Spider-Man is Back... Kind Of.

Rating: 6/10 (7 May 2007)

I loved the first two Spider-Man movies. They were thrilling, fun, action-packed and the CGI was candy for the eyes... but the reason I loved them was they had solid stories with characters who weren't perfect, but you couldn't help but root for them anyway. That is what is lacking in Spider-Man 3 - the central story is extremely weak. It's like director Sam Raimi was throwing ideas at the wall and, if something stuck, he'd use it whether it helped move the narrative along or not.
Don't get me wrong, there were plot lines that had a lot of potential. I think The Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) could have been a great tragic anti-hero, along the lines of The Green Goblin and Doc Ock, if he had been given the proper treatment. He had an intriguing back-story, unfortunately that was abandoned early in the film to make way for snazzy effects. Granted, the scene where he is resurrected as a creature of sand is heartfelt, moving and the effects are breath-taking. The rest of the time he's in his sand form he's flying around New York City looking like a second cousin to the smoke monster on Lost. Ultimately, The Sandman is very one-dimensional because there isn't time to develop his character.
I admit I was not a fan of Spider-Man before the movies. I've never read the comic book and most of my Spidey knowledge was obtained through wikipedia.com. But from what I understand, Venom is like The Joker in the Spider-Man universe. With that said, I'm surprised how one-note the writers, director Raimi and his brother Ivan, made the character. While The Sandman had a little bit of complexity and heart, Vemon was nasty just for the sake of being nasty. He had no redeeming qualities. Topher Grace was clearly having a great time shedding his "good boy" image, which made the character far more interesting than he deserved to be. In the hands of a less capable actor Venom would have fallen completely flat.
As for the main characters in the film, I felt like I was watching the same actors playing totally different people. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) was rude, vain and arrogant. Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) was solemn, mopey and secretive. In the first two movies I could see the mutual attraction they had for each other. I felt the spark. At the end of the Spider-Man 2, when Mary Jane tells Peter to, "go get 'em, tiger"... it was all the proof I needed that these two were meant for each other. In Spider-Man 3 it seemed they didn't even like each other. Peter deliberately hurt Mary Jane by upside-down kissing newcomer Gwen Stacey (Bryce Dallas Howard) in front of hundreds of supporters (including MJ), and Mary Jane opened her heart to Harry Osbourne (brilliantly played by James Franco) without even considering Peter. I could see flashes of their original personalities towards the end of the film, but by then it was almost too late. Other characters (Aunt May - played by Rosemary Harris - and the previously mentioned Gwen Stacey) served little to no point in the movie and should have been left on the cutting room floor.
The main plot was intriguing and would have been fantastic if it had been executed correctly. It wasn't. According to press releases and commercials we were going to see Peter's "dark side" after he comes into contact with a black, gooey substance from outer space that brings out a person's more aggressive qualities. I'm not sure we saw Peter's dark side as much as we saw his emo side. I was expecting Angelus (from season 2 of Buffy) and what I got was a skinny nerd with really bad hair strutting down the street, pointing at pretty girls, and dancing in a jazz club. I could tell Maguire was having a lot of fun, but Peter certainly didn't come off as mean or menacing. Again, I blame that on having too many pots on the stove. The climax of the movie (which puts Mary Jane in danger... again) was so ridiculous I felt like I was watching a big-screen version of that old video game, Rampage. And a deus ex machina near the end of the film was so contrived I'm amazed the characters didn't just speak directly to the audience. Toss in about 10 interesting but abandoned sub-plots (and a soap opera twist!) and you have a general idea of what to expect.
Spider-Man 3 is basically two movies being smashed into one final product. And since it was just announced that there will be at least 3 more installments to the franchise I don't understand why Raimi felt the need to pack so much into 2 hours and 19 minutes. He should have held off on the dark Peter/Venom storyline and saved it for a later movie. He still had more than enough material for the third movie and he could have made it a character study worthy of it's predecessors.
This isn't to say I had a horrible time or that the movie is a total disappointment. The special effects were dazzling, I laughed out loud more than once (courtsey of the hilarious J. K. Simmons and J. Jonah Jameson), there was plenty of "edge-of-your-seat" action and a few sequences were beautiful (especially at the end). Still, Spider-Man 3 could have been so much more than it was. But even with this small hiccup I hope the creative team (Raimi, Maguire and Dunst) return for the next three movies or the franchise will truly fall into "Batman: The Schumacher Era" territory. And that would be a shame. I draw the line at spider nipples!