Posted by Richard Pulfer on May 4th, 2007
Spider-Man 3 has officially opened, kicking off the summer blockbuster season while capping off one of the most lucrative trilogies in modern memory.
Spider-Man 3 begins where the second film ends - Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is happily paired with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). As Spider-Man seems to have finally earned the trust of most New Yorkers, Peter sets out to propose to MJ - with the very ring his beloved Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson)Â gave Aunt May (Rosemary Harris).
As we expect, Spidey’s dreamy status quo is rocked by a catalyst - and not one catalyst, but a whole series of complications worthy of 30 years of Spider-Man comics.
His buddy Harry Osborn (James Franco) plots revenge on Peter for the death of his father Norman (Willem Dafoe), the first Green Goblin. An young upstart named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is fishing for Peter’s job. His sexy lab partner Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) has a crush on him. And Uncle Ben’s true killer - small time hood Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) - just got his molecues spliced with sand, making him one dangerous dust cloud.
And, to top it all over, Spider-Man just found a new all-black costume that greatly increases his power and agility - all at a startling price to his personality.
Where Spider-Man 3 really succeeds is setting the bar on characterization. Nearly every principle character in the film is explored in scruintous details, revealing new facets to old faces like Aunt May and Harry Osborn. Mary Jane also gets quite a great deal more depth this time around, with more attention given to her insecurities and vulnerabilties as well as her strengths and dreams.
Thomas Hayden Church and James Franco really step up to the plate in the antagonist category. Church plays a great Sandman, perfectly highlighting the depth of this ambigious comic book character, while Franco imbues Harry with tragedy, humor and heart. Did I mention the New Goblin flies somewhere between Blade Runner and an F-16 in comparison to Daddy Osborn’s bulky old glider?
Raimi and Maguire succeed whole-heartedly in making Peter Peter a geek even when under the influence of a strange outer space symbiote, and the implication that Peter is just as a big as nerd - if not bigger - with the costume as without out is a hilarious one only furthered by the actor and director’s comfortable relationship (although one crazy scene in a jazz club might speak to them being too comfortable).
But for all the strengths of the films, there are weaknesses. Most notably, there’s a new composer (Christopher Young) overlapping Danny Elfman’s mellow and memorable music. While Young does an admirable job, he rarely stands out in comparison to Elfman’s trademark tunes, which are still used to highlight the most stirring moments of the film.
The presence of three villains also hinders the character development at times. Doc Ock, Alfred Molina’s villain of the last film, had the benefit of an entire movie to flesh out the tortured mad scientist. Though Raimi and crew give it their best shot, its not that simple with three. Franco’s New Goblin is probably the best villain of the bunch - there are equal times divided among truly liking Harry and truly despising him. The Sandman is a close second - he gets a fair amount of depth further reflected by Church’s mournful facial expressions. But unfortunately, Church spends a lot of time in the film a lumbering semi-intelligible sand giant, and not green-stripped goon we all know and love.
And that leaves the start attraction - Venon - with the short end of the stick. Though the character appears in the later half of the film for obvious reason, even Eddie Brock is shafted on the development. We feel Brock is more an obstacle to be overcome then a character to be watched, and not many tears are shed at the film’s end for Venom, no matter how cool he looks.
Despite all these flaws, Spider-Man 3 is well worth the wait and the hype. The film stands as a major achievement for director Sam Raimi and his terrific cast, who have all evolved as actors, directions and lastly characters over the course of the trilogy. Ultimately, Spider-Man 3 stands to its predecessors as to what Return of the Jedi was to Empire Strikes Back - a worthy and satisfying conclusion to what is perhaps the best superhero trilogy to date.
Posted in comics, entertainment
| email this article
If you liked that, try...
- My Top Ten Observations About Iron Man
- Comic Rundown: Colbert Vampire Skrulls
- Comic Rundown: The Good Ideas, The Bad Ideas and the Ugly Ideas
- Comic Rundown: Crisis Management
- Comic Rundown: Bat-Ape and Kite-Man
Podcast RSS
Webcomic Junkie
May 5, 2007 at 9:16 am
Unfortunatly, it sucked
[Reply]
Richard Pulfer
May 5, 2007 at 9:28 am
See, I’m actually surprised about the amount of negativity surronding “Spider-Man 3″. According to Rotten Tomatoes, “Spider-Man 3″ is positioned at 61% - just enough for a fresh pick.
I admit I didn’t like it as much as “Spider-Man 2″ - I think one critic noted that the three villains don’t add up to the sum of Dock Ock, but I think each villain showcased here had at least more depth to the Green Goblin.
There were certainly things I didn’t like. I didn’t like Harry’s butler being the duex ex machina in the end - the “by the way, your father died by his own sword. You know, FYI.”
But ultimately, I can’t bring myself to not like it. I still thought it was an awesome movie - perhaps not the best of the trilogy, but satisfying nevertheless.
[Reply]
Shawn M.
May 5, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I just got back from seeing it. I have to admit, while it was perhaps the weakest of the trilogy, it was still a good (but not great) movie. Venom really needed the movie to himself to properly develop that idea instead of sharing time with the other 1 1/2 villains. Kirsten Dunst did nothing to change my mind about her being the wrong pick for MJ from the very beginning (her awful singing particularly).
It had the stunts, the fights, and the special effects to satisfy, but it really missed the heart that the first two movies brought.
The most telling thing, I think, was my wife’s reaction. Whereas I’ve been a lifelong Spidey fan, she’s only known the character through the films. When I asked her how she liked it, she said, “I didn’t. It just didn’t feel right”.
I think it’ll have a huge opening weekend, but I don’t think it’ll break records like Spidey 2 did.
[Reply]
Richard Pulfer
May 5, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I think not having Danny Elfman not attached in the fullest really did hurt this movie, Shawn M. Its like any time they felt Young’s music wasn’t strong enough, they just arbitrary slipped in those same Elfman cords we heard in the last movies. And don’t get me wrong - it’s great music - but this movie needed a theme of its own.
I don’t know if it was the weakest of the movie - personally I enjoyed Harry and Peter teaming up very much - but I just know it wasn’t as good as Spider-Man 2. I didn’t like that Venom got shafted by not enough development time or that Sandman walked around like a - what’d I say - lumbering semi-intelligible sand giant.
All the villains were good. All the villains could have carried the movie - seperately - but it was a bit of a mess altogether.
[Reply]