250 million dollars, but no more magic.

Rating: 5/10 (3 May 2007)

Spider-Man 3 shows that not everything can be improved simply by throwing a lot of money at it. This movie may have cost 250 million dollars, it has lots of villains, pretty girls, special FX and twists, but it is - sadly - lacking a heart.
Before blowing off steam, I have to say that I *wanted* to like this movie - probably more than any other coming out this year. I watched the first two Spider-Man movies several times and bought the DVDs. Especially Spider-Man 2 was a perfect blend of all the ingredients people want to see in a mainstream action/super-hero movie: A good script, good acting, good chemistry between the lead characters and great special effects. When I saw the trailers for the third movie, I had my hopes up high. Everything seemed to be in place both for the hardcore comic fan and the mainstream audience.
But the result of all the hard work that undoubtedly went into this movie - with the exception of the script, which tries to please too many people without risking anything - simply isn't working.
The characters that were as interesting, believable and vivid as comic characters can be in Spider-Man 1 and 2 now are cardboard figures. The magic between the main characters is gone; both the love affair between Peter and M.J. and the friendship/antagonism between Spidey and the New Goblin seem forced (also, James Franco should be nominated for a Razzie Award - his "acting" is even below the level George Lucas would have found acceptable for one of his CGI-saturated space westerns).
Also, it is sad to see that both Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire now come off as one-trick ponies: the slightly melancholic, cute girl next door and the nerd with the shy smile, both obviously a bit weary of each other and their lives, losing focus and (almost) each other. Yes, there are the obligatory damsel-in-distress and the dying-bad-guy-realizing-the-error-of-his-ways sequences, but what worked brilliantly two times now has the sour smell of a cheap cliché.
Also, the comedy bits seem forced, especially the scenes at the Daily Bugle and Peter Parker's James Brown impression - they might be amusing for seven year old kids, but do not work as part of a movie with this budget and target audience.
Looking back, a cynic might say that Spider-Man 1 and 2 were essentially the same movie: The young hero faces challenges, has to take responsibilities and sees sympathetic father figures (first Norman Osborn, then Dr. Otto Octavius) turn into mad wizards. But it doesn't matter: They both were *good* movies. The conflicts and challenges seemed plausible. As a guy, you empathize with Peter Parker, you see the mess he is in and want him to succeed. And in the end, you know that the girl saying "Go get 'em, Tiger" was worth everything he/you ever had to endure.
In Spider-Man 3, these conflicts and their solutions are presented in an annoying "in-your-face" style: Save the "right" girl (red-haired singer/actress) instead of the blonde Barbie, and you will be rewarded. Forgive your friend (who tried to kill you several times), overcome your anger (symbolized/amplified by a symbiont), forgive your enemies ... when Spider-Man meets Sandman after the grand finale, about the only thing missing from their respective "Yeah, I've done bad things, but I didn't mean to" speeches is hugging each other.
Come on - I understand the positive message you are presenting here in a not-so-subtle way, but this isn't group therapy.
I hate to say it, but Spider-Man 3 looks like "creativity by committee" - a big budgets, lots of ideas, but the heart and soul of the franchise is lost.
This is not a bad movie, so I'm giving it a 5 out of 10 rating.
It just could have been so much more.