A Tangled Web: Spider-Man 3

I grew up reading Spider-Man comics and watching the cartoons. I've always been a fan of the nerdy Peter Parker struggling with everyday problems and learning that with great power comes great responsibility. The first two movies did a fine job of capturing many of the good qualities of the comic, especially Spider-Man 2, which I consider one of the finest comic to film adaptations. The third film opened at the box office huge, as expected, setting records for single day, 3-day weekend, and worldwide opening numbers. It makes sense since he's a popular character and because of the success of the first two films. However, this third film has several pitfalls which ultimately made the film a slight disappointment for me.

The main problem stems from the screen story by Sam and Ivan Raimi. I think Sam Raimi is a very gifted director with a solid style. The Evil Dead films and A Simple Plan are good examples of his directorial talent. However, his writing has been minimal with his last major writing credit being on the Coens Bros. film The Hudsucker Proxy back in 1994 and that is one of their weaker films. The Raimi brothers try to incorporate too many story lines and villains into one film. Based on articles I've read, they envisioned this as two movies that they could film back-to-back. When they could not come up with a satisfying conclusion for the third film to push into the fourth, they decided to mash it together into one film. I think this decision was the cause behind some of the sloppiness in the story and the way too long 140 minute running time.

In the main story of Parker (Tobey Maguire) battling his inner demons, the film brings in three villains for Spider-Man to battle. Each villain on their own have areas of interest, but they are never fully fleshed out. There just isn't time to build them up and make them more than just punching bags for the battle scenes. In the first two films the villains were integral to the story and were given time to develop as characters. Nothing like that here. The story tries to make you feel for Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) who becomes Sandman by giving him a sick daughter, but it just doesn't fly when the character has no consistency in his display of downtrodden guy vs. obvious villainous nature. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is just a selfish jerk, and the hatred within him leads to his becoming Venom, villain number 2. Finally, we get former friend Harry Osborn (James Franco) taking on his destiny from his father and seeking revenge. I can see how they wanted to use the villain's different natures to compare to Parker's own battle with his dark side when he is possessed by the black suit. The three villains representing varying degrees of evil: misguided, pure, and misunderstood. Ultimately, the haphazard way the different story lines are handled detract from an interesting approach. You would think that filmmakers would have learned from the Batman films of the 1990's that more villains usually just causes a mess. At least this movie handles it better than those Batman films.

The story is also not kind to MJ (Kirsten Dunst) or her relationship with Parker. The biggest "why did they do it" of the whole film for me was having Dunst sing ... twice. After Parker is taken over by the black suit, we know he is evil because he combs his hair into his eyes and starts walking down the street checking out women. The worst aspect of the black suit destroying the good in Parker is when he takes new character Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) to a jazz club. The scene that follows is camp of the highest order. My jaw literally dropped as I mouthed, "What the fuck?" during this scene.

Now the movie is not all bad. It is fairly entertaining and not just the action scenes which are first rate. Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) again provides some great comedy scenes. Topher Grace provides some good moments as Parker's rival at the Bugle. Screenwriter Alvin Sargent returned to co-write the screenplay with the Raimi brothers and the wit of his dialogue from the second film is pretty easy to spot. I think the movie would have been better had Sargent and Pulitzer prize winner Michael Chabon worked together again as they did on Spider-Man 2.

It's a shame that Raimi felt he had to make something "bigger and better" in the summer movie franchise vein. The formula for Spider-Man 2 really set a standard, and it would have been wise to follow it. In trying to out do himself, he's actually given the viewer less by making a tangled mess of ideas that while mildly entertaining just isn't fulfilling. B-