Monday, May 14, 2007

Spiderman 3

Spiderman 3 (***)

The Spiderman trilogy (although it sounds like its going end up as more than a trilogy) as a whole is a lot of fun and a worthy adaptation of the long running comic book series. The third installment, however, is the weakest of the three and more erratic and less focused than the previous two. The first two movies were fairly simple, giving Spiderman one main villain to contend with and allowing plenty of time for Peter Parker to grow as a character and his relationships with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn to develop. These relationships are in no way abandoned in Spiderman 3, but they aren't as interesting because the movie simply has too much going on.

Chief amongst my complaints is the fact that the movie has one too many villains. Where the first film had the original Green Goblin and the second had Doctor Octopus, Spiderman 3 meanders between storylines involving Harry becoming the new Green Goblin, Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church) becoming The Sandman, and Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) becoming Venom. None of them are really given enough time to be truly memorable, except maybe for Harry, who has had a conflict with Spiderman/Peter building since the end of the first film. Even still, Harry's part in the film seems somewhat thrown together. In his first confrontation with Peter in early the movie Harry is thrown from his glider and suffers head trauma that manages to cause him to lose his memory of most everything past the death of his father. Afterwards, Peter tries to rekindle his friendship with him, and Mary Jane comes to confide in him regarding issues with her relationship with Peter. In this way, Harry is kept close to both Peter and M.J. for the remainder of the film. This seems too convenient, even for a comic book movie.

The main players in the Venom storyline: Eddie Brock, Gwen Stacy, and the black suit that eventually becomes the entity that is Venom are all introduced fairly early in the film, but are then mostly set aside while The Sandman's origin is told and he faces Spiderman in a visually cool but somewhat anti-climactic battle. The plot then shifts back again, as Peter begins to don the black suit, date Gwen Stacy and embrace his "dark side" in a sequence that's already led to thousands of emo jokes across the internet. The bottom line is that the lack of focus on any one of these characters means that their sum total doesn't add up to anything as interesting as the grand sum of the first two movies. We learn a little about The Sandman's motivations, and certain scenes cast him in a somewhat sympathetic light, but we don't see enough of him to truly care about his characters fate, nor does he really get a chance to develop much of a personality.

Meanwhile, the creation of Venom, while true to the comics, is similarly rushed and there isn't enough tension built before the inevitable battle. The film's ending does have some emotion to it, and while room for a sequel is definitely left open, there are significant developments and it does work as the closing to a trilogy. I was bothered, however, with some of the events leading up to the climax. There is an alliance made at the end of the film that seems to have a shaky justification based on what we're shown as an audience. It seems like a scene is missing. Again, the film seems to be rushing too much and trying to hastily find connections for multiple complicated story arcs. At times it felt like the filmmakers were trying to create Spiderman 3 & 4 at the same time. There is a rumor that Sam Raimi, who directed all 3 of the films, wanted to continue focusing on villains from the early period of the comic book series and originally wanted to include the Sandman, and only the Sandman in the film. Producer Avi Arad, allegedly, then more or less forced Raimi to write in Venom to appease the fans, many of which grew up reading Venom in comics during the 1990s and saw him in the cartoon show during the same period. I'm in no position to know if this is true or false, but it certainly seems plausible.

I have laid out some major problems I had with the movie, but I don't want to act as if I completely hated it. The humor that was in the first two films is still there (including another great Bruce Campbell cameo), the action is still both technically impressive and exciting to watch, and there are still a lot of moments that put a smile on your face. Even though I feel it is a step backward I don't think it destroys what the first two films began, nor does it do injustice to the characters or to the original series. All of the films have been worth the price of admission, and the series stands at the forefront of the recent trend of comic book movies, though it may soon be overtaken when the successors to the excellent Batman Begins are released.

No comments: