Spider-Man 3 Reviews
Sadly however by slipping in some terrible and cheesy dialogue, an over-abundance of new characters and then trying to take on one of the greatest characters from the comics and cartoons the film comes out with an average marking!
Firstly I have to say I enjoyed this film, it was fun, the special effects were fantastic and the fight scenes therefore played out very well.
This film did however destroyed any character building made by the previous two and results in a serious lack of cohesion to the other two and because of this cannot be placed within the same league.
Sandmand and the new goblin both admirable foes and both shown well, however venom could have been so much more and came across far too weak as far as I am concerned and seemed to be slipped on the back of an average film to try and boost ratings. I am not one for cliffhangers in large franchises, I mean the only reason I didn't see the 3rd matrix film was because the cliffhanger was pointless and the second film killed off any point of a third, however a full venom film would have made sense due to its sheer fantastic reasoning and design, even introducing the character carnage would have been fantastic, but he seems rushed in this film, and thats not the way to win over die hard fans and new fans the like!
Anyway, I appear to be ranting, I would recommend you watch this film, its fun, its got great action and the Bruce Campbell cameo was fantastic, however do not watch this thinking you are going to get the same quality and attention to detail as the first two films, watch it like X-Men 3, as this is just what it is, a good trilogy spoilt by the lack of development and the need to force as many characters in at once. Oh and by the way, if you love over the top American patriotism, then this is definitely the film for you!s tried to fit too much into the film. Three villains as well as Peter's own inner demons, tension with MJ, problems at the Bugle...how much can one superhero handle? Sure, everyone has their own part to play...but introducing all those new characters, and having their individual arcs play out to a satisfying extent - it's a big job, and one that doesn't quite pay off - or, at least, pays off at the expense of smooth narrative flow. We end up with some terribly clunky lines of expository dialogue - such as Eddie Brock's line to Chief Stacy, which goes something like 'I'm the new photographer at the Bugle...oh, and I'm dating your daughter' - that will make you spit goo in annoyance (or, whatever it is you do when you're annoyed - I spit goo) The many mental/emotional shifts Harry (poor, poor Harry) goes through are handled in a pretty ham-fisted way, too. I can see what Sam is trying to do...but it just seems a bit...well, the word 'clunky' keeps coming to mind. There are also a couple of very 'sequelly' bits, which seem a little inconsistent with the other films. I'm not talking about the whole 'Flint-Marko-killed-Uncle-Ben' thing - that was actually handled surprisingly well. The most memorable example of what I mean is Bernard's little word in Harry's ear concerning Norman's cause of death. Umm...so, why couldn't he have mentioned it EARLIER?! Like, y'know, at the start of Spidey 2 for instance! It would have saved Harry a LOT of grief - not to mention Pete and MJ.
Narrative flaws and rough edges aside, however, this succeeds in being far-and-away the most entertaining film of the three, based purely on action and laughs. It is the darkest, the most action-packed, and by far the FUNNIEST Spider-Man yet. This, I suppose, is the upshot of Sam Raimi himself writing the screenplay (with brother and Army of Darkness co-scribe Ivan). The sequence in which Peter turns into the lamest bad-boy in history is a total crack-up. The looks on the faces of the 'laydeez' as he struts along the street like a nerdy, emo-midget Travolta are absolutely priceless.
The chase/fight sequence between Peter and Gobby Jr. is brilliant. We fly and fall through the air, not knowing which way is up half the time. Only Sam Raimi could disorient an audience to that extent while still allowing us to keep up with what's going on - AND manage to inject the scene with such style, humour and gravity, all at the same time.
Both Sandman and Venom are great to watch. Yes, the special effects are awesome, but it mainly comes down to the fact that both characters are so well cast (no surprise really, given the casting in the previous films). Thomas Haden Church (a very BUFF Thomas Haden Church, I might add) brings real humanity to Flint Marko. We actually empathise with him. Topher Grace is great, too. He has fantastic comic timing, and gives us a very slick, smarmy, but perversely likable Eddie/Venom. He gets some of the best lines (as well as some of the worst).
The established cast are all as good as ever, and have now grown nicely into their roles. They all seem comfortable, with the possible exception of James Franco - just because his character has been messed with a bit. But he does a good job considering.
And then there's Gwen.
Bryce Dallas Howard.
Nothing much to say, really.
I suppose I could say that Gwen would never make it as a model, because she's far too healthy-looking and altogether too attractive.
But that might be a little cynical of me.
Bryce has a big future in movies. She's a very capable actor, and is obviously extremely photogenic. She just needs to stop doing bad M. Night Shyamalan films. And keep doing good Sam Raimi ones.
Speaking of capable, extremely photogenic actors who keep doing Sam Raimi movies, it's good to see Bruce Campbell in a slightly more memorable part this time. I'd never imagined him playing a cheesy French Maitre'D, but he gives a hilarious turn in a classic scene.
Yes, this film has problems, but if you just sit back and soak it up, they don't really matter that much. The movie looks great, will make you laugh, and will thrill you as well as move you.
I can't really speak for everyone. I mean, you might be one of those unfortunate people without a soul.
But I love it, in spite of its flaws, and I still think Sam Raimi is one of the best high-profile directors in Hollywood - because he's all about having fun. And that's what it all comes down to with Spider-Man 3.
Gwen Stacy and Venom were written into the film at the request of the producer, and it shows because Sam Raimi and Alvin Sargent doesn't know how to write these characters in a way that makes them interesting. Venom is some alien that fell from the sky and Gwen Stacy is just another love interest.
It doesn't help that almost all of the characters were unlikeable, including Peter Parker, and I'm not just talking about "emo" Peter Parker. The complicated relationship between Peter and MJ could've been interesting, but the cause of their deteriorating relationship was Peter's overinflated ego. MJ also becomes just as self-absorbed over the course of the movie as Peter, as the movie focuses too much on MJ's fixation on her grandiose dream of pursing a music career. It's not that interesting, and frankly, it just makes her character more unlikeable.
Harry Osborne was also overly dramatic about his father's death, and Harry (*SPOILER*) learns from his BUTLER (of all people) that his dad was impaled by his own glider. It was too convenient and anticlimactic, and Harry's amnesia was also handled too conveniently. Speaking of death, the death of Uncle Ben was rewritten. Instead of the thief from the first film, it was actually Sandman (the main villain in this film) that killed him. This was a disservice to the original film. It's like if Bruce Wayne's parents was killed by The Joker instead of Joe Chill (or some other thief). Oh, wait...
Topher Grace was widely criticized for being miscast, as he didn't have the physical build of his comic-book counterpart, but I honestly didn't mind that he didn't look like his character. I think an actor with a similar build to Maguire would work better as an antagonist who is basically an evil version of Peter Parker, and I did enjoy the dark portrayal of the character. My problem with the character was that he was unnecessary. You can certainly have three villains in a movie (and even more), but Spider-Man 3 did not balance the villains very well, and out of all the villains, Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom was the least compelling, which is disappointing because Venom is one of the best villains in the Spider-Man universe, while Sandman (in my opinion) is one of the least interesting villains. Making Sandman a better villain than Venom is like making The Penguin a better villain than The Joker. You can certainly make a less interesting villain better, but it's not worth the effort if it means butchering a better villain. That's what happens when you're forced to shoehorn a villain that you didn't want at the request of a movie producer.
The movie also made a mockery out of Peter Parker when he turned "emo" in an attempt to make him cool. I can tolerate the black attire, the bangs, and the rebellious attitude, but the dancing was ridiculous. Sam Raimi likes to be goofy at times (Evil Dead), but Peter's transition was out of character, and I found myself cringing rather than laughing at Peter's dance moves.
While I did enjoy Spider-Man 3 as it does feature some great action scenes (the last action scene and the fight between Peter and Harry in particular was very entertaining), the movie ultimately suffers from a crowded script. Not only were there three villains, but there were also TWO love triangles. This gives some characters, especially the villains and Gwen Stacy, a less than satisfying amount of screentime and development. Spider-Man 3 isn't terrible, but it's a bad example of a blockbuster made entirely by executives on an assembly line.