One Can't Fault A Superhero Movie For Being A Superhero Movie

Rating: 7/10 (9 May 2007)

Spider-Man 2 was a masterpiece of character drama that managed to keep an audience of comic book fans and superhero buffs and kids gripped even during large gaps without action. It was incredibly riveting and the cinematography was never corny the way it tends to be with many superhero films and especially Sam Raimi films. It was a landmark. Spider-Man 3 is fine, but it just doesn't hit as hard. I'm not feeling anything for it right now. I know it's a good movie, but I saw it yesterday and I forgot until now to write my review. It's not a forgettable movie in the sense that you're indifferent the entire time. It's just another comic book flick.
I think part of the problem is that I'm for some odd reason fickle in my viewpoints on several things in this movie, and I'm usually very hard-headed about what I think of a movie, right down to the last frame. For instance, the story seems very contrived and constructed rather than led to, but on another hand, the almost ad-libbing, seemingly improvised script draws interest from the audience. Examples include that there's a Sand Man, but there's also an alien venom. Or that Harry still wants revenge for his father's death and won't listen, but he will, but he won't. Peter gets pushed around and handles it in unpredictable, self-destructive ways, but will Spider-Man still save the day? The audience desperately wants to know, not just for their sake but for the togetherness of the movie, how all of these strands are handled and woven together by the end.
Another thing I'm torn about is the episode of the film dealing with the venomized spidersuit, where Spider-Man is influenced by the black alien venom. This isn't a spoiler, so don't worry. You see that in the trailer. My problem with it is that that is my favorite part of the movie, because I enjoy everything he does when he wears this venomized suit. I think the audience is supposed to like certain things he does to an extent and certain parts of it are meant to be productive to him and thus making the venom addictive, but I happen to commend all the vindication and rebellion by him in the duration of this part.
I'm certain of a few things, though. One of them is how the Sandman, played by the odd casting choice of Thomas Haden Church, comes to be the Sandman. It's ridiculous, completely not believable, and even though one can't fault a superhero movie for being a superhero movie, there are certain things that need to be believable. I can't stand not giving it away in order to explain it, but I want those who are reading these reviews on here to be able to use them for what they're meant to be used for: Persuasion and direction of one's expectations. The reviews with spoiler alerts serve no purpose, because you can only read them after you've seen it. What's the point? Anyway, I do however find a lot of the special effects pertaining to the Sandman to be awesome, especially in the first scene where he appears, falling apart but still moving and gathering up again.
So the verdict is that Spider-Man 3 does not surpass its predecessor and perhaps in film series that are constructed continuations for the sake of franchise rather than large-scale stories that last that long to be told simply can't be as memorable because of how many times we've seen the same characters already, almost like an episode in a television series. But, it is very entertaining in that fast, fun, undemanding Hollywood way.