![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Spiderman 3 [Review]
May. 15th, 2007 10:15 amI wasn't going to bother writing a review of Spiderman 3 because lots of other people have done so already, but then I realised when has being unoriginal and second ever stopped me before?
Spoilers ahoy, Cap'n!
Most reviews have summed up what's wrong with the film - it's too long and there's too much in it being the primary criticisms. Whilst the previous films were pretty much just the story of Peter parker, Spiderman 3 tries to tell the story from the perspective of at least five people and it just doesn't work. Sam Raimi has said that he writes these films with the starting idea of 'What is Peter's emotional journey', and then chooses the most appropriate villain to tell that story. I think we can assume that Peter's emotional journey in Spiderman 3 is one of confusion and incomprension, because that's the film, oh yes.
So what are the stories we're expected to follow?
Peter Parker's Story: Spiderman is on a high - he's got the gal of his dreams and he's a hero to one and all (except JJ Jameson). When everything goes wrong for him - he loses his gal, the city turns against him and he's suborned by an alien symbiote from a meteorite which lands next to him in the park - he turns to evil. Or rather, he lets his fringe go floppy, buys some eyeliner and starts generally acting like![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
raggedhalo. Aintitcoolnews suggests that evil peter is still peter - a bit of a crap nerd, and I'll buy that, but it's an overlong sequence which goes nowhere.
Then there's the evil black suit which gets him revelling in his new, greater, power. Leaving aside the hokey means of it's introduction (at least the script made an effort in the first film where he got his powers), Spiderman is pretty powerful anyway and the black suit doesn't seem to do that much for him, so when he gives it up it doesn't seem much of a drag.
Mary Jane Watson's story: In Spiderman 2, MJ was a red hot actress, cover model for a cosmetics company and the toast of broadway. In SM3 she's a bit of a biffer who can't act for toffee and gets lousy reviews. Why? Because the script says so, that's why. Don't ask questions. She goes all emo over her failures and takes it out on her boyfriend before going bunny boiler on him because he had the nerve, gall and temerity to kiss a girl whose life he just saved. MJ turning nasty is a major reason Peter turns to the dark side, but really it's just poor scripting making her do what the plot demands.
When Harry Osbourne/Green Goblin (more later) turns evil later in the film and threatens to kill her unless she dumps Peter, she doesn't think 'Gee, Peter and I may have our troubles, but he's a superhero who has saved my life at least twice so maybe I ought to tell him his best friend has gone apeshitbonkers'. No, she just does as she's told. Crap, crap crap.
Harry osbourne's story: Harry Osbourne is the son of the original Green Goblin from film one, and he's spent the last few years agonising over his (erroneous) belief that Spiderman killed his father. Tormented by hallucinations and guilt he finally slips into insanity and sets out to take revenge.
James Franco's performance was, for me, a standout of the film. He moves from tormented pain to happy friendship to malicious glee with ease and conviction and makes a truly hamfisted script really work. As I watched I couldn't help wonder what Star Wars 2 and 3 would have been like with Franco in the Anakin Skywalker role rather than the length of knotty pine which Lucas actually cast(a damn sight better, that's what).
Of course, he's let down by the crap he has to interact with, not least the dramatic turning moment of the plot where his butler effectively says: "Oh, I know you've been agonising over Spiderman killing your dad for the last six years. Just thought I'd mention that he wasn't. I didn't tell you before because I didn't think you'd be interested."
By this stage I was hooting at the screen and throwing popcorn. You will be too.
Sandman's story: Another standout performance from Thomas Haden Church (whom I'd never heard of before) as a small time hood with a good heart in over his head. of course, as with the rest of the script, his actions are senseless and devalue an excellent performance. Turned to sand by a nuclear disintegrator (safely esconced behind a chain-link fence with a sign saying "Do not climb over - nuclear disintegrator in action" on it), Sandman can, well, control sand. His crimes motivated by a desire to buy expensive medical treatment for a sick daughter, he decides to kill Spiderman because...well, just because, really. I couldm't really figure out why he'd waste time trying to beat up a superhero when the clock is ticking on his terminally ill daughter, but I'm sure that the scriptwriters has a really good reason beyond needing some fights to help sell toys.
At least Peter has a reason to hate Sandman - in another of the films excellently scripted and utterly believable 'Oh we all knew this, we just didn't bother telling you' moments, Peter is told that Sandman actually killed his uncle and not the man whom the police have been telling him did it for, you know, the last six years. So that all makes sense then.
Venom's story: It's said that Raimi hated the character of Venom and only included him on the demand of the studio for 'the fans'. Well, you can tell. About a quarter of the way into the film, a gigantic shoehorn appears in shot and Topher Grace slides down it into the film where he says "Hi! I'm Peter Parker's arch-rival for a job on the Bugle, Eddie Brock! Never seen me before? Forget about it! Nothing else in the film makes sense either!".
When Peter shows Brock to be a cheating liar and gets him fired from the Bugle, Brock responds by going bonkers and trying to kill Peter and torture his girlfriend.
You know, like you would.
It's really not a very good film. It tries to cram in too much and tell too many stories and as a result achieves none of it's aims. Even the bit I was looking forward to - JJ Jameson - is rendered leaden and unfunny by a subplot about him having to rein in his temper due to a heart condition. As JJ's charm was based on his hyperbolic anger and offensiveness, there's nothing left once this is gone.
There's some good bits but not many for a film which is the best part of three hours long. I'm not sure what the journey Peter goes on in this film is - possibly it's learning that sometimes people don't give you information of life-and-death importance because the script demands it.
I'd give it three stars. The charming lady I saw it with gave it two, because she didn't get the visceral, hindbrain testosterone reaction to exciting fight scenes and superheroics. I think she's got a point.
Spoilers ahoy, Cap'n!
Most reviews have summed up what's wrong with the film - it's too long and there's too much in it being the primary criticisms. Whilst the previous films were pretty much just the story of Peter parker, Spiderman 3 tries to tell the story from the perspective of at least five people and it just doesn't work. Sam Raimi has said that he writes these films with the starting idea of 'What is Peter's emotional journey', and then chooses the most appropriate villain to tell that story. I think we can assume that Peter's emotional journey in Spiderman 3 is one of confusion and incomprension, because that's the film, oh yes.
So what are the stories we're expected to follow?
Peter Parker's Story: Spiderman is on a high - he's got the gal of his dreams and he's a hero to one and all (except JJ Jameson). When everything goes wrong for him - he loses his gal, the city turns against him and he's suborned by an alien symbiote from a meteorite which lands next to him in the park - he turns to evil. Or rather, he lets his fringe go floppy, buys some eyeliner and starts generally acting like
raggedhalo. Aintitcoolnews suggests that evil peter is still peter - a bit of a crap nerd, and I'll buy that, but it's an overlong sequence which goes nowhere.Then there's the evil black suit which gets him revelling in his new, greater, power. Leaving aside the hokey means of it's introduction (at least the script made an effort in the first film where he got his powers), Spiderman is pretty powerful anyway and the black suit doesn't seem to do that much for him, so when he gives it up it doesn't seem much of a drag.
Mary Jane Watson's story: In Spiderman 2, MJ was a red hot actress, cover model for a cosmetics company and the toast of broadway. In SM3 she's a bit of a biffer who can't act for toffee and gets lousy reviews. Why? Because the script says so, that's why. Don't ask questions. She goes all emo over her failures and takes it out on her boyfriend before going bunny boiler on him because he had the nerve, gall and temerity to kiss a girl whose life he just saved. MJ turning nasty is a major reason Peter turns to the dark side, but really it's just poor scripting making her do what the plot demands.
When Harry Osbourne/Green Goblin (more later) turns evil later in the film and threatens to kill her unless she dumps Peter, she doesn't think 'Gee, Peter and I may have our troubles, but he's a superhero who has saved my life at least twice so maybe I ought to tell him his best friend has gone apeshitbonkers'. No, she just does as she's told. Crap, crap crap.
Harry osbourne's story: Harry Osbourne is the son of the original Green Goblin from film one, and he's spent the last few years agonising over his (erroneous) belief that Spiderman killed his father. Tormented by hallucinations and guilt he finally slips into insanity and sets out to take revenge.
James Franco's performance was, for me, a standout of the film. He moves from tormented pain to happy friendship to malicious glee with ease and conviction and makes a truly hamfisted script really work. As I watched I couldn't help wonder what Star Wars 2 and 3 would have been like with Franco in the Anakin Skywalker role rather than the length of knotty pine which Lucas actually cast(a damn sight better, that's what).
Of course, he's let down by the crap he has to interact with, not least the dramatic turning moment of the plot where his butler effectively says: "Oh, I know you've been agonising over Spiderman killing your dad for the last six years. Just thought I'd mention that he wasn't. I didn't tell you before because I didn't think you'd be interested."
By this stage I was hooting at the screen and throwing popcorn. You will be too.
Sandman's story: Another standout performance from Thomas Haden Church (whom I'd never heard of before) as a small time hood with a good heart in over his head. of course, as with the rest of the script, his actions are senseless and devalue an excellent performance. Turned to sand by a nuclear disintegrator (safely esconced behind a chain-link fence with a sign saying "Do not climb over - nuclear disintegrator in action" on it), Sandman can, well, control sand. His crimes motivated by a desire to buy expensive medical treatment for a sick daughter, he decides to kill Spiderman because...well, just because, really. I couldm't really figure out why he'd waste time trying to beat up a superhero when the clock is ticking on his terminally ill daughter, but I'm sure that the scriptwriters has a really good reason beyond needing some fights to help sell toys.
At least Peter has a reason to hate Sandman - in another of the films excellently scripted and utterly believable 'Oh we all knew this, we just didn't bother telling you' moments, Peter is told that Sandman actually killed his uncle and not the man whom the police have been telling him did it for, you know, the last six years. So that all makes sense then.
Venom's story: It's said that Raimi hated the character of Venom and only included him on the demand of the studio for 'the fans'. Well, you can tell. About a quarter of the way into the film, a gigantic shoehorn appears in shot and Topher Grace slides down it into the film where he says "Hi! I'm Peter Parker's arch-rival for a job on the Bugle, Eddie Brock! Never seen me before? Forget about it! Nothing else in the film makes sense either!".
When Peter shows Brock to be a cheating liar and gets him fired from the Bugle, Brock responds by going bonkers and trying to kill Peter and torture his girlfriend.
You know, like you would.
It's really not a very good film. It tries to cram in too much and tell too many stories and as a result achieves none of it's aims. Even the bit I was looking forward to - JJ Jameson - is rendered leaden and unfunny by a subplot about him having to rein in his temper due to a heart condition. As JJ's charm was based on his hyperbolic anger and offensiveness, there's nothing left once this is gone.
There's some good bits but not many for a film which is the best part of three hours long. I'm not sure what the journey Peter goes on in this film is - possibly it's learning that sometimes people don't give you information of life-and-death importance because the script demands it.
I'd give it three stars. The charming lady I saw it with gave it two, because she didn't get the visceral, hindbrain testosterone reaction to exciting fight scenes and superheroics. I think she's got a point.
