Scan and Pan

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Spider-Man 3

The third films in superhero film franchises seem to be persistently cursed with mediocrity. Think of Superman III, Batman Forever, or X-Men: The Last Stand as examples. Does this film avoid the curse? Yes and no. It's certainly the weakest of the three Spider-Man films by far, but it's still an entertaining one. If it's disappointing, it's largely because it has the unfortunate luck of following the flawless Spider-Man 2 and is unable to recapture that film's magic.

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) finally feels like life is going his way. The city loves his costumed alter ego and he's ready to propose to his actress girlfriend Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst). Then things start to go wrong. His former best friend Harry (James Franco) still thinks Peter killed his father, the villainous Green Goblin, and becomes the new Goblin to take revenge. Then Peter learns that the real murderer of his beloved Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) was petty criminal Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), who's been transformed into the supervillain Sandman by an accident involving a particle accelerator. If that's not enough, an alien symbiote has bonded with his Spider-Man costume, turning it black and warping his personality, while a new rival at work named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) threatens his job and later his life as the vicious menace known as Venom.

Director Sam Raimi returns for his third go-around, and again demonstrates that he can balance action, characterization, and humor to accurately render a comic book world on screen. With a $258 million budget, the largest film budget ever in absolute dollars (although 1968's War and Peace and 1963's Cleopatra had larger budgets when adjusted for inflation), Raimi can do just about whatever he wants, and this means top drawer action scenes and visual effects. He doesn't disappoint. However, perhaps it was a little too much, as he reportedly often found himself running between different units during shooting instead of focusing on the main one, and the end result lacks the heart and soul that he brought to the previous films.

The screenplay by Raimi, his brother Ivan (Army of Darkness), and veteran screenwriter Alvin Sargent (A Star is Born, Ordinary People, Spider-Man 2) is solid albeit flawed. They try to fit in one too many storylines (the Venom storyline deserved a full film to itself and feels shoehorned into this one), the second act is overlong, and as a whole it lacks the depth and emotional resonance of the previous film. That said, it's still full of entertainment value and it's mostly a satisfying conclusion if Raimi and his stars don't return for future installments. Like the early stories written by Spider-Man's co-creator Stan Lee, the angst of Peter's life is as important, sometimes more so, than the action. The film at least tries to get to the heart of what makes the character great and it dares to be more than just another action movie even if it doesn't always succeed.

Bill Pope (The Matrix, Spider-Man 2) provides crisp, bright cinematography which, combined with the production designs of Neil Spisak (Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2) and J. Michael Riva (Lethal Weapon, The Pursuit of Happyness), captures the look of a comic book without appearing fake. Costume designer James Acheson (Brazil, The Last Emperor, and both previous Spider-Man films) is up to his usual standard of excellence, with the new black Spider-suit and Sandman's ripped directly from the comics costume standing out. Christopher Young (Hellraiser, Ghost Rider) effectively combines his new compositions with themes composed by Danny Elfman for the previous films into a cohesive whole. Film editor Bob Murawski (Army of Darkness and both previous Spider-Man films) could have easily trimmed the flabby midsection and the editing as a whole isn't as tight as in the first two films.

Maguire effortlessly embodies the angst of Peter Parker and the heroic strength of Spider-Man in a performance filled with a geeky charm that's engaging even when he turns into a self-centered jerk under the influence of the symbiote. Dunst once again makes a charming and believable Mary Jane. The screen lights up every time she's on it, even if the script sometimes shortchanges her. If this is indeed their final appearance in the franchise, it'll be a poorer one without them. Franco always seems wooden, but it's not quite as bad this time as he seems to have grown into the role of Harry a bit. Church's Sandman convinces us that he's more than a one-note villain, but doesn't have enough screen time to create a more full blooded performance. Grace effectively plays Brock as a charming creep who seems to be under the influence of a potent and addictive drug when Venom-possessed, but again the crowded film simply doesn't give him enough time for further development.

J.K. Simmons is again so perfect as Peter's boss, newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson, that it's as if the real Jameson was transported to our universe to play himself. Bryce Dallas Howard is quite good as Gwen Stacy and James Cromwell is solid as her police captain father, but the characters seem awkwardly placed into the continuity of the films. Rosemary Harris has fewer scenes as Peter's Aunt May this time, but she's still an effective presence in his life, while Cliff Robertson returns for flashbacks as her murdered husband. Bruce Campbell has a small but hilarious role as a maitre d' in a French restaurant (he's had a small role in each film as a different character each time). Elya Baskin and Mageina Tovah return for some funny scenes as Peter's landlord Mr. Ditkovich (a nod to Spidey's co-creator, Steve Ditko) and his daughter Ursula. Co-creator Lee has a cameo as an old man who talks to Peter in Times Square, and he ends it with the appropriate words "'Nuff said."

Spider-Man 3 isn't as good as Spider-Man or the flawless Spider-Man 2. There are too many stories crammed into 139 minutes and the middle of the film seems too long. Attempts to explore the characters and their emotions seem forced at times. But it's not a bad film. It rates as above average for the genre while providing quite a bit of entertainment value.

[3.5 out of 5 stars]

posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe @ Sunday, May 06, 2007
Comments: Post a Comment

Mainstream, independent, and foreign films reviewed by Danielle Ni Dhighe, a confirmed film fanatic who has seen at least 3,000 films and loves to share her opinions with others.