This movie betrays the Spider-Man mythos

Rating: 5/10 (5 May 2007)

Spoilers follow.
There's great CGI here. Wonderful fight scenes and tons of action. But the relationships don't work. The Pete/MJ chemistry seemed absent. I didn't care if they were together or not. Gwen had nothing to do, but Howard and the script at least hinted at the kind of person she was in the comic and why Peter Parker loved her.
The relationship that worked was Pete/Harry. It was far more interesting than anything else in the movie. I can see James Franco going on to great stardom. I also enjoyed the warped variation of the villain/butler relationship as contrasted with the Batman/Alfred cliché.
Topher as Eddie Brock was painless, if not especially interesting. Seeing the guy go to church to pray for Peter Parker's death seemed kinda stupid, but OK. That he happened to go to the same church where Pete was hanging around the bell tower trying to peel of his alien costume was asking a bit much. And why Pete was in the bell tower anyway when he hadn't figured out that loud noises are the symbiote's weakness is a bit disturbing. Why would anyone choose to strip in a bell tower? So the goo drips onto Brock and he becomes Venom. Always thought he was a rather stupid villain with no real dimension. This film did nothing to add depth to the character for me.
So the first thing Venom does is get Sandman to help him take on Spidey. Why? He's got new powers and should be feeling very tiptop... but he thinks he needs to team up with Sandman before he even thinks of confronting Parker. What kind of villain is that? What kind of writer, in trying to build up the sense of menace in his villain, decides that he needs to make fear of the hero a defining characteristic? Weak! Weak! With that confidence issue, it is hard to see Venom as anything more than a wuss.
The tiny subplot of Sandman and his daughter was interesting. Far more interesting than any of the Venom stuff or any of Mary Jane's whining/singing/whining/more singing. But they never paid it off. I guess we are left to wonder if Flint Marko is going to go finish stealing the money he needs to save his kid (with Parker's implied blessing), or if he is going to turn himself in and let her die... or just what the hell he's going to do. The writer's bit into something interesting in their setup of this character, but never chewed it or digested it. Just spat it out without a thought, leaving the audience distracted by CGI smash and crash as if enough mayhem might pass as substitute for humanity and actual plot points.
But when I care more about the little girl in Sandman's locket than I do the girl Peter is giving Aunt May's ring to, the jewelry parallel that could have been an interesting bit of writing, becomes a trap that the writers' lack the talent to escape. I didn't care if Pete and MJ stuck together or got engaged. I wanted Sandman to save his little girl. And I wanted his wife to appreciate the lengths he went to in his efforts to save their child. Theresa Russell's loathing for her ex didn't ring true. It was tired and clichéd.
But these aren't the biggest problems with Spider-Man 3. The biggest problem is that Sam Raimi betrayed Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. He betrayed the character of Peter Parker. He did this by having Flint Marko emerge as the actual killer of Uncle Ben.
Understand what this means. It means that Peter's off the hook. It means that the man he refused to stop was a mere thief; not the future murderer of Uncle Ben. It means the man he chased into the warehouse and pursued to his death was a petty thief. It means that Peter need not feel any guilt about his Uncle's death. It means that the event that taught him his defining lesson of great power and great responsibility never happened.
Spider-Man's defining moment... gone.
And so Raimi has betrayed the character and the franchise with this outing. I am very disappointed.