
    Kirsten Dunst
    James Franco
    Thomas Haden Church
    Topher Grace
    Bryce Dallas Howard
    James Cromwell
    Rosemary Harris
    J.K. Simmons
  • Genre(s):
    Fantasy

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?

DVD Times Ratings

  • Overall: 
    6
    6 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Overall: 
    6.1

Comments

#1 Posted: 06-05-2007 20:55
filmcritik
Member
Posts: 95

Report this post
Not one of the best reviews on the site. 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.

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...
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 06-05-2007 20:58
erekose
Member
Posts: 180

Report this post
I liked this - but there was simply too much going on in the screenplay to really work within the running time. Church was the pretty good - even Topher Grace wasn't bad...

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.

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
The stuff with Harry Osbourn seemed rather rushed to me. Never really dealt with the emotional baggage over his fathers death in a very effective way - and the storyline was wasted with some crappy exposition with the old butler. You know you're in trouble when you have to rely on a tertiary supporting character to resolve a storyline you've been building over 3 movies with a throwaway line
Quote this post
#3 Posted: 06-05-2007 22:05
Phil Q
Member
Posts: 1817

Report this post
I enjoyed it. Yes, they have crammed in too much - either the Sandman or Venom would have made a perfectly good "main villain". But given the uncertainty over whether or not there'll be a 4th film, perhaps Raimi wanted to use all the ideas he had left on the shelf? (no Dr Connors as The Lizard yet, though...)

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.

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
I have to say I was glad to see the back of Harry. The Green Goblin character was very badly done in the first film and Harry's "Bah, I'll get you Parker!" routine has been nothing but a bore in the sequels.

Quote this post
#4 Posted: 06-05-2007 22:42
Morpheus2000
Member
Posts: 48

Report this post
Spider-Man 3 wasn't as good as I had hoped it would be, since it's not as enjoyable as first two efforts. I found it slow and takes it's time in getting going, there is humour to it, but not as sharp as previous efforts. I also thought it was a little too long, the storyline felt forced in places. I was a little disappointed with the special effects, for example the Sandman wasn't rendered all that well in some of the scenes, looked a little fake. You'll be able to enjoy Spider-Man 3 without having experienced the first two films, but may not catch all the nuances of the plot. I thought Spider-Man 3 wrapped up the series quite well though and also leaving it open for Spider-Man 4. To be honest I probably wouldn't be in a mad rush to get it on DVD unlike Apocalypto and 300.

------
“Just because you are a character, doesn’t mean you have character”
Quote this post
#5 Posted: 07-05-2007 00:01
portamento
Portamento
Posts: 9

Report this post
No fan of the Sam Raimi or the Spiderman series thus far would want to admit that this really isnt a very good film, but I am afraid that it really isnt.

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....:(
Quote this post
#6 Posted: 07-05-2007 00:14
erekose
Member
Posts: 180

Report this post
Popcorn entertainment indeed - but that doesn't justify underestimating the audience's intelligence by giving them a sub-standard story which (as someone pointed out) relies heavily on coincidence, poorly on character development and a lack of emotional engagement. That's really screenwriting 101 - unless the cinema-going experience really is eye-candy first, story-telling a distant second. Given the recent (excellent) Casino Royale which was both a commercial and critical success - I wouldn't bet too much money on that.
Quote this post
#7 Posted: 07-05-2007 11:41
Dodd
Member
Posts: 472

Report this post
I thought this was abysmal. A contrived, plotless mess which resorts to the cardinal sin of CGI-loaded blockbusters by resorting to a climax featuring two giant amorphous blobs lobbing smaller amorphous blobs at each other.
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.
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 07-05-2007 13:19
Renleg
Member
Posts: 23

Report this post
Saw Spidey3 at the weekend. A good film, the effects were brilliant, no question. The script was not particularly good, the acting from some was good (topher, Franco and Thomas did very well) and Bruce Campbell was the best thing in the film, great cameo!!

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.
Quote this post
#9 Posted: 07-05-2007 14:44
James Lee
Member
Posts: 524

Report this post
It seems no-one has learnt the lesson from Batman And Robin - too many crooks spoils the broth!
Quote this post
#10 Posted: 07-05-2007 17:59
brownpants
Banned
Posts: 222

Report this post
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. ;)
Quote this post
#11 Posted: 07-05-2007 18:13
Flemming
Member
Posts: 30

Report this post
As bad as Pirates 2 and will earn a lot of money. A cataclysmic mess, with no glue to put the pieces together. Maguire is a cryboy and has never been close to Peter Parker as he was described in the comics fra the 70'ies.

Thank God for Nolan and Del Tora, who knows how to cut a decent superhero.
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 07-05-2007 18:39
dtms
English Gent
Posts: 20

Report this post
''I cant sit through a film for that long without going to the toilet''.: hence the name, brownpants ?! I hope you didn't have a very bad experience once..
Quote this post
#13 Posted: 07-05-2007 22:57
Alexei
Squire
Posts: 56

Report this post
"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."

Oh man, those people do exist. Priceless.
Quote this post
#14 Posted: 08-05-2007 02:55
Katzenbach
Member
Posts: 71

Report this post
I just saw this today and I too thought that Rami crammed too much in at once. One villian would have been fine, possibly even two. Three? Too much. In order for it to work story wise, he had to make the pace much faster than previous films. Plus, the movie went stupid with Peter dancing and acting like a jackass with an ego. I wouldn't rule this one out, just not as good as 1 & 2.
Quote this post
#15 Posted: 08-05-2007 08:28
James Lee
Member
Posts: 524

Report this post
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownpants:
I'll have to rely on my brother to get this for me. ;)


That sounds suspicious.
Quote this post
#16 Posted: 08-05-2007 18:33
the_mekon
Member
Posts: 15

Report this post
Too much jawing not enough warring...

Though I may have slept through some of the action; was it really that long?



------
My DVD Collection
Quote this post
#17 Posted: 09-05-2007 08:14
filmcritik
Member
Posts: 95

Report this post
Quote:
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."

Oh man, those people do exist. Priceless.


Yeah, funny. Just thought i'd say about a few of the mishaps in the review. Shame posters like you exist anyway.
Quote this post
#18 Posted: 09-05-2007 12:13
cjb110
Member
Posts: 59

Report this post
Real let down this, the first two had the dodgy and simplistic plots going on, but they were well done...in 3 it was just filler between fights.

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.
Quote this post
#19 Posted: 09-05-2007 12:38
Nick Laslett
Member
Posts: 50

Report this post
My wife and I both thought the film was great entertainment and delivered exactly what we were looking for from a Saturday night out at the cinema. The money paid to the baby sitter was well spent.

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.
Quote this post
#20 Posted: 09-05-2007 15:16
Mani
Membre Massif
Posts: 17

Report this post
Saw this last night and was very disappointed.

Some of it was just excruciating to watch, namely Tobey Maguire dancing when he clearly has no rhythm.

Some terrible effects work too.

Self indulgence has taken over what was the brilliant film making of the first two installments in my opinion.

------

Nice night for a walk.

Quote this post
#21 Posted: 09-05-2007 21:14
hiram.k.hackenbacker
I am an agent of chaos!
Posts: 408

Report this post
Well, I thought The Amazing Spider-Man of the 70's was cool when it was on TV and some 30years on, I'm sure Spider-Man 3 pushes all the right buttons for the kids of today.

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.
Quote this post
#22 Posted: 09-05-2007 23:21
Kevin O'Reilly
Contributor
Posts: 299

Report this post
I can't argue with Gary's review. Decent enough entertainment (it might JUST scrape a 7 from me) but too long and way too many plotlines. It was like Spider-Man 3 AND 4. Worse, too many obvious, unconvincing plot devices. The black gloop falling out of the sky was like something you'd expect from an Adam Sandler comedy - the synthesised kryptonite in Superman III was a better way of turning the hero bad! Some very poor characterisation also - Sandman changes character completely from scene to scene with no real explanation. Plus it got way too maudlin towards the end. The best part I thought was the bad Peter Parker. I liked his boogying. :)
Quote this post
#23 Posted: 12-05-2007 11:47
dingbats
Member
Posts: 100

Report this post

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.

The following text contains spoilers. Click and drag over this box to view.
But why did they have to kill Doc Ock and the Sandman?
It's just the same with the Batman films, all the villains always seem to get killed off. The only franchise that never seems to fall into this trap is Superman - but they only ever seem to use Luthor!

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.

Quote this post
#24 Posted: 12-05-2007 15:44
DaveF
Administrator
Posts: 2314

Report this post
Spoiler has been covered up in dingbats post (I haven't seen the film yet but it doesn't seem like a major revelation).

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 :)
Quote this post
#25 Posted: 12-05-2007 15:49
Takeshi357
Rock N' Troll
Posts: 334

Report this post
Quote:
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

Quote:
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.
Quote this post

Page: 1, 2