Spider-Man 3 tangles itself up in its own web of story lines

Rating: 8/10 (18 January 2008)

The successful Spider-Man trilogy has been completely overseen by director Sam Raimi, unlike most superhero sagas that start out with one director and then eventually get replaced by others. This has afforded Spider-Man a very impressive level of continuity, especially since most of the principal cast are still very much intact.
I thought the first film was a bit disappointing. It felt that all the pieces were in place, but Sam Raimi lacked that certain something to push the film into classic territory. Spider-Man 2 on the other hand was a complete polar opposite. Everything about the film worked. From its excellent direction to its wonderful script. That was a classic!
I enjoyed Spider-Man 2 so much it left me hopping about on pins and needles waiting for the next chapter. And when I finally did sit down to see Spider-Man 3, was I as impressed? Yes and no. I feel a trilogy should be a continually developing saga where each film is progressively better than the last. Pt 2 was certainly better than Pt 1. But the problem with Pt 3, is that while its just as good as the last one, its not better.
Its certainly the most ambitious. The first film's major flaw was its very lack of ambition. Spider-Man 2 broadened its horizons immeasurably, but I think Spider-Man 3 may have taken it to an absurd extreme.
Where the previous two had one villain apiece, this film has not one...not two...but three villains! As well as two love interests. And at the centre of it all...Spider-Man.
Including so many new characters has a bit of a crippling effect on Spider-Man 3. It sadly reminded me of the way the Batman series destroyed itself. How it started out rich and filled with psychological textures, and thanks to Joel Schumacher's incompetence, razzle-dazzle and an overstuffed story choked the life out of it.
Spider-Man 3 never gets Batman & Robin dire. It juggles its story lines well enough, but you can sometimes see the seams barely holding them together. And there are times when they seem very stretched.
Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) are a happy couple. She knows he's Spider-Man, and he's getting ready to propose. The people of New York have embraced Spidey as a hero. And he's even getting the key to the city. But before long, Spidey's up to his web-shooters in trouble.
First off is Harry Osborn. Harry's a regular chip off the old block. He's become the Green Goblin, just like his old man. And he's out to kill the one who offed his dad. Spidey (or so he thinks). Then Flint Marko, an ex-con accidentally becomes the Sandman, a living creature of sand. Peter becomes infected by an alien symbiote that brings out his dark side, which then takes over rival photographer Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), and becomes Venom, Spider-Man and Peter's arch enemy.
There were times during Spider-Man 3 when I felt it was a jumble of self-contained stories rather than an actual film. There is so much going on here. Something I praised the last film for, but here Raimi seems to have gotten a bit carried away.
He helped co-write the script along with his brother Ivan, and Alvin Sargent, and they've crammed in everything but the kitchen sink. Pt 2 had a wonderful organic feel as it flowed through each individual character arc. Pt 3 only achieves this intermittently.
Its not a bad film. Its a worthy addition to the series alright and it has a lot of good ideas. But where some of them are acted upon, others are shuffled aside.
Also, I think the film could have done without Sandman. He seems so negligible. The film attempts to tie him into the whole Uncle Ben mythos, which I felt didn't work at all. It only adds unnecessary complications to Spider-Man. Still I did like the scene when he first becomes Sandman, trying to regain human form. Watching him try to do something simple as pick up a locket and fail is quite heartbreaking. Its a beautiful scene and shows you what CGI can do when done with patience.
Venom is much more interesting, and given decent motivation by the film. Topher Grace, who first impressed me in 2004's In Good Company does well in the role. The photographer who gets humiliated by Parker, and when possessed by Venom, becomes a monster. The special effects work is excellent. In fact Venom often resembles the Alien. If Brock had made appearances in the previous two, it would have made his vendetta even more credible.
James Franco really comes into his own, but I wish the film hadn't resorted to a corny old amnesia plot device. Its hoary as anything, and recalls the limited scope of the first film. Still, he's improved greatly, and his death scene is surprisingly moving.
Tobey Maguire gets to have fun as the Dark Spider, but Raimi's take on it feels a bit ropey. Parker comes off as confident and arrogant, no doubt amplified by his growing self-esteem. But having Maguire sport a cowlick, swagger and smirk feels simplistic. There's none of the darkly driven urges you're expecting. Although I loved the scene where the Dark Spider is stuck to the side of a church like a gargoyle. Its beautiful, and reminds one of the extraordinary operatic heights of Tim Burton's Batman.
Kirsten Dunst gets a bit sidelined but she's often touching when her acting career suddenly takes a nosedive. And some of the action scenes are wonderfully gripping. Especially the fabulous climax on a construction site.
Spider-Man 3 is definitely epic, but it could have done with a little less. And a bit more of Rosemary Harris and J.K. Simmons. Spider-Man 3 is a good film. But its hard not to think that Raimi's diluted the series by trying to do too much.