Spider-Man 3

And of course the rumor of three good movies in the franchise was not true. We have two incredible movies and then we have this one. It's definitely the lesser of the three and that says a lot, because its predecessors we're fantastic. The movie struggles to find out what it's really about and we get a movie filled with too many villains that doesn't get enough screentime, and maybe some of them shouldn't have had any at all. The acting is a little edgy this time around, but I think that's because of the script and the constant rewriting of it. It bugs me a little, because this could have easily been the definitive "Spider-Man" if Raimi had just removed some things from the movie and maybe added a couple of more good lines to the script.

This film has received a bad rap from many people. I feel I have to defend it. While I am not big on special effects and CGI, I will set those aside for the moment.

Anyone who grew up reading Spider-Man should know that putting 40 years of comic history into a movie (or 3) is a hard task. But I feel like they succeeded here. Venom comes across pretty accurately considering how much they had to truncate it, and the Sandman is decent despite some interesting modifications.

The biggest problem I had with this film is that if they do not make a fourth, they leave open too many plot lines. And, as far as I know, no such film is in the works. But that is more an issue of the studio, I think.

As I was walking down the stairs and out of the theater, I was trying as hard as I could to pull a smile out of my face. My friends tensely asked if I liked it, I said "Yes, of course!!" They nodded weakly in response. On the way home, I kept thinking to myself. "You liked it! C'mon! It's Spiderman!" Now, it's two days later, the euphoria of waiting for Spidey to come out has subsided, and I've begun to look at this flick a bit more (shall I say it?) critically.

It's plain to see that Sam Raimi is a fantastic director. He knows when to do what and realizes that he is making a superhero movie, which is why the Spider-man movies have done so well. It's not like the recent Batman and Superman who try to hide the fact that they're just fun superhero films. Raimi knows his material and embraces it. The effects were astounding as usual. Spiderman's one-on-one fight with the Sandman and the crane scene being the major highlights. I thought these features would outbalance the weaker spots of the film, but unfortunately they did not.

As far as acting goes, I'm surprised to say that Topher Grace stole the show. I remember how outraged everyone was when he was chosen, but obviously someone knew what they were doing when they let him on as Venom. James Franco and Kirsten Dunst played their usual selves (I can't help but think of Dunst dreaming of getting back to work with Sofia Coppola while doing these films). However, Tobey Maguire REALLY disappointed me. I've always thought he was so great at Spidey, which is undeniable in the first two films and even in this one...when he has his red suit on. Maguire is a one note actor, at least as far as Spidey goes. He just could not pull off the black suit; he wasn't good at being bad. Then came the horrific bridge scene with MJ. Along with most other people I've talked to, my entire theater erupted in laughter when he started crying. It was just...sad...and not in the way the writers intended it.

Speaking of the writing, I hate to be beating a dead horse, but c'mon: 3 villains, Sandman's background, trouble with MJ, Harry's changing attitudes, 2 different Spidermans, competition at the Bugle, Gwen Stacy, etc. It was just WAY TOO MUCH! Even if you had four hours, it's just too much to cram into the audience in one sitting. The great thing about Spiderman 2 (the best of the trilogy) is how focused it was. You had the inner struggle, the villain and his relationship with MJ. There it was! Beautifully filmed and written. From the first 15 minutes of Spiderman 3, I knew that all these parallel story lines were going to crash within the next two hours. The sequence that shows how far they've fallen from part two is the whole emo/hair in the eyes/eyeliner/oh so cool "bad" Spiderman scenes. The first few minutes of this was funny in the same way that the "Raindrops are Falling on my Head" scene in part two was great, but this time they stretched a good thing way too far. This whole sequence is what sticks in my mind and refuses to let me think that the film was just as great as the rest.

I tried to like it! I really did! I just can't fool myself any longer. Some critics like Peter Travers for Rolling Stone are saying that we can let this one slide because it's Spiderman, but I couldn't disagree more. Spiderman 3 missed the mark and, deep down inside, we all know it.

Yes, Spider Man 2 had a better story, but this is having none of that. This is pure camp and I love every second of it. The lines emo Peter says are legendary, all the things at that point just go instantaneously from 0 to a 100. The fights are actually really good too, I can't see why people view this film so badly? Maybe because it just isn't as serious as the previous ones, but that doesn't have to mean it's bad. I laughed from start to finish and therefore it's much more memorable than Spider Man 1 and 2.

By all means, Spider-Man 3 is not a bad movie, but the many flaws with the film make it the weakest of the series. But it is still enjoyable, however I did think the first two were better in terms of plot, characterisation and pacing. Well, there are a lot of good things. Out of the three films, this one is the best visually. The look of the whole film is mind blowing, with splendid special effects, brilliantly choreographed fight sequences and spectacular set pieces. The music is excellent, and the direction was efficient enough.

And the acting is very good, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are appealing as Peter and Mary-Jane and Rosemary Harris sparkles as Auntie May. Topher Grace is great as Brock but underused as Venom, but as Sandman Thomas Haden Church was note perfect and the best developed of the villains. James Franco is an improvement as Harry, and Bryce Dallas Howard is delightfully photogenic as Gwen Stacey. I loved JK Simmons as Jameson, in all three Spider-Man movies he stole every scene he appeared in.

However, there are a number of things that made it inferior to the first two. Basically and most importantly, and this was a similar problem I had with Pirates of the Caribbean:At World's End, it all felt a bit bloated. Two reasons made it so. One was too many characters. Primarily the villains, here, we get not one but three villains. While they were well performed, the character development of the villains felt rushed. Venom especially had way too little screen time as a result, and the final showdown between them felt a tad on the contrived side. Whereas you felt the menace of the Green Goblin and the tragedy of Dr Octopuss you are not always sure what to think here. Second, the plot as result to cramming too much in particularly with the idea of Spider-Man turning bad was rather convoluted, and was further disadvantaged by some surprisingly stodgy pacing. Other flaws were that the scripting lacked freshness and authenticity and the film was a bit too long.

All in all, it certainly wasn't bad. As a matter of fact it was enjoyable. But it could've been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox