Spider-Man 3 (Sam Raimi; 2007)

[slapshot63]

Well, here it is. I have finally seen Spider-Man 3. After waiting for three years, 34 months, nearly 1095 days, the wait for me is over. I know you’re all curious as to what I think of the movie, and naturally you would be. How did Spider-Man 3, in the eyes of a Spider-Maniac, perform? Well, we’ll get to that in a little bit. Spider-Man 2 is, as you know, my favorite movie of all time, and that means that Spider-Man 3 has some large shoes to fill. But, I wasn’t asking it to be better than Spider-Man 2, that’s just ridiculous because it was so amazingly good to begin with. But even going in with three years worth of anticipation and ridiculously high expectations, did Spider-Man 3 deliver? It’s also quite poetic in a sense that on May 4th 2002 I saw the original Spider-Man and that movie transformed me into the movie buff I am today, and now, on May 4th 2007, exactly five years later, the one movie I have spent every single day for the past three years looking forward to, has finally been viewed by me.

OK, I’ll get straight to the point. Spider-Man 3, while not as good as Spider-Man 2, is still a knockout and not only one of the best comic book films ever, it’s flat out one of my favorites. My expectations were astronomically high and to be able to say that I walked away extremely satisfied is really saying something. As with the other two movies, one of the main strengths of Spider-Man 3 is the acting. Tobey Maguire is back once again as Peter Parker/Spider-Man and does a bang up job. He really makes the character believable and sells everything in the movie, and it’s important in this one because of all the emotions being poured out. Kirsten Dunst is back as well as Mary Jane Watson and once again, in my opinion, does a great job. JK Simmons is JJJ and is as hysterical as ever. His scenes are really great and are some of the best in the movie. Stan Lee has a really superb cameo and actually has some dialogue! Great one Stan! But one of the best is Bruce Campbell. His cameo is a complete scene-stealer and is simply hysterical. I was dying in the theater during his part. Thomas Haden Church is Flint Marko AKA The Sandman. He’s absolutely perfect for the role and plays it very well. Topher Grace plays Eddie Brock/Venom and is really good, but underused. His Brock spews one-liners, which are generally humorous, and his Venom is good, even IF the voice is a little silly for the character. Bryce Dallas Howard plays Gwen Stacey, Peter’s first true love in the comics. She’s good with the character but is like Brock where she’s underutilized. James Franco really impressed me though as Harry. He really shone here and it was nice to see him play more than a character who verbally abused Spider-Man. Overall, this had a strong cast that helped the movie greatly.

Danny Elfman opted out of this movie and Christopher Young replaced him. I rather enjoyed the score in this one. I still think the best score belongs to the previous movie but it was rather nice to hear something a bit different that also sounded really great to boot.

Now, this movie has come under some scrutiny whenever footage was shown because of the spotty looking effects. I can tell you now that the special effects in this movie are astounding. They aren’t convincing 100% of the time and some spots do stick out, though nothing as obvious as the wretched helicopters at the end of Spider-Man 2. Overall though, the CGI is simply amazing. The first introduction to Sandman after he has been transformed into the villain is simply a work of art. The way the scene is shot, the music that is played and the CGI effects all combine to give us one stunning image. Seeing Sandman trying to re-form himself for the first time is a sight to behold. He begins to take shape and then completely falters and falls apart. He tries again but can’t get a grip on it but finally manages to. The whole scene is just wondrous to behold. The rest of the Sandman effects are great as well. Everything flows smoothly with him and looks stunningly realistic.

But, this movie is definitely not perfect. It has its fair share of problems and things I just didn’t like. For starters, the whole movie feels rushed. There is too much going on and in turn the pacing is off and the movie feels bloated. You’ve got Peter and MJ’s relationship, Harry as a villain, Sandman, Eddie Brock, Gwen Stacy, the black costume, the Symbiote and Venom. There’s just too much going on here. Scene transitions are jarring at times and it seems like some things are rushed for the sake of the running time. The whole climax feels completely rushed too. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an absolute blast to watch and the effects are wonderful, it’s just over too soon and it could have been so much more. Aunt May is also vastly underutilized. It seems that now she only shows up to give Peter sage-like advice when he needs to get his life back on track. Whatever happened to her pretty much knowing Peter’s secret from the speech she gave near the end of Spider-Man 2? Either way, Rosemary Harris is great in each of the few scenes that she is in and it was great to see her again. Another thing I disliked was Sandman’s method of transportation around the city. He travels in a large sand cloud. It looks absolutely ridiculous on the screen and made be wonder what the hell someone was thinking. But, one of my biggest gripes has to be emo Peter. When he turns “evil” he changes his whole look and looks like a Fall Out Boy reject. At one point he actually pulls his hair down to form what I call the “emo drop”. The crowd burst out laughing and that was definitely not the intention. There’s also a specific scene with Harry’s butler that completely threw me for a loop. The butler says something that he should’ve said years ago to save everyone a ton of trouble. It was a bad move by the screenwriters. Probably the biggest gripe from fans will be the dealings with Uncle Ben. Some already know what I’m talking about; others don’t so I won’t give anything away. I agree that they shouldn’t have done what they did but in the context of the movie it actually worked. I still like to believe what we have believed for the past five years but it doesn’t really harm anything.

One of the biggest things that Spider-Man 2 has over Spider-Man 3 is its villain. Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock is one of the greatest villains in cinematic history, in my opinion at least. He never hams it up or goes overboard with the character and he is as grounded in reality as a person with four arms fused to his body can be. We also care deeply for the character because we have spent time with him from the beginning and we know that he is really a great guy. In Spider-Man 3 we are introduced to Flint Marko as an escaped convict, Eddie Brock as a sniveling weasel and to Harry as a vengeance seeking killer. The only character we really have any connection with or feeling towards is Harry because he was in the last two movies. Either way, the villains do end up turning out nicely. Sandman is enjoyable and Eddie/Venom is pretty darn cool too. Harry is the best part though. The last negative I want to touch on is the team up of Venom and Sandman. It’s quick and wholly unbelievable in the way that it is pulled off. The exchange goes something like,

“Hey, you aren’t Spider-Man”
“No, I’m not. Wanna join up and kill him?”
“Sure”

Ok, so the actual exchange is different and longer than that, but you get the general idea. It could’ve been pulled off better and in a more believable way. The frustrating part is that all the raw materials for a great film are here. Brock and Marko both have potentially fascinating backstories and motivations. The idea of a self-serving, revenge-minded Spider-Man is intriguing. There are themes of redemption and forgiveness woven throughout the movie, but they're delivered tritely and without the skillful touch that characterized the emotional aspects of the other films. Sometimes the film feels chaotic, as though scenes are missing, as if they're still sorting out what to keep and what to throw away.

Those may seem like a lot of complaints but they really aren’t that big of a deal when you look at the big picture. There’s still plenty to love here. The action is bigger and better in this installment. There really isn’t anything that stands up to the amazing El Train scene in Spider-Man 2 but the action we do get is great. The whole battle royale at the end is breathtaking. The choreography is superb and the effects are as well. There are some happenings in the scene that I cannot really talk about but emotions run high and something happens that I’ve been waiting to happen for three years and it just made me ecstatic to finally be able to see it happen and happen so well. This leads me to another point. With the ever-rising budget for these films and the need to outdo themselves with each new sequel, the filmmakers never once lose sight of the most important part of this trilogy: the characters. We care so much about these people we have spent the last five years following and it really pays off in this one. When one of them feels sad you feel the exact same way and the same goes with every other emotion. This film is also a lot funnier than the previous entries. JJJ is hysterical as mentioned and Bruce Campbell is very memorable in his cameo. Eddie Brock also has a couple of funny quips. One scene that will divide all fans is when Peter has first changed into emo Peter. He walks down the street to music and looks so ridiculous that you can’t help but laugh. He’s the most pathetic bad-boy ever. This scene probably wasn’t needed but it was hysterical either way. I rather enjoyed it but I know that not everyone will, and not everyone has. While watching the movie, I thought of something, Spider-Man 3 is really like Spider-Man 2.5, and I mean that in the best way possible. I say that because I think that if you were to watch SM2 and SM3 back-to-back it’d be much more fulfilling. If you look at it as maybe one movie, things might not seem so disjointed and rushed. Then again, maybe it wouldn’t matter. I just kind of noticed how a back-to-back viewing would work perfectly with these two movies.

So there you have it, Spider-Man 3. After three years of waiting, it has finally come upon us. It isn’t a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination but it sure is fun. It will definitely be one of the best movies of the summer (probably will end up being my favorite) and is already one of my favorites of all time. It is inferior to Spider-Man 2 but, as I have said before, that was a hard act to top and I think that it followed it up rather well. The movie is fast, exciting, funny, dramatic, romantic and just plain fun. What more can you ask for out of a summer movie? Spider-Man 3 may not be fans favorite movie of the trilogy, but it’s a damn fine entry into the greatest comic book franchise of all time.

Links:
IMDB Page

[captainofbeef]

Not surprised you really liked this, Spider Man is your forte after all. But all the negative reviews and bad opinions on it have me kinda down in the dumps. I expect better from Raimi...

[PTAhole]

The movie kicks ass. I loved pretty much everything about it. I don't know what people were expecting, but I liked it. Certainly no Spider-Man 2, but I think it's about as good as the first one, if not better. Might have benefitted from a little more time, but overall, even with some flaws, I'd give it a 10/10. (I give both the first two 10s)

[dontdigonswine]

Richard Roeper, who I don't usually agree with, wrote the most dead on accurate review of Spider-Man 3. For those who have seen the movie, I'd like to hear your reaction from it.

www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/365719,05010spider.article

[mixed]

Extremely boring sequences of dialogue. Annoyingly chirpy and wooden performance from most of the cast, especially Maguire. Eventually repetetive action sequences with generally dreadful sfx work. Far to much exposition and not enough actual story. The story, when it shone through was mostly sillly and oh so convenient. I didn't mind the last spiderman film but this one was poor as shit.

I give it 2/5 because the bits in the middle where Peter Parker has the 'venom' power amused me.

[criterionmaster]

dontdigonswine said:

Richard Roeper, who I don't usually agree with, wrote the most dead on accurate review of Spider-Man 3. For those who have seen the movie, I'd like to hear your reaction from it.

www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/365719,05010spider.article

That review pissed me off so fucking much, first off, he tries to be funny, and sarcastic, and just comes off as an unprofessional jackass. He complains about Kirsten Dunst singing, but what are they suppose to do? Not to mention, her singing was better than those on American Idol and shit. Also, he acts, later on in the review, like there are flaws in the way Sandman was since the beginning [of his character in the comics]. It is comic book logic that Spidey's fist can go through him, yet he can crush stuff. And he complains about the non-action parts, which were probably my favorite parts in the film, and then also complains about the action, yet seems to have wanted more of it? Or something. And the amnesia thing is what happens in comic books, which is what this film is based on, in case he didn't know. I can't stand this dude. I'd like to see him make a better film, since he obviously knows NOTHING about the comics, or the characters, or anything. Worst part of the film was Sandman, but he wasn't that bad. The action was great, although I don't care that much about it. The film was funny, and the story was fun and enjoyable. It was just what I hoped from the film. All this hate is pissing me off.

[Clark Nova]

criterionmaster said:

dontdigonswine said:

Richard Roeper, who I don't usually agree with, wrote the most dead on accurate review of Spider-Man 3. For those who have seen the movie, I'd like to hear your reaction from it.

www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/365719,05010spider.article

That review pissed me off so fucking much, first off, he tries to be funny, and sarcastic, and just comes off as an unprofessional jackass. He complains about Kirsten Dunst singing, but what are they suppose to do? Not to mention, her singing was better than those on American Idol and shit. Also, he acts, later on in the review, like there are flaws in the way Sandman was since the beginning [of his character in the comics]. It is comic book logic that Spidey's fist can go through him, yet he can crush stuff. And he complains about the non-action parts, which were probably my favorite parts in the film, and then also complains about the action, yet seems to have wanted more of it? Or something. And the amnesia thing is what happens in comic books, which is what this film is based on, in case he didn't know. I can't stand this dude. I'd like to see him make a better film, since he obviously knows NOTHING about the comics, or the characters, or anything. Worst part of the film was Sandman, but he wasn't that bad. The action was great, although I don't care that much about it. The film was funny, and the story was fun and enjoyable. It was just what I hoped from the film. All this hate is pissing me off.

calm down, take a deep breath or two. i'd point you towards my thoughts on the movie in the last watched thread, but you'd probably rip me apart too. Relax. It's just a movie.

[PTAhole]

Glad to see you liked the movie, Dan. Although I think Venom was handled a little more clumsily than Sandman, but it was all good.

[dontdigonswine]

(LOTS OF SPOILERS)

After just getting off work from cleaning up this mediocre movie 8 times after sold-out showings, I'm totally ready to talk about how mediocre it is. Some people say, don't compare it to the first two, or whatever. But you HAVE TO. The hype is only because of the success from the first two, so those two will undoubtedly sway my opinion as a source of comparison for the third. As a fan of the comics and everything Spider-Man, I'm SO disappointed with this film. Spider-Man has flat out become a soap opera. With the first two, I could see a comic book movie with dramatic qualities (not very good ones, but not terrible). Now, it is more of a drama with a few comic book action sequences. And it is not good drama. The script is laughable, so I laugh. This is NOT Spider-Man. The whole use of Gwen Stacy pisses me off so bad. Cast a pretty famous actress to be a plot device? Really? What was the overall purpose of the entire crane-into-skyscraper action scene? To introduce a character we barely even see the rest of the movie? Come on. Roeper says it needed to be much shorter, but I actually feel that it should have been much longer, to expand on the villains and make them something more than one-dimensional. The Sandman wants to save his daughter, awesome. So he steals money to help cure her. Cool. So, some random Spider-Man lookalike (from his perception) comes up to him and suggests that they team up to kill him, and within seconds he's totally determined? Seriously. And Venom. *sigh* What a total waste. Let's kidnap Mary Jane and put her in a very high place to lure Spider-Man and then kill him! Did that exact same thing not happen in the first Spider-Man? Aunt May. What a wasted character. My hatred for Spider-Man 3 grows minute by minute, the more I think about it. Besides the two cameos, there are no "fun" moments in that movie for me. When I watch something I've seen before or something that is just a massive sea of wasted opportunity, it is not fun. And it irritates me when people walk out of the theatre saying, "It was alright." Spider-Man should not be alright! Spider-Man should be clever, cool, and a blast at the theatre (like the second one was, for the most part). And people should not walk out satisfied by this. People should be mad that $250 million was wasted, the hype was wasted, the characters were wasted, the potential to be a great comic book movie was wasted, on this.

[PTAhole]

Have you ever read the comics AT ALL? It is 100% soap opera (in the best sense of the term). I think you were expecting it to be something it shouldn't have been. Spider-Man isn't "hip" or "cool." He's a nerd, and I'm glad they made that clear in this movie. It's the point of the whole character.

[dontdigonswine]

ptahole said:

Have you ever read the comics AT ALL? It is 100% soap opera (in the best sense of the term). I think you were expecting it to be something it shouldn't have been. Spider-Man isn't "hip" or "cool." He's a nerd, and I'm glad they made that clear in this movie. It's the point of the whole character.

Show me a Spidey comic where 80% of it is drab emotional conversation, and I'll agree with you on that. And I wasn't referring to Spider-Man's character when talking about it being clever, cool, and fun. I was referring to the movie as a whole. The first two Spider-Man films achieved each of those characteristics. The third failed IMO.

[lordofdance]

I'm not a big Spider-Man fan, or even a comic book movie fan, but I still managed to feel disappointed after seeing this. Here are the reasons why, that I remember:

*I felt that the Venom/Sandman team up was barely given much thought. Venom just appears out of the blue and persuades Sandman to join him? But then, after Venom is defeated, Sandman decides that he feels bad about the whole thing? I mean, he was hammering Spider-Man to a pulp one minute and then asking for forgiveness the next?
*The whole thing about the real murderer of Spider-Man's uncle. Yeah... Apparently Raimi couldn't deal with the random senselessness of his death, so he had to add a nice and neat resolution.
*The evil Peter Parker stuff. I remember this type of thing happening in Superman III as well. Hell, even X-Men III had a hero turn bad. Is this a trend? It was so forced and silly that I was truly bewildered. He already had issues in the other Spider-Man movies about the difficulty of being a hero, the third time around it just seems old.
*Venom was wasted. He could have been reeeeaaaalllllly cool, but no... He was just kind of thrown into the movie. The final fight wasn't even very good. Partly, I think because Mary Jane serves no other purpose in any of the Spider-Man movies except for being a victim! It's become tedious watching Spider-Man save her ass constantly. But, aside from me not caring about Mary Jane, Venom wasn't given enough time to develop for him to become anything beyond just another bad guy. And the Sandman was an impotent villain.

Actually, dontdigonswine, after reading your thoughts, it appears that we both were annoyed by pretty much the same things. Overall, Spider-Man III seemed assembled together with old ideas rather than something with any real spark.

[lordofdance]

Oh, yeah, I forgot to add that last minute revelation from the butler. I couldn't believe that.

[mixed]

I agree with you guys completely. I just watched the first spiderman this morning and see a story which was more cohesive, has a more focused enemy, less blah blah dialogue and action sequences which weren't bloated with, in my opinion, poor cg. Its still only a 7/10 film but nothing as bad as spiderman 3 which, like you say, angers me more and more as I think about its shortcomings in almost every area.

[malicious32dll]

mixed said:

I agree with you guys completely. I just watched the first spiderman this morning and see a story which was more cohesive, has a more focused enemy, less blah blah dialogue and action sequences which weren't bloated with, in my opinion, poor cg. Its still only a 7/10 film but nothing as bad as spiderman 3 which, like you say, angers me more and more as I think about its shortcomings in almost every area.

erm, who are you agreeing with again?

Also, I also dont understand how people seem to think that they are experts with CG all of a sudden, hell you wouldnt even know the number of people I've talked to who are so against it, or think its inherently bad. I wouldnt venture to say that most people who say "the cg is bad or dumb" cant even properly identify where it is in the film...

[mixed]

Of course I realise what cg is, I just felt that some of the explosions looked very amateurish and the smashing glass when the girder hits the building and when spiderman is punched through some glass were laughably trashy looking. Also some of the background work in certain parts looked bad and when characters passed through a shot towards the front the greenscreen was evident. It wasn't all bad I just didn't think it flowed entirely well although it is obviously a difficult thing to pull of seamlessly.

[InfamousHugo]

Spider-Man 3 **/12

Sam Raimi's attempt at making the latest epsiode darker fails completely. After the high quality of Spider-Man 2 we could only expect good stuff from the third installment of the franchise without hoping it would be as good but what a huge diappointment it turned out to be after a three-year wait to get this ridiculous sequel.

Spider-Man 3 doesnt have the charm from its prequels. It tries too hard telling too many messy underdevelopped storylines. Its even rather confusing at first not really knowing where its going. Then we get the first fight sequence and we hope that from there on the film will get on the right track and be somehow entertaining but it never gets the right tone.

There are too many villains and none of them is really developped and they all felt like they were just distractions in the film between - extremely - boring and lame drama scenes without really having anything to do with the actual film. Everything felt forced like there were no link between scenes.

Another minor thing that is harmful for the film is the score, Danny Elfman isnt back for the third film and it shows with some less exciting music. The new composer doesnt really manage to make the scenes more exciting with the score like Elfman would have done.

Spider-Man 2 had lots of depth and great psychological developpment even if it lacked subtlety at times it was very well done but here its just shallow or even hollow.

Thomas Haden Church and Topher Grace try hard but they only give fairly good performances with their plotless characters. Bryce Dallas Howard was underused, a stranger could have done the job. Kirsten Dunst is annoying and feels out of character compared the previous movies, she became some litlte tramp who goes to the first guy she sees when Peter doesnt give her all the attention she wants, it feels like she forgot she almost begged him to tell her how he felt and she also knew what she was getting into with him. Tobey Maguire is over-acting and lost all the charisma he had from the previous films. In the other hand James Franco seems to be having fun, bringing some quality to his characters despite a ridiculous plot twist - he has short-term memory loss but doesnt remember he was rich all his life (?!?!?!) and J.K. Simmons is still refreshing and funny.

Spider-Man is now some sort of star, it doesnt really make sense and Sam Raimi doesnt even try to give us any opinions about that theme, Peter Parker has become selfish which is so unlike him and then after his body is being invaded by some sort of - never explained how it got there - outerspace substance he suddenly become an «emo» kid and a womanizer giving us some of the most unbearable scenes I have seen at the movies.

The way Flint Marko - Thomas Haden Church - becomes Sandman is quite laughable and unexplained, he climb up a fence and falls in a hole where they do nuclear experimentations but they dont have any cameras to see what is going on in their hole (?!?!?!?!) then we never really get to know what that experience was all about, we just know Marko can suddenly control sand and he is pretty good at it after only 2 minutes. Topher Grace's Eddie Brock becomes Venom not too long before the end of the movie and he is disappointing. How come does he have the same power as Spider-Man ?? He wasnt bit by a spider, he was only touched by the outerspace substance, which is ONLY supposed to make him angrier and more out of control, that didnt make sense and he didnt look as huge as he did in the comic books.

Lots of moment should have been cut out of this film. Especially by the end when Harry's butler tells a speech - similar to the ones Alfred in Batman would say - that makes the film just more ridiculous than it already was. Its overlong and yet there is a lot of holes. It should have been easily 30 minutes shorter or it should have cut some of the boring shallow drama and give us more developpment. You find yourself watching around the theatre waiting for the next fight or action scenes to get entertained a bit which is never a good sign. Too many laughs at the wrong moments and for the wrong reasons.

The only good thing about this are the visual effects which have become extremely great making the fight scenes and the action seqeences very entertaining. Overall Spider-Man 3 doesnt belong with its prequels, it belongs with other bad superhero movies such as Fantastic Four and Daredevil, its simply extremely boring and never manages to get you on the edge of your seat like it should. It couldnt have been any worse. THUMBS DOWN

-----------------------------------
Spider-Man ****
Spider-Man 2 ****1/2