The film Text copyright (c) Filmverdict 2006-present. Any film titles and artwork used are copyright of their respective owners.
It's relatively rare for a superhero series to reach a third instalment, and even rarer for all the instalments to have to same director (it's never actually happened before). The success of the Spider-Man series has definitely had a lot to do with Sam Raimi's assured touch, comfortable with both the colossal action scenes and the more emotional character moments. I found Spider-Man 2 to be one of those rare sequels that improve upon the original, managing to show that bigger can sometimes be better. With the long-awaited third instalment, Raimi goes for broke. He attempts the unenviable task of concluding story arcs started in the first movie while adding a variety of new supporting characters and, most importantly, three villains. Unsurprisingly, with all that to fit in, it's the longest Spider-Man yet, not to mention the most expensive. But Raimi's ambition, and the studio's requests, prove - to an extent - to be its undoing.
Lots had been said before the film's release about how three villains is too many and that there's just too much being crammed into one movie. I shared these concerns, but one flaw of the second film was that its plot was rather too straightforward, so I welcomed the prospect of a more complex narrative. Unfortunately, though, the result is just a lack of focus. The film jumps around all over the place with little flow and lacks the feeling of a cohesive whole. The pace is also inconsistent; I was surprised at how slowly it started, with Spider-Man not appearing properly for quite a while (Spider-Man 2, by contrast, kicked off with an enjoyable action scene that really set the superhero tone perfectly). When it gets to the action, it is obviously very lavish but somehow never manages to reach the excitement of previous instalments. Due to there being so many villains, most of the action consists of Spidey fighting one of them, with disappointingly little rescuing of helpless civilians. Unforgivably, the CGI actually generally seemed worse than last time. Evidently with so many computer effects to accomplish, each individual shot received less attention, resulting in an occasionally rubbery and artificial look.
With so many storylines to cover, inevitably some receive short shrift. Thankfully still at the heart is the relationship between Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), this time given a new twist as they are now a couple. The love triangle that occurs is one of the most developed and interesting plot threads. It may sound like it belongs in a soap opera but the Spider-Man films have always had that tendency. The introduction of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) as a newspaper photographer competing with Peter adds a new dynamic to the scenes in the Daily Bugle office, with JK Simmons again stealing scenes as editor J Jonah Jameson. On the other hand, Bryce Dallas Howard's turn as Gwen Stacy is rather blink-and-you'll-miss-it, although she did quite well with limited material. Thankfully Raimi retains the appealing tongue-in-cheek humour that he is known for; some scenes would not be out of place in a good comedy (Bruce Campbell's cameo, again). There are some laughs, though, that seem unintentional: Peter Parker's 'dark' persona comes across as cheesy and out of place, even reaching the level of cringe-worthy at one point.
I can't ignore the villains, as so much of the publicity and hype has focused on them. Firstly, there's Harry Osborn, who has had a vendetta against Spider-Man since the events of the first film, and becomes a new Green Goblin. A logical direction is taken with the character and James Franco delivers quite a strong performance. Thomas Haden Church brings admirable pathos to the character of Flint Marko/Sandman. The scene depicting the birth of the Sandman is strangely touching and the conclusion of his storyline is one of the best parts of the finale. Personally, however, I'm not particularly fond of the character, and he is just another reluctant bad guy who's subjected to a scientific experiment gone awry. Also the nature of his power means that he eventually just takes the form of a giant CGI blob, which isn't very threatening. The reason he's included is that he's a favourite of Raimi's, which the third villain, Venom, isn't. It shows. Venom only appears near the end and is wasted. Topher Grace is also unsuited to the role after the transformation, with his voice sounding wrong coming out of Venom's gaping maw. At least they got his look absolutely spot on.
This review is clearly tinged with disappointment, but Raimi should be commended for taking risks. Spider-Man 3 isn't just a rehash of previous successes and unfortunately suffers from its director's desire to include so many new elements. Importantly though, it still feels like it belongs in the same universe as the previous two films, with no jarring stylistic or thematic shifts. The film definitely feels like a conclusion to a trilogy, with nearly all plot threads resolved, and benefits from the goodwill generated by the earlier films. It's not bad, just infuriatingly hit and miss, and doesn't reach the highs that were hoped. Oh well, there are plenty more Part 3s to look forward to this year.
The summary
Spider-Man 3 is a bombastic and extravagant close to the trilogy. It is entertaining, but its many problems mean that it represents a sizeable drop in quality.
