Review: Spider-Man 3

Most anticipated movie of the summer for me is the first one. Here comes summer...

Review: Spider-Man 3 (Sam Raimi, 2007, USA).

The Spider-Man films have a very special place in my heart. I absolutely adore them. Spider-Man was at the time the best superhero film ever (Yes I include the original Superman in that). It has only been bettered by Spider-Man 2, a film with actually perfect pacing, fantastic action and sympathetic heroes and villians. Sam Raimi's love for the universe shines through every single frame of these movies. And anything with Bruce Campbell in interests me immeadiately. So Spider-Man 3 comes with BIGGER villains, BIGGER special effects, BIGGER plot, BIGGER portions of Bruce Campbell goodness. After the middling pre-release reviews, the public can make their own decisions. Mine? Read on.
Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is having the best time of his life. New York now loves him, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) loves him, and he is about to propose to her. Trouble is afoot though. Harry Osborn (James Franco) has revenge on his mind, Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), an escaped convict with a connection to Peter becomes the Sandman and a strange alien presence becomes drawn to Peter and changes his life forever.
Spider-Man 3 comes with maybe the same amount of fanboy anticipation as Star Wars: Episode 1 and so for many, disapointment is inevitable. The problem with Spider-Man 3 is that with some slight changes, it could have been a great, rather than very good film. Many of my problems with it have been sited by previous reviews so while I may sound like a skipping record, I do believe these opinions are my own. For those who know, the addition of Venom is an odd one as Sam Raimi has publicly stated that he does not like the character. The use of Venom in the film seems to validate this view. While the presence of the black goo from space is an excellent way of propelling the character of Peter Parker into unchartered territory, but the prsence of Venom towards the end of the film feels like an afterthought when if this was a Spider-Man made by a different director, he could easily be the main/only villain in the entire film. Instead he becomes the least focused, least thought about, and most weakly dealt with character in the fim. A real shame which could also be explained by the fact that this film has to achieve a 12a/PG-13 rating.
The 12a/PG-13 rating brings me onto my next point. While the first two had these ratings, actually 2 was a PG in the UK, the subject matter didn't feel tamed at all. However, in a plot where all is supposed to be dark, you need the darkness to truly appreciate the light when it comes. Instead of turning Peter Parker into a truly dangerous dark figure, he becomes Pete Wentz (Bassist/Narccissist of Fall Out Boy). This material is funny and also ever-so-slightly depressing, do not get me wrong. Seeing Peter Parker go all emo on us (which incidentally is going to date this film more than anything in the first 2 films), with his comb over and eyeliner is a sight to be hold. Flirting outragerously and becoming a bit of a cock, Maguire and Raimi pull this off well. Also well executed is the jazz club sequence which does make us believe that Parker has reached a point where he knows he has to stop. However, much of this being played for laughs feels strangely out of place. We have been promised darkness, a more adult take on Spider-Man and instead we get the potrayal of a boy who has listened to to much emo.
The script is also an interesting piece. Co-written by Raimi himself, this film becomes both a throughly interesting look at how boyish pride needs to be overcome to become a man, and also a bloated mess. The central relationships in the film are dealt with with the same amount of care given to them in the first 2 films. Parker and Mary-Jane's relationship feels strangely real, Mary-Jane facing a world of disapointment and Peter believeing too much of his own press and the friction this creates feels quite real. Harry Osborn becomes the most crucial character in the film, his personal struggle of his feelings is well executed and thought the first half of the film deals with him with one of the oldest tricks in the book, his character becomes the most interesting towards the end of the film and his arc is the most satisfying of the entire film. This streches to Sandman too. While purists will argue his caharcter is a betrayal of the one in the comics, his connection to Parker works as a plot devide and as a satisfying way for Peter to defeat his inner demons. Saying all this, there are massive problems. I have already talked about the treatment of Venom but Gwen Stacey is absolutly pointless. Such an intergral person in the comics, she becomes little more than a plot device used to create tension. Eddie Brock is also ridiculously underwrtitten and this ties in with Venom nicely. Captain Stacey also feels like a waste of time. If these charcetrs were ina different film, they could propel the whole thing by themselves, not just as additions to a bloated film.
The actions and the special effects are incredible, far better than the first two films. The Sandman's transformation reaches a point of visual poetry. Venom is also a work of scary beauty. Goblin Junior's fight sequences also look incredible. All the cast pull off their roles well, Kirsten Dunst in particular seeming far more comfortable than before. What I will say though is that this generation of filmmakers should end it here. There will be more films, but the ending while oddly subdued, feels like a natural conclusion for the characters but I hope Maguire/Dunst/Raimi end it here, lest they truly soil what they have achieved.
A truly good film, this really is. There are many highs to the piece. And then there is Emo-Man. A mixed bag if ever there was one and a slightly disapointing start to the summer season. I will watch it again and again however!

Back in the week with DVD reviews and my cinema review of the week will be the kind-of strangely anticipated, 28 Weeks Later.

Ian out