So what did I think? Put simply, I loved it.
I was completely satisfied with the movie when I walked out, so much so that I was shocked when I started reading negative reviews of it online. In one representative example, Tom Brazelton put up on his site, Theater Hopper (a web comic devoted to movie-based humor, highly recommended), and discussed it on his , an episode that I called in on (Tom does this weekly movie themed talkcast along with Joe Dunn and Gordon McAlpine, also movie based web comic creators). I've also gotten into more than one online debate over the merits of this movie. It seems to have divided the fan base into love it or hate it camps like few movies of this type. Even X-Men 3, a movie that most (in my experience) found a disappointment, didn't have this kind of effect. The reason for this discrepancy, so far as I can tell, is that X-Men 3 was largely written off, both before and after it was released. Spiderman 3, by comparison, only built greater and greater expectations as release day approached. In many ways, it set itself up for an inevitable backlash when it couldn't possibly meet everyone's expectations.
Spoiler Warning - If you haven't seen this movie yet, you might want to stop reading now.
So what, in particular, did I like about it? Most everything, really. There's a whole lot of story packed into 140 minutes, and I enjoyed most of it. One of the common complaints I've heard is the greater focus on Mary Jane's story. Some people just didn't care about it, and some people just dislike her, mostly due to Kirsten Dunst's rather wooden portrayal. Fair enough, though for the first time Mary Jane came of as a real person to me. When her first stab at professional success was taken away from her, and Peter was too thrilled with his own success to even notice that she was upset, I felt for her in a way I hadn't in the previous two movies (to those who griped "why didn't she just tell him", you've never been married have you?). When she's forced to push Peter away in an attempt to save him, her emotional delivery felt genuine. Not everyone agrees with me on this, but I felt MJ worked better here than in the first or second installment. As an aside, I do agree with some reviewers that Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays Gwen Stacy (a decision guaranteed to drive comic purists crazy) would have been a better choice to play MJ overall. She's ethereally beautiful, and a fine actress (check out her performance in The Village if there's any doubt), but she wasn't as well known as Kirsten Dunst when the first Spiderman was made. Oh well.
Another comment many reviewers have made is that Venom felt thrown in and under utilized. On this point, I actually agree. Not because I didn't like Venom, but just the opposite. I liked him so much (and have for years in the comics), that I wished he'd been in it more. Hell, I'm hoping that they somehow bring him back and place him at the center of the inevitable sequel. I understand his purpose in the film, to personify the nightmare of Spiderman/Peter Parker consumed by hate. And it makes sense that he would only come into full being towards the end, after Peter rejected his anger and the power it brought him, but still...
In contrast to the disappointing use of Venom, I was pleasantly surprised at how well Sandman worked. I've never been a huge fan of Sandman, he always came off as a thug to me, and not a very interesting one at that. What made him work for me here were some spectacular and brilliantly conceived special effects, and a genuinely affecting performance by Thomas Hayden Church. The battle scenes between Spiderman and Sandman are great of course, but the most effective special effects in the movie involve the first emergence of Sandman after he gains his powers. In one of the most well conceived (and beautiful) sfx sequences I've seen in some time, we watch as he struggles to pull himself together, seeming to flail for a cohesive image of himself. He falls apart several times before finally being reminded of what is most important to him, at which point he is able to find himself again and to carry on. This sequence is flashy to be sure, but it's also a wonderful bit of character building, and a welcome quiet moment in an otherwise franticly paced story. Thomas Hayden Church, whom I remember chiefly from his time as Lowell on the sitcom Wings (wow, what a change of pace), delivers a powerful and understated monologue at the end that marks the highlight of the movie for me. He doesn't dramatize what he's saying, he doesn't sob or cry out, he simply tells his tale, quietly, and with absolute humanity. Without that warmth and pathos, he really would have been nothing more than a thug with super powers.
The majority of the bitching I've seen, however, seems to be directed at what some have termed "emo-Peter". Some complain about his dance number, others complain that all of the "the suit is bad" moments seem to happen to Peter Parker, rather than to Spiderman. Either way, this seems to be the most contentious point of the movie. Again, it worked for me. In regards to his "manly" walk and dance number, I find the idea that Peter's notion of a macho man is John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever to be hilarious and appropriate. It's as if he saw that as a kid and was wowed by it, and he's such a dork that in all the time since then he never updated that image of male machismo. That's good characterization, in my book. Oh, and to those who said it seemed as if another director had taken over, you have seen Sam Raimi's other work, right? Pick up Jack of All Trades (a short lived TV series starring Bruce Campbell and produced by Raimi) and tell me he doesn't go in for goofy slapstick. And how appropriate is it that just as MJ is about to get up and sing - the only good thing she has left, and the one thing that might let her show off a little and feel good about herself for a change - Peter comes along and not only steals her spotlight, but very obviously puts the moves on a girl that she already felt threatened by. Again, that says a lot about who the characters are and how they relate to each other.
As for the rest of it, it just worked for me. The theme of anger, and how to deal with it is thoroughly explored, with every major character presenting an alternate take on it. The overarching themes of the series, responsibility to self and others and how the decisions we make make us/show us to be who we are, is present as well, particularly in the Peter and MJ story line (in an interesting reversal of the first film, MJ pushes him away at one point to protect him). Harry, the New Goblin, is shown at his best and worst, and is given the opportunity to redeem himself if only he can choose the right side of himself to embrace. His death closes the circle started with the first movie. Venom shows Peter what he could have become had he not let go of his rage, and in the end is destroyed because he can't let go of his. And so on.
This is a very dense and frantic film, and that alone will turn some people off. I've come to really appreciate the "everything but the kitchen sink" style of film making that's on display here, so maybe I was just geared up for it where other people weren't. Other examples that come to mind include Smoking Aces, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Pirates of the Caribbean 2, messy movies all of them, but oh so much fun. In the end of course, it is just a movie, and we'll all have to agree to disagree. I enjoyed Spiderman 3 as much as the second, if not more (though I'll have to see it again), and can't wait to see the next installment.
EDIT: I've had some time to mull this over - and I've re-watched the first two Spiderman movies - and I can say now that this movie was certainly not better than the second one (though I have a few issues with the second one still), but was certainly better than the first. This is strictly my opinion, of course.
2 comments:
I took my kids to see this opening night, because seeing movies opening night is fun, and something I remember from being a kid. (My mom and dad stood in line with me for three hours opening night of Empire because we didn't get into the early showing.) My only regret is that in doing so I play into the hype of 'opening weekend box office receipts,' a metric I loathe vis-a-vis judging an artistic product, (or anything else of merit.)
I came down in the 'hate it' camp on this one, though. (I posted a rant and there was some discussion in the comments over here and same rant/less discussion here.)
You make a compelling argument in favor of the jazz club scene, which was admittedly pretty enjoyable. But I don't think that scene in and of itself is the problem people have with what I'd call 'the emo sellout.'
I agree wholeheartedly with you on Church's performance, and I enjoyed Topher Grace's performance equally well for reasons completely unrelated to preconceived notions about the Venom character.
To sum up (sort of), I find it interesting that there is so much room for agreement between the love-its and hate-its. I still say Spiderman 3 sucks, but it does have it's merits.
I knew I'd forget something, I actually made a list of things to mention, but still forgot about Topher Grace as Brock/Venom.
Topher Grace turned in a fun and entirely believable performace as Eddie Brock, and did a fine job as Venom, given what little he had to work with. He was so much fun, actually, that I can't help but wonder what a Spiderman movie would be like with him as Peter Parker.
You make a few good points in your review, and I can see where you're coming from complaining about the lack of diversity, plot-wise, between the three movies. Like I said, I hope they make another, but it might not be a bad idea to swap some people out and get some new blood and ideas in there. Maybe get J. Michael Strazinski to write the next one...
As to agreements between the "love-its and hate-its", that's another good point. I suppose a lot of the difference is related to degrees. Not so much did you like or dislike a certain aspect, but how much did you like or dislike it.
Post a Comment