Spider-Man 3 Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Next summer, the greatest battle lies... within.
The battle within.
How long can any man fight the darkness... before he finds it in himself?
Peter Parker has finally managed to piece together the once-broken parts of his life, maintaining a balance between his relationship with Mary-Jane and his responsibility as Spider-Man. But more challenges arise for our young hero. Peter's old friend Harry Obsourne has set out for revenge against Peter; taking up the mantle of his late father's persona as The New Goblin, and Peter must also capture Uncle Ben's real killer, Flint Marko, who has been transformed into his toughest foe yet, the Sandman. All hope seems lost when suddenly Peter's suit turns jet-black and greatly amplifies his powers. But it also begins to greatly amplify the much darker qualities of Peter's personality that he begins to lose himself to. Peter has to reach deep inside himself to free the compassionate hero he used to be if he is to ever conquer the darkness within and face not only his greatest enemies, but also...himself.
| Tobey Maguire | Spider-Man/Peter Parker |
| Kirsten Dunst | Mary Jane Watson |
| James Franco | New Goblin/Harry Osborn |
| Thomas Haden Church | Sandman/Flint Marko |
| Topher Grace | Venom/Eddie Brock |
| Bryce Dallas Howard | Gwen Stacy |
| J.K. Simmons | J. Jonah Jameson |
| Rosemary Harris | Aunt May Parker |
| James Cromwell | Captain Stacy |
| Theresa Russell | Emma Marko |
| Dylan Baker | Dr. Curt Connors |
| Bill Nunn | Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson |
| Bruce Campbell | Maître dÂ’ |
| Cliff Robertson | Uncle Ben Parker |
| Elizabeth Banks | Miss Brant |
| Sam Raimi |
6.70 out of 10 (86930 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Let it Die
posted on 30 Aug 2009Borrowing Lucas' ability to develop a character, cues from The Blair Witch Project for camera work, and a daring refusal to fully develop the plot, Sam Raimi's work with Spiderman 3 hearkens to a 12-year old child, who, asked to do the dishes, does such a poor job he aims never to be asked again. Overall, Spiderman 3 is an amazingly disappointing end to a previously entertaining series. Remarkably, Raimi chose to dispense with adequate character and plot development and chose instead to focus on poorly performed character interactions that, aside from open, mocking laughter, failed to move the audience. The most devastating choice made by Raimi was casting Topher Grace as Venom. While Grace's obvious enthusiasm is laudable, his knowledge of comic lore should have included that Eddie Brock is on Olympian level, a huge man in both size and persona. Grace's whining voice escaping from the pencil-thin glob that only adequately resembled the symbiote wrecked an image that even animated children's shows managed to maintain. Aside from that, Grace's performance stands as a rare example of decent acting in the movie. Tobey Maguire proved that actors have no need of self-respect or dignity. His attempts to cry brought the house to tears of laughter—each and every time the feeble script overused the weak Peter Parker image. The drawn out Pimp Parker montage wasted time that could have been used to illustrate the abilities granted by bonding or show how Venom was immune to spidey-sense. An omission that left our hero open to attacks Daredevil would see coming and failed to highlight a major advantage Venom has always had over Spidey. Thomas Hayden Church, good actor, bad role, next time try for continuity. Bryce Dallas Howard, very pretty and good acting, but like much of this movie she was simply not needed and served as little more than a glorified extra. Kirsten Dunst held no dire urge to know or fill the role of her character, but developed a character that was distinctly dissimilar to Mary Jane Watson. And finally, you have James Franco. Filling a role more suited to daytime television, he was more useless to the story than the mysterious forensic pathologist working as Harry Osborn's butler or the single appearance of the Sandman's daughter suffering from some nameless tragic disease. At least at the end of the movie, it's arguable that you could take out Sandman or Venom and possibly have a decent movie, but the Goblin's role so lacked importance that the audience sustained their own form of amnesia and forgot him before they left the theater. Moreover, the Goblin's fight scenes were some of the worst shot scenes in the film, inspiring more squint-eyed nausea than suspense. This movie ranked with The Nice Guy and Queen of the Damned as titles to actively avoid. This level of shameless self-destruction should be followed by seppuku, or at least by a public apology. Save your money, time, and any warm feelings you may have had for the Spiderman series: Stay home.
The formula that could have saved Spiderman
posted on 30 Aug 2009By just following these simple steps, the recipe for disaster that is Spiderman 3 can be saved.Step 1. Remove the Sandman character, as there was no need for it in the film. His motives were weak (saving his daughter)? His actions were none like that in the comic books- as a hardened criminal, not the big softy portrayed. You snuck his character into his uncles death scene... now you can sneak him out.Step 2. Focus on Venom as your main villain, but involve more back story on the birth of venom, not just some blob that randomly drops from space and just so happens to want to symbian itself to a suit.Step 3. Replace Topher Grace with Scott Caan. The character Eddie Brock was a muscle bound, cocky Olympian who when he wasn't taking photos, was always working out. I also found it inaccurate that when Tobey wore the suit, he was the same form, but when Topher wears it, he became twice the size. Besides, Scott Caan is always up for picking a fight with anyone.. he was born for the role of Venom.Step 4. Stop with the "chick flick" everyone crying bit. Every, I mean, EVERY character cried before the end of the film. The movie is based on a comic.. "THERE's NO CRYING IN COMICS.." At least not this much.Step 5. If your going to do cheesy dance sequences that have no relevance to the movie.. Hire Jim Carey and call it "The Mask 3". Bruce Campbell is all the comedic humor the series has ever needed, otherwise stick to the formula.. - Good guys kick bad guy ass.. Insert witty one liner.. Done.- Step 6. Remove the final scene and create something for a "hero". The whole basis for the character is that they are super(HERO'S) that save the public from crime and avenge justice. Fighting each other on a construction building had no relevance to saving anyone but Mary Jane. The first movie introduced the role, it's villain, and created the hero that you looked forward to seeing save the day. The second film took it one step further (ie. the train scene- The best comic hero sequence I've ever seen) and made Spiderman not only save a few lives, but those of the whole city in the end. But in this third installment, there is no major threat to the community, except for the cheesy crowd shots and news reports to a finale that was nothing but personal vendetta for the "super" hero's.All in all, these steps could have saved the film and possibly worked itself into a fourth and fifth reprise. But for the first time, I am actually hoping these don't happen, just like a certain Batman series that went to hell after the second film. Leave well enough alone.
Tremendously disappointing
posted on 30 Aug 2009Before I get into how much of a letdown Spider Man 3 is, let's talk about the first two. Spider Man was a light, entertaining action film with likable characters that were fairly well developed. It was very well made, and though it had fantasy elements, it stayed grounded in reality. Spider Man 2 was even better. The characters were more fleshed out, the special effects and action scenes improved, and the writing was tremendous (probably thanks to Michael Chabon).Then along came Spider Man 3 (no pun intended). This was the movie that I was most looking forward to this summer, and it was a huge letdown. There are numerous problems with the film: 1) Too many villains. While I'm sure many comic book fans (I'm not one of them) were enthused about the New Goblin, Venom, and Sandman being in the third film, it's just too much.2) Too much fantasy. Like I mentioned before, the first two films had fantasy elements, but remained grounded in reality. But when Sandman becomes this enormous mass of sand (with tires and other debris thrown in) it just crosses the line and is, again, too much. In fact, too much could sum up the whole movie. It tries for so much and utterly fails.3) Ridiculous plot elements. So a meteorite crashes, out comes this black goo, it latches onto Peter, and it makes him emo. Meteorite goo makes him emo. Does that make sense to anyone? 4) Lack of character development. Too much action (there we go again with "too much") and not enough character elements. Aunt May seemed to have a smaller part than usual, and the attempts by the writers to flesh out the new characters (like Sandman) just fall flat.5) Plot holes. Why did the butler keep his mouth shut for so long? Why did Peter want Gwen to kiss him, when it is obvious it would make MJ jealous? Why didn't MJ tell Peter about the play? 6) It's not even fun to watch. The action gets tiring, and all the joy is sucked out.Go see the movie as a continuation of the series, but go in with low expectations. If you're expecting a film on the level of Spider Man 2, you're going to be let down.P.S. Bruce Campbell is the best thing about this film.
Throw A Bunch of Crap Together
posted on 30 Aug 2009Hmm where to start? I'm well-versed with Spiderman and the other characters in the movie, so I have a basis for saying this movie was below average. Above all it was okay as a popcorn movie so I gave it a five. I don't just settle for popcorn movies unfortunately for Hollywood and that's where the movie becomes unacceptable. I enjoyed the first Spiderman even though I felt it was a pretty "safe" adaptation, and I honestly hated the second one but I'm in the minority on that one so I still had huge hopes for the third installment. There's plenty of reviews bashing the fact that there's too much going on in the movie, so I'll just focus on what else I saw. Where has the creativity gone? There is no plot point in this whole movie that made me think the writers/producers/director did anything original. You've got whining over uncle Ben (again), two villains who team up at the end (what a concept!), a love story, and the good guy briefly turning bad only to realize he was heading down the wrong path. That's a pretty basic list, and believe me there's more cliché than I can write about here, but this stuff can be found here and there in probably 2/3 of movies that are out there today. Also, there are so many plot conveniences that act as main catalysts for twists in the story. The symbiote happens to fall near Peter. Fine, that's what makes it a tale worthy of being told, but how about explaining it a little? Spiderman happens to bump into a huge bell while writhing around in the black suit, and THAT is how he figures out how to beat it? And the worst: the ever-so-convenient phasing in and out of harry's amnesia. His condition basically unclutters the movie for about an hour, then his memory is restored to hate and then eventually help Spiderman. If you've already seen the movie you know what I mean and if you haven't, well it sounds great doesn't it?Sandman was a waste. Again, back to the lack of creativity. He can turn into anything he wants, but we'll just turn him into a huge sand version of king kong. I think anyone involved in Terminator 2, including the caterer, would have had some suggestions to improve on this. Also, Sandman is a bad guy but wait a second he's doing it to steal money and pay to make his sick kid better. How noble! Ever hear of getting a job?The lack of focus on the symbiote and its affect on Peter was disappointing as well. Of course, it was given a bit of face time. Too bad it was treated like a comedy. I didn't know alien symbiotes turned you into an overconfident pig when dealing with women. I can't criticize Maguire's acting too much, but that doesn't mean there was any thing positive about it either. He was just kind of there. Venom wasn't given enough screen time we all know that already. He also suffers from something that's not unfamiliar to a lot of superhero movies: although he is a substantial nemesis to the hero, in this case spiderman, he isn't treated as such. He's just another villain churned out to last for one movie and one movie only. On a final note: What was with Harry's death scene? I was waiting for Mark Hamill to step in for Tobey Maguire at one point it reeked so much of Vader's demise from ROTJ. Just a thought, haven't seen that commented on yet.
Don't listen to the critics!!!!!!!
posted on 30 Aug 2009From the words of a true fan....Spider-Man 3 is a great movie! It has action,drama,romance,humor,great special effects and really good villains.I don't get why fans and critics are complaining on this film,if you liked the first two you just have to like this.Some say that it's biggest problems is that it tries too much and has too many villains,but I think that it works great and nothing seems rushed or unreasonable.The cast is once again great and Tobey Maguire is yet again fantastic in the leading role,I especially like scenes when he turns "bad" and explores his dark side.Thomas Haden Church is very good as sand man and his character is far more interesting than Topher Grace's Eddie Brock.although Grace also does a good job.But my favorite character is James Franco's Harry Osborn,it's really interesting to see how his and Peter's relationship develops throughout the film and and how Harry really grows.You just got to love him!Kirsten Dunst unfortunately doesn't have a lot to do but to look sad and getting kidnapped,but she does an OK job and the chemistry between her and Maguire is good.And Bruce Campbell does his best cameo yet. The ending is good,although a bit sad and I won't be surprised if a 4th movie will come along. To sum up Spider-Man 3 is a great sequel that fans just have to love,it's not quite as good as S-M 2 but it's better than the first one and is simply a must see!
Not this time!
posted on 30 Aug 2009I really don't know what happen to this people in Hollywood. Sam Raimi got 3 years to finish the trilogy and everybody was expecting the "big show", "the best one", "the golden key"... so, everybody was expecting so much and then he brings a mess.The resumé of the story is simple, fragile and interesting: Peter Parker starts liking his suite more than ever. He knows how to live his personal life with his super-hero's obligations but he's starting to forget who he really is. That's a simple plot like the first 2 movies and it starts well till the audience see that it's not simple like that.The mess starts with the visual effects. They are the worse of entire trilogy! It's so plastic, so unnatural... I mean... it blows on your eyes that it's truly fake that even Hulk looks better. It's not something like X-Men: The Last Stand, that you see and think: "Wow, this visual effects are great!" but, yes, "WOW, THIS VISUAL DEFECTS ARE GREAT!". Too much chroma key, even at unnecessary moments. So, if should be like this, why Tobey and Kirsten are still being cast! Let's just make a CGI Spider Man movie! Final Fantasy shown us that this is a possible thing.Then, the camera: Sometimes things are too fast, lot of CGI scenes, so much action and movements making you lose points and focus. You get dizzy, everything is dark to make a camouflage over the CGI imperfections and finally... you see anything. It's something like throwing a magazine in a liquidizer, that's what the movie is all about sometimes.And now, the final point: Too many villains. Too many stories. I think that Sam Raimi was so desperate to put all together just for the pleasure of the fans that he made real mistakes here. 1) all the stories loses its focus; 2) people was expecting an entire movie just about Sandman, or Venom, or the Green Goblin's return.The movie goes slowly 'till its final part, then everything happens fast enough. I can see Sam Raimi at the editing room: "OMG, 120 minutes have been edited and... where's the action??? I had 3 years of my life to make this but I could only find the right color for the black suite now, so, everything needs to be done until tomorrow morning because Saturday is the premiere! C'mon everybody, fast! Fast! FAST!".Why should you see: well, it's the end the trilogy... if you already saw the first 2, why not this one?The best part: Stan Lee camel.What I really think: Spider-Man is done. Sam Raimi should move to other projects, he's a great director, but he seems kinda tired of so much spiderwebs.
Huge Disappointment
posted on 30 Aug 2009Spider-Man's (Maguire) suit becomes black and he finds out what the Dark Side is all about.I was wrong. I liked S-M 1 & 2 so much I thought S-M 3 would be as good. I was wrong. Too many plots kill this. The acting went way down and this is surprising, but there it was in front of me. Terrible, terrible, and terrible again.The stunts and CGI were good as always, but they had a tendency to go on too long. This reminded me of the director who did the Fantastic Four, with the Silver Surfer. Was it the same guy? Will have to check. I mention this because the scenes where they do the acting thing seemed to be the same, most scenes without background noise and this has me believing they were rehearsing lines. Every talking scene was something dream-like and not in a good way. The only real breath of life in this movie was the villain.Let's all hope and pray there is no Spider-Man 4.Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: No
Aaaagh! Too--many--villains. Please. 2 and 1/2 is enough.
posted on 28 Aug 2009SM3 was a long movie, and with good reason. It translates to the big screen epic plots that had a large amount of buildup to work with to establish their depth. Translating these plots to the big screen usually means condensing a lot of it into a short space. Sadly, SM3 tries to do that, and craft five different story lines around 5 different characters.There's Mary Jane, there's Peter Parker/Spider Man, there's Harry Osborn, there's Sandman and there's Eddie Brock. All five of the main cast are dynamic characters. Dynamic characters are characters that go through changes of circumstance and/or character in a movie; as opposed to static characters who go through the movie relatively unchanged. SM3 suffers from trying to give all 5 of these characters spotlight and ultimately, you don't know who the movie is really about or who is supposed to be the most important. The real reason the movie suffers is because all 3 villains try to fill the niche of being Spider-Man's arch-nemesis, and when all three try to take center stage, there ends up being no lead villain. This mirrors Spider-Man's situation from the comics where he's got Doctor Octopus, Venom and Green Goblin each vying for the top spot of Spider-Man's all-time nemesis. But at least in the comic books, you can devote arcs to each individual villain. When you stuff 3 cats into the same bag and give them one mouse to fight over, you end up with what SM3 comes out with: a hero flying blindly into piles of sand and web.The only redeeming aspects of the movie come at the final half where the plot threads finally start to come together and it feels like we're reading a single comic book again rather than putting down one in the middle of reading it only to pick up a different issue.Any longer and this movie would have thrown The Lizard/Curt Conners into the mix.
pretty good spidey film....not as expected
posted on 28 Aug 2009the spider-man movie franchise has been always expected to be one of the biggest and coolest action-packed films of the summer. The First two spider-man films were excellent in the views of storytelling, conflicts, action sequences...etc.now...with spider-man 3...i wouldn't go far describing bits and pieces of the film that are 'considered' stupid....i was trying to understand where this film was going as with the plot and comic 'funny' sequences. i just couldn't buy it....at least some of it. to be stereotypical on this one....what was up with Spiderman turning 'emo'? That thing with peter having his hair down...reminded me of a friend of mine who wears tight pants and gets picked on by stereotypes, sometimes reffered to as 'emo'. I don't know if the hair thing was used to illustrate Peter's 'evil-ness'...but it simply did not work for me. fast-forwarding to Venom...When the symbiote arrived from outer space in a comet or meteorite or whatever...i thought that was pretty random. Im guessing, for three villains in the film, they didn't have time to explain much...so i guess everything had to be squeezed and thrown in to this film. although the film was pretty long. With the de-molecularization of the sand man...I'm sure "everyone knows exactly what de-molecularization is"overall....the action sequences were good. Sandman was enourmously impressive although some of the cgi looked absolutely pretty fake. The conflicts with Peter and Mary Jane were pretty shocking. Overall, its a fun movie to watch in the theater with a couple of friends or family. If you're a crazed movie expert fanatic or whatever, you'll probably notice these things...and hopefully does not ruin the experience of spider-man 3
Fans! - Don't let your expectations run away with you! Sit back and enjoy!
posted on 28 Aug 2009Venom, Green Goblin 3 and Sandman.Spiderman 3 reworks these three epic story arcs into a single feature length film. Impossible? Well... some of the reviewers here on IMDb seem to agree. I, however, do not. I went into this film with some trepidation and reasonable expectations. The Venom saga has been, since it first appeared in print, one of my all-time favorite multiple issue story arcs in comics. How this story could be made into a film following in the somewhat less weighty footsteps of Spiderman and Spiderman 2 was hard to imagine. The film did justice to the story-line - keeping almost all of its dark thematic content, while modifying its plot points and reducing its heavy depressive tone in order to keep the film entertaining and fast-paced. But don't expect this to be the same lengthy exploration that the comics provide.Sam and Ivan Raimi can add this to their long list of satisfying films.Briefly, Spiderman is having his normal share of growing pains. His love for MJ is now matched by his self-absorption and his addiction to heroism. Of course Harry still wants to kill him to avenge his father's death, and somewhere out there is his uncle's killer - who is about to become The Sandman. Just as things really start to fall apart, his costume turns black and develops a sinister aspect. He becomes more powerful, more ruthless, and a more conflicted being than the hero he had been. And Peter even dons black eye liner and a decidedly emo haircut. Unlike most recent comic book adaptations on the big screen, the story (to this point) offers plenty of room for humor, which Raimi could never pass up. J. J. Jameson and Bruce Campbell's excellent cameo are pure comedic relief from the somewhat heavy subject matter that seems immanent throughout this film. You'll laugh... you'll cry... You'll fall in love, if you can handle a new take on the classic Venom tale, with some worthwhile additions.Things go from bad but kind of funny to worse and pretty serious. The film explores emotions more than any superhero film I have thus far seen - with the possible exception of the original Punisher. It nicely studies Spidey's humanity, ego, fallibility, and his previously unexplored dark side, and forces our hero to confront all three both symbolically and physically in order to redeem himself.Tobey Maguire turns in his best Spidey performance yet, and is excellently supported by Kirsten Dunst and Rosemary Harris. James Franco turns in a great interpretation of Harry - much needed for this story-line. This cinematography is more wide-open and hyperbolic than the previous Raimi Spiderman films - as one would expect given the storyline. It is not surprising that the film went a little beyond the pale in terms of special effects - again unavoidable given the subject matter. But the CGI did become a little distracting towards the end.I have read a lot of disappointed reviews of this film, but honestly, I found much to praise and very little to complain about. Highly recommended especially for Venom fans.
I'm yaaaaaaawning...
posted on 28 Aug 2009Well well well. Just another movie that shows that Hollywood always manage to get the message across well. If you don't know what I mean just think of Spider Man standing proudly for a few seconds in front of the American flag, it says it all. Boring, yet a tad entertaining. However the narrative cohesion is too calculated. For instance I didn't like the fact that Peter's class mate was seen everywhere as a victim, as a class mate, as a girlfriend, as a rival' girlfriend... etc... Everything seems to happen expectedly and unsurprisingly. A classic Hollywood good versus bad mass hit! Good for kids, but for the more discerning minds, it's a total moment of gasping annoyment.
I am SAD.
posted on 28 Aug 2009Unfortunately The little society directions and stereo types ruined the entire layout. MJ was a selfish B#*h. The comment right off the bat from Aunt Mae( a husband always puts his wife first, before himself) was Society driven Stereo type of what MEN should be. What the H*#L happened to 50-50 or better yet why not keep this what it was meant to be....FANTASY?? No society B.S. MJ and her self wants, needs were OK for her to whine about and as usual, P.P./Spiderman to give in as stereo typing says MEN are supposed to do. Thank God for the BLACK OUTFIT parts. P.P. / spiderman was able to finally act like a man with confidence and self respect. Besides since this is Geared to todays society idea of men, After all is that not what truly a successful CEO of today is about? Self confidence? Power? Take no prisoners? Arrogance? #1 & #2 were acceptable. Mr LEE you have taken away a child hood hero for me. I am 52. You have shown Spiderman for the true wimp he is. You destroyed my comic book days of him completely. I have givin away my shirts, books and autographed pictures of spiderman, only the Black outfit days are remaining. I see, society and the female movement won you over. They want their MEN to be a man they shout, stand up for right, protect at all cost, die to keep your loved ones safe..... but just make sure you are Pu*$Y whipped by your women, be in by 10pm and answer when I call you. Let her treat you like crap, even kiss your best friend, but forgive her. Even if she rags you for simply enjoying your moment of heroisum.... Mr. LEE.... I'm SHOCKED....It's a sad day for the TRUE beginning followers of SPIDERMAN. I guess next he'll move to SanFrancisco. the 6 rating is for the effects.... not the story....
Not Great but very solid movie
posted on 28 Aug 2009Well what can be said about this movie, I agree with a few other posts how there are far too many villains which made it hard to relate to spiderman/peter parker, however in saying that I enjoyed the movie and thought it moved along nicely with some great effects, although there are some areas where i just cringed and thought to myself "What The?".Now this movie seemed to have it all action, drama, romance, thrills and spills however i tried just a little too hard to squeeze it all into to 1 movie, and it all came across as just a little rushed.If your looking to watch a solid movie, with a good story and some decent acting and action then this is a good movie for you.
Entertaining, but not up to the standard set by Raimi himself.
posted on 28 Aug 2009In this third instalment of the popular comic book franchise, Spider-Man is up against not one, not two, but three opponents. A black gooey alien symbiote that's just conveniently crash landed from outer space and heightens the inner evil (or mildly testy, as the case is here) of anyone it attaches itself to, The Sandman who is yet another product of a freak accident and The Green Goblin's son, Harry, who slips onto Dad's glider for a little revenge, plus the addition of rival love interest Gwen Stacy to complicate Spidey's relationship with girlfriend Mary Jane Watson and the issue of Eddie Brock, a photographer who is vying for Peter's job to further complicate matters for the wall crawler.From reading that overlong sentence, you can just about get an idea of the movie - unnecessarily jam packed with too much information. The movie begins where the last left off, with Peter and Mary Jane very much in love and Peter and Harry very much in hate. On his way home, Peter is ambushed by a newly re-muscled Harry on his glider, providing us with our very first set-piece of the movie. This is a painstakingly planned sequence, director Sam Raimi doing what he does best with his camera. Unfortunately, one cannot help but notice some of the awful full body CGI stunt men doubling for Harry and Peter. If you are eagle eyed enough to notice, you'll see this popping up throughout, jolting the viewer out of the movie.Next we are introduced to Flint Marko, a criminal on the run who, after visiting his dying daughter, falls into a sand pit in which an unexplained particle experiment is going on (don't people read danger signs anymore?) and becomes one with the sand particles, able to shape shift and get in places people didn't know they could get sand in. The Sandman seems nothing more than another version of The Mummy, but nevertheless, Raimi manages to conjure up some interesting new visuals. The shame of it all is that the poor guy is in fact non-essential to the movie overall. His back story is a wholly unnecessary addition to events in the first Spider-Man movie and serves only to provide evil, black suited Spidey with some questionable actions to execute as a result of emotional turmoil. By the end of the film, Sandman is nothing more than a big, hulking, growling CG creation and finally, a footnote to be checked off the list of loose ends to tie up. The most telling piece of information is in the very first featurette on the DVD. Producer Avi Arad's first words to camera are how Sandman was a great opportunity for CGI. Ah. It all makes sense.Now we come to yet another plot point, in which the alien goop connects itself to Peter's suit, creating a black suited Spidey, or 'evil' Spidey. Evil Spidey is not given a great deal of evil to actually do. Evil for Spidey is simply combing his hair downwards and behaving like a lad who has had one too many pints down the pub. Maguire does quite an impressive job conveying the 'quasi evil' side of Spidey and is obviously having fun with it, but is constricted by the limitations of the script.There are some potentially rich character developments which are squandered in favour of packing in as much as possible. Gwen Stacy, a pivotal character in the comics who was forfeited in favour of skipping straight to Mary Jane for the first film, is wasted here in a silly subplot to make Mary Jane jealous. For what it's worth, Bryce Dallas Howard is still charming in the role, but she is short changed in favour of simply having her show up and say 'hi' to comic book fans. There's also a jarring bit of lazy resolution in the use of a shameless deus ex machina to resolve Harry's story, something which sours the rest of the film more than the overstuffed showdowns and multiple endings. Finally, Venom, fan favourite, is created by Peter's leftover goop attaching itself to Eddie Brock, played sarcastically by Topher Grace. Criminally, this happens in the last reel, giving Venom precious little screen time and rendering him another side note. He would have been better served either as main villain or as an appetite whetter for part 4 in the final frame.This is a prime example of sacrificing the integrity of story, character and structure simply to give the fans on the internet what they're screaming to see. Ironically, it's the same fans that tear the film apart after it's release. Despite that, there are still plenty of things to enjoy about this film. The various action sequences, while seemingly rushed are still spectacular and fun to watch, the now famous Saturday Night Fever strut equally so and an amusing, if slightly out of place cameo from Raimi regular Bruce Campbell as an inept Maitre d' is bound to raise a smile.As a cinematic experience, Spider-Man 3 is not completely unsatisfying. It contains all the fun, zest and passion for the material as the first two but the over-stuffed narrative and short changing of potentially dynamic characters is an unforgivable mistake and the law of diminishing returns threatens to plague the web crawler still further should this series continue. By the finale, all the story lines have crashed into each other messily, culminating in yet another MJ hostage situation, begging the question, do these villains have no imagination?THE BOTTOM LINE: Good solid blockbuster fun with all the trimmings of the first two, but bigger, faster, louder and more is not always the best policy. Multiple story lines are deftly woven together for most of the running time but clumsily crash together in the finale. Better than most sequels, but not as good as the standard that this franchise sets for itself.
This was disappointing (Spoilers galore)
posted on 26 Aug 2009I went into Spiderman 3 wanting to love it. I loved Spiderman and I loved Spiderman 2 even more. The problem with Spiderman 3 was that they tried too hard to fit too many stories into the one film, tried too hard to take what was great about the first (the awesome action and special effects and the cool concept of a 'nerdy' guy that suddenly gets powers and has to struggle with what he does about it) and what was great about the second (the interesting character exploration of Spiderman - something very very rare in comic book films) and make it work in this film - but unfortunately, it failed to deliver either.Peter Parker/Spiderman starts out by being the guy he was before he became Spiderman - kind of goofy and clumsy and adoring(in a very annoying way) and then suddenly become arrogant and smug... then some goo comes down from outer space and he's suddenly a bloody thirsty jazz piano playing jerk? It would have worked together if Maguire was a more believable jerk, but ended up looking more like the lead singer of AFI.The special effects were pretty tame in comparison to the first and second film and the camera angles were often clumsy and annoying.The plot was poorly paced, with the writers flimsily piecing together elements from the comic book without helping us understand any of them. The holes in the symbiote plot line were gaping - for example, if the symbiote simply replicates or exaggerates characteristics of the host - how come Venom/Eddie Brock took on characters of Spiderman? Shouldn't he have taken on the characteristics of Eddie Brock? The way Sandman got his powers was also a little ridiculous (he falls into some machine that is left WIDE OPEN in the woods and suddenly is 'demolecularised' to become sand?). Generally, I can suspend a lot of belief but that really pushed it for me.The most disappointing part of the film was the resolution of the conflict existing between Harry Osbourne and Spider-man. This plot line has been developing for two films and very little of the film focused on it. Harry Osbourne's amnesia seemed to be a lazy plot device to move the film along until suddenly Harry remembers, turns bad and tried to kill Peter again (but not before destroying his relationship with MJ). Then suddenly his butler decides to tell him that Peter didn't kill his father, and everything was okay again. Oh, and now he's dead. This was the most interesting part of the first two films and this movie failed to deliver a good resolution.There were some humorous moments but overall this film did not live up to its' potential. They should have focused more on resolving the tension between Harry and Peter and perhaps introduced the idea of Venom for the next movie. None of the villains in the film had much depth and were of little interest to me.
Despite having some problems, this was very entertaining.
posted on 26 Aug 2009Stars: Tobey Maguire, Kirstin Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Bryce Dallas Howard, Topher Grace, Rosemary Harris, James Cromwell, Bruce Campbell, Willam Dafoe, Cliff Robertson.For me, this was probably the most entertaining Spiderman. Not the best however. In this Spiderman film, it seemed like the villains were there just to give the movie an actual bad guy. It focused a lot on Peter Parker's inner feelings, along with Mary Jane's. The bad guys in this were The Sandman (Church) and Venom (Grace). It felt weird to me having Topher Grace as Venom, or even including Venom at all. The character of Venom doesn't appear until late in the film, which felt weird passing him off as a main villain at the last minute. Topher Grace, however, was great as the photographer that became Venom. He played a small, but great role. Thomas Haden Church played a quieter villain with not much to say, but he has a screen presence that came across quite well. James Cromwell was in this for some reason, I have no idea why. As for the movie itself, it was very entertaining. Sometimes it would become too much of a comedy for it's own good, or too dramatic, but it still was fun to watch, so I can't say I was disappointed. One more added bonus to the film was a hilarious cameo that worked well by Bruce Campbell as a maitre'd.My rating: *** out of ****. 136 mins.
Spiderman 3 is TWO movies!
posted on 26 Aug 2009Spiderman 3 is actually two movies.The first involves The tale of the heir of Green Goblin and the origins of Sandman. This film is dark, powerful, a tragedy and deals with heavy emotional issues such as friendship and betrayal. It is the Director's movie essentially, and it has integrity. There are some scenes missing which would have helped the continuity of this film - however, I am hoping that these will be in the Director's cut - and I sincerely hope that there is a Director's cut of BOTH films.The second film is very much the Producer's film - or rather it is the way that the Director has approached it. It is a hilarious comedy, a satire - almost a parody of the genre, in which many references are made to other superhero movie franchises that went downhill because of bad executive decisions. It references the original Batman TV series that went from bad to worse, the third series ending up with sets that consisted of door frames in a blank studio (the web message in the sky for spiderman, and the absurd 'trap' both references to the TV series - in fact in the third series, the Batman TV show started taking the mickey out of these devices as well).There is a reference to the legacy Batman movies, in the Belltower scene, which is deliberately clumsily constructed - and a reference to the fact that this franchise was buried, ending with Clooney's opposition falling over to the comedy sound of swanee whistles. One sees a vast tower, yet a man standing at the bottom manages to recognise Parker at the top...a lovely touch of absurdity. There is another reference to Daredevil...the franchise that went down the sad path of pursuing Elektra as a spin off. It is the way that the Director pokes gentle but sarcastic fun at the Producer that makes this so funny - the overly long edit of the doors plastered with Closing Down - Sale signs - a sly reference to the fact that these franchises 'close down' when 'sales' are deemed the factor of importance. The brilliant way that Parker's 'bad side' in this movie is at a peak when the worst thing he can do is order more milk and cookies shows us that the Director has been told to 'appeal to the youngsters.' The culmination of his 'badness' is portrayed in the fact that he plays a piano solo and dances with the object of Mary Jane's jealous suspicion - hilariously overdone performances, and a parody of the short single liners that bad comic book movies are littered with. An interesting treatment - Venom clearly is the enemy of choice for a younger generation - and the director (gleefully) only lets the character exist for a few short moments on screen. The youngness of the comic book audience is clearly represented - with tongue in cheek dialogue: "Awesome. Wicked Cool!" - and hilariously in the Emo style haircut and eyeliner that Parker sports when he is 'the bad Parker'. The haircut alone generated a laugh in the theatre I watched the film in.Stan's apologetic cameo (there was no reason to it at all - it was a poke at the increasing irrelevance of the cameo role, and it) says it all: "Sometimes ONE man is enough to make a difference" - I think he was referring to the number of baddies in the film... "enough said."The sad thing is that these two movies are stuffed into the same package and have to run simultaneously - the real battle here is not between Spidey and Green Goblin, the Symbiote, Venom or Sandman - no, the battle is between the producer and the director, and whilst the producer wins in terms of it being the Symbiote that has been the enduring marketing image - the director wins in the end because he makes two movies and gets to place a serious film and a comedic parody movie together to highlight and contrast the different attitudes if the artistic versus the money makers of the film industry.Unfortunately, I don't many will grasp how brilliant this film actually is unless they have a good knowledge of the film and comic book industry, and view the film as two separate entities. Let's wait for the Director's cut and see if he not only has balls, but manages to cut the balls off the Producer once and for all...
If you like Cheese, you'll love this baby!
posted on 26 Aug 2009My main gripe was that the film oozes cheese, real cheese served up the American way. I'd go as far to say that this film has more cheese than Switzerland. Especially the part near the end, where Spidey swings in to save the day and conveniently lands right next to a huge American flag – patriotic crap. Please spare me the American patriotic crap. And I think the film could also have benefited from the omitting of certain corny and needless pieces of dialogue. The cries of 'Awesome' etc from the watching crowds made me want to vomit. The story is pretty straightforward, as you would expect, and does enough to keep you entertained; although not enough to make you want to see the film again. In my opinion, Spiderman 2 is the best of the trilogy but this is worth seeing just for the sake of keeping up with the saga. The villains are OK, especially Venom. The parts where Venom consumes Parker were probably my favourite parts. For me, the film was too digitally enhanced, e.g. the parts where Spidey is seen swinging through the streets look too good to be true, so in my opinion, makes them look a tad fake. But on the whole, apart from the cheese and the overdone effects, it's not a bad flick, I suppose.
i did not like this particular film
posted on 26 Aug 2009i went to see this film at the pictures and afterwards me and a friend wanted to be refunded our money...i would have to say that all though the action scenes were sum what entertaining, it was the worse of the 3 films, i feel the writers ruined the trilogy with this film.There was way too much romance way to many emotions overall although you do not want a film to be cold and heartless this just overpowered the film ,the villains weren't villains ,there was too much Peter Parker and not enough Spiderman which i felt ruined the ambiance of the film,the first film was very good and i applaud the writers and actors on this but this trilogy ended badly with this film, i feel that if they make a fourth they will need to use more of the ideas from the first film to cover the badness of this one. i am sure there will probably be some one out there who might like it.
Unimpressed
posted on 30 Aug 2009Unimpressed.The first movie was cool when it came out...and the second was surprisingly entertaining. Put together, that made me believe this one would be awesome.It wasn't.40 minutes of boring 10 minutes of awesome mixed with stupid followed by another 40 minutes of boring then about a half hour of cool as hell then 20 minutes of "really? they decided to do that?" then there's the lord of the rings endingdon't not see it on my part and hey...hopefully you'll go in expecting crap, you'll end up liking it, and since you expected crap, you'll think it's awesomeor you'll go in expecting crap and you'll get crapthumbs up to topher grace for being just about the only entertaining actor in the entire movie