Third Time's a Harm

Rating: 4/10 (5 May 2007)

The first time I saw Spiderman in the cinema, my jaw hit the floor at least ten times. The effects weren't just mind-bogglingly beautiful, they had heart, and served a purpose: to drive the story. You could practically FEEL what each character was going through---and empathise---even whilst cheering them on in each well-choreographed fight scene. For the first time, a comic-book-based film had a heart, had a story to tell, and deserved a standing ovation at the end for daring to be vulnerable.
The other four times were just as rewarding.
The sequel had more troughs than peaks but oh boy, when it reached the highs, it came close to scarring the atmosphere. Emotional context was the key---each and every character stood to lose so much more. And again, a first: a bad guy who could be empathised with. Unlike the Penguin in Batman Returns, Doc Ock could be understood and sympathised with and when you see him descend into the murky depths at the end, you can feel the anguish.
Throughout both films, the love that grows between Peter Parker and Mary Jane helps to both strengthen the plot line, and make both characters vulnerable to the action around them. It also helped to ground the story a little.
3, unfortunately, took all the restraint and discipline and shot them out the window in a blaze of over-enthusiasm. Raimi seems to have taken all the energy from the other two films---and the countless plot threads---and instead of taking each one on succinctly and entertainingly, he aims for the Big No-no: Simultaneous Crash. Batman and Robin did it too. Too many bad guys spoil the broth. So do too many half-baked ideas, too many dollars, and not enough sense.
This, I fear, is the end of Spiderman as we knew it; and the beginning of what seems like an epidemic of empty, hopeless video game-wannabes that kill the braincells with far too many images and not enough vision. I desperately wanted this film to astonish me. I deliberately went in with low expectations, after being made all too aware of its over-the-top style by countless headlines web-wide (pun absolutely intended). Yet even with my hopes so low, it succeeded in only one thing: proving that the dollar signs glowing in studio exec's eyes clearly outshine the bright luminous imaginations of today's writers. Why have one nemesis when you can have three? Especially cos that means more toys, doesn't it? More soundbytes and snippet-images to force-feed on us through TV and the Web. More to sell, more to profit. And hell, Venom is more wasted than Tim Allen on a weekend. Fifteen minutes devoted to an interstellar symbiotic menace capable of destroying Spiderman.
What a shame that this is the final bow of Spiderman. And so much more the shame, that this new version of Spiderman---the one that more closely resembles a Power Ranger---has done what Venom also does: Taken over what we loved, absorbed it, flushed out the good, and all that remains is a dark and horrible lifeless thing.
Dramatic, yes, but when Raimi showed everyone else what real superhero films should be about, he seemed to be aiming away from this train-wreck-style movie-making. Seems I was wrong.
James Franco and Thomas Haden Chruch were almost leftovers of a forgotten script, and yet they were on top of their game in this one. Despite their ruined plot lines and rarish appearances on screen, they still outshone their colleagues, and brought the script quality up a notch.
Too bad they were stuck in a quicksand no-one could escape.