Film review
Spider-Man (played once again by Tobey Maguire) meets his alter-ego in "Spider-Man 3." (Um, Superman met his alter-ego in "Superman III." Does this mean that by the third superhero movie we're all out of ideas?)
Spider-Man 3
When I read the first reviews of "Spider-Man 3" I thought: "Great. Another 'X-Men III': too busy, too chaotic, not bothering to take the time to develop its new characters."
But the problems with "Spider-Man 3" are nothing like that. "Spider-Man 3" is busy (except for the few times that it drags a bit), but director Sam Raimi makes sure that even the average American brain can keep up with the storyline, and only two new characters are introduced, the quasi-villain Sandman (a.k.a. Flint Marko, played by Thomas Haden Church) and the definitely villainous Venom (a.k.a. Eddie Brock, played by Topher Grace). (Well, there also is an animated black goo that comes from outer space and that amplifies its hosts' aggressive sides, but I don't know that I'd count it as a character.)
The characters of Sandman and Venom aren't that complex and so it's not hard for Raimi to develop them, and only one major character is killed off in "Spider-Man 3" (I won't say who), so "S-M 3" is no "X-Men III," in which major characters are killed off right and left and in which cool new characters are introduced to us but are frustratingly underdeveloped.
But "S-M 3" makes a mistake that "X-Men III" doesn't make, and that's looking back too much at its two predecessors. In retrospect you realize that you're in for it with "S-M 3" when the opening credits contain stills from "S-M" and "S-M 2." And the romance between Peter Parker/Spider-Man (played by Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane Watson (played by Kirsten Dunst) -- which includes the love triangle completed by Harry Osborn (played by James Franco) -- is progressing so agonizingly slowly that while watching the new scenes of "S-M 3" you feel like you're still trapped in "S-M" and/or "S-M 2."
It was time for Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Mary Jane to tie the knot in "S-M 2," and in "S-M 3" Mary Jane should be having little Spider-Babies already (would that be the pitter-patter of eight little feet? And would Mary Jane give live birth or create an egg sac? The imagination boggles). But Peter Parker still can't even pop the question in "S-M 3."
Speaking of Mary Jane, I'm surprised that the National Organization for Women hasn't boycotted "Spider-Man 3," because probably my biggest problem with the film is how it relegates women to the status of rather whiny, weak creatures who just want to be acknowledged for their (insignificant, non-heroic) contributions, too, and who are in perpetual need of rescue from men (whose contributions, of course, are significant and are not only heroic, but are superheroic).
Mary Jane's main role in "S-M 3" is to whine about how Peter Parker doesn't notice her troubles and concerns and to need to be rescued by Spider-Man when the baddies capture her in order to attract and then, they plan, to kill Spider-Man.
A new female character, Gwen Stacy (played by Bryce Dallas Howard), has it even worse than Mary Jane: Her main role in "Spider-Man 3" is only to serve to make Mary Jane jealous when Spider-Man first rescues her and then gives her the same upside-down kiss that he once gave Mary Jane.
I realize that Spider-Man was created when that's all that most women did in most superhero comics: Serve as the love interest to give the male superhero a human side (and a pain in the ass) and to be used by his nemeses as ready bait by their abduction (which is never difficult).
But in this day and age, couldn't Raimi give a major female character something more interesting to do than to be in need of being rescued when she isn't too busy pouting that the superhero didn't notice that she had such a shitty day?
What's Cat Woman doing these days? She wasn't killed off at the end of the second "Batman" flick. She kicks ass. She doesn't doesn't depend upon men for her sense of self-worth and well-being, so she doesn't pout that they don't notice this or that, and she certainly isn't need of being rescued. (Oh, yeah -- Batman is DC Comics and Spider-Man is Marvel Comics... Oh, well...)
All of this said, "Spider-Man 3" aims primarily to entertain, and it does that; its mission is accomplished. And, as I said, my worst fear, which was that "S-M 3" would be too busy and too chaotic, was not realized; "S-M 3" is easy to follow.
But I didn't know, going into "S-M 3," how much it would rely on "S-M" and "S-M 2," and so I didn't know that watching "S-M 3" is way too much like watching either of its two predecessors.
I give director Raimi props for injecting genuinely touching scenes into "Spider-Man 3." Peter Parker/Spider-Man comes to tears several times in "S-M 3" (usually over the prospect of losing Mary Jane) and it's good to see that the superhero has a heart. But unfortunately, these heartfelt scenes are tanished by pseudo-emotive, preachy scenes, such as how the film ends with Peter Parker/Spider-Man lecturing us, a la Dr. Phil or some other charlatan, on how we are the product of our choices, blah blah blah.
And as cute as Tobey Maguire can be, and as much range as he has, from the tearfully sensitive Boy Scout Peter Parker to the over-the-top-cocky alter-ego that the black goo from outer space creates in Peter Parker/Spider-Man (the extraterrestrial goo later creates Spider-Man's nemesis Venom), after "Spider-Man 3" I'm all spidered out.
And when a movie pokes fun at the movie merchandising that its predecessors inspired, including Halloween costumes and stuffed superheroes -- as "Spider-Man 3" does -- isn't it time to stop?
Will there be a "Spider-Man 4"?
Truth be told, after "Spider-Man 3," I don't much care.
My grade: B-
P.S. I couldn't help but notice in "Spider-Man 3" that the subplot in which Flint Marko's/Sandman's motivation for his dastardly deeds is not greed, but is to obtain the money that his young, seriously ill daughter desperately needs in order to recover from her illness seems to pave the way for Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko" (which I've also seen as "SiCKO"), which is about the wealth -- er, health care industry in the United States, and which is slated for release late next month.
Surely Flint Marko, were he a real person, might have been interviewed by Michael Moore for "Sicko."
1:27:29 PM 
|
