Spider-Man 3, Was It Good?

Jon, Stacy, and I went to see Spider-Man 3 Tuesday. Unlike most everyone I have talked to so far, Jon and I liked it (Stacy did not.) The complaints I have heard generally fall into three categories.

1. Three villains and the Parker/Watson romance was too much to fit into one movie.
2. Too much angst and tears from every character
3. The acting was bad

I won’t deny the first claim. The Flint Marko/Sandman sequences were great, especially for Thomas Haden Church’s performance (take that, bad acting claim!) But the long sandman-less portion in the middle made his reappearance feel almost like an afterthought. His struggle to regain form after the accident that grants his powers was especially stirring.

The Venom storyline took the most time to develop as we had to see Peter discover the symbiote, go bananas like Clark Kent on red K, and get rid of the suit as well as Eddie Brock’s rise and fall before inheriting the symbiote and declaring war on Parker. I will say that Tobey Maguire’s red kryptonite scenes were the most entertaining of the movie. Raimi played them for laughs as Peter sauntered through the scense like Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. The Pete-Wentz-inspired emo look may have been a bit much, but it got the point across. Still, it showed Maguire’s range to do the two sides of Peter (another nail in the bad acting coffin!)

The Harry/Goblin storyline could have been better. James Franco was pretty bad ass in his bad ass black super gear and his bad ass new glider with his bad ass glowing green sword and his bad ass pumpkin toys. That made the lapse into retardation just sad. I know, Harry wasn’t really mentally challenged after the first battle, but those of you that have seen it have to admit, every time he opened his mouth after that he looked Rachel ReRay. I expected what happened with him by the end because of how closely the Spider-Man movies have mirrored the comics, but I would have rather seen it play out differently. I’m not going to spoil anything for people that haven’t watched it yet, though.

Was it too much in for one movie? Probably. I think Raimi could have done it much more justice by paring out at least one villain. However, for working within the constraints, it was very well played. Besides the lack of Sandman in the middle of the movie, the separate plot-lines were woven together masterfully. This is especially true in the romance between Peter and Mary Jane. It is affected by two of the three villains, so the scenes did more to progress the overall plot than just spotlight their relationship as a fourth cumbersome story.

Naturally, any romance adds a certain amount of angst into the story. However, this is not only the norm for the Peter Parker from the comics, but expected! The only comic with more angst, self doubt, and off-and-on-again romances is X-Men, and they have a much bigger cast to play with. I don’t mind a bit of the weepiness from Parker or Watson. As for Church’s Sandman, that is to be expected as well. His character is a tortured soul, in the wrong place at the wrong time and only trying to do right by the one he cares about. I’d be shocked if that situation didn’t produce a couple of tears from ole’ Sandy. What about Eddie Brock? His life was ruined by Parker, why wouldn’t there be angst? How about Harry? Not only does he believe Peter Parker, his best friend, killed his father, but he goes through a harrowing experience or two as he’s haunted by his father’s ghost and comes to terms with reality. One order of angst with a side of grief, please! If you’ve got a problem with the angst, then you’ve got a problem with the source material. If you’ve got a problem with the source material, why are you watching the movie in the first place?

That leaves bad acting. Well, what are you going to do? This is an ensemble cast, and as all ensembles go, there are weak players and strong players. It generally ends up in a balance. Maguire and Church turn in great performances as the dual nature Parker and the tortured Sandman respectively. Grace had some great lines and you could really feel his character in the Brock scenes. Rosemary Harris is always a joy to watch as Aunt May. J.K. Simmons could play J. Jonah Jameson for the rest of his career and I would happily watch every second. I only noticed two weak links. James Franco’s portrayal of the amnesiac Harry was one. He was great for the rest of his scenes. The other was Kirsten Dunst’s third time as Mary Jane. Dunst is alright. I don’t hate her as much as the writer of What Would Tyler Durden Do does, but I don’t like her that much. She just doesn’t hit on the right chord for a believable MJ. It’s sad, but a simple fact of the Spider-Man movie franchise. She was no worse than in the other two movies. Where does that leave us for acting? More good than bad in my book.

I should note that all this was about performances and story. A huge factor of the Spider-Man movies is the action. What is Spider-Man without someone to fight? He did not disappoint in this movie. The Sandman fights were great as Spidey struggled to adapt to Marko’s powers. Parker’s fights with Harry were fantastic. However, the grand finale battle royale was a sight to behold. CGI or not, the moves were Spider-Man all the way and intensely satisfying.

Spider-Man 3 is a summer blockbuster. It’s not for the Oscars, it’s for the action flick fans, for the comic book fans, and for those who want to escape the drudgery of a superpowerless world. As all three of the above, I was thoroughly entertained.

I give Spider-Man 3 three and a half spider webs on a scale that I just made up that doesn’t mean anything.