Skip to main content

Spider-Man with his hand in the cookie jar! Whoever brings me that photo gets a job.

Spider-Man 3
(2007)

(SPOILERS) Spider-Man 3 is a mess. That much most can agree on that much. And I think few – Jonathan Ross being one of them – would claim it’s the best of the Raimi trilogy. But it’s also a movie that has taken an overly harsh beating. In some cases, this a consequence of negative reaction to its most inspired elements – it would be a similar story with Iron Man Three a few years later – and in others, it’s a reflection of an overstuffed narrative pudding – so much so that screenwriter Alvin Sargent considered splitting the movie into two. In respect of the latter, elements were forced on director Sam Raimi, and these cumulative disagreements would eventually lead him to exit the series (it would take another three years before his involvement in Spider-Man 4 officially ended). There’s a lot of chaff in the movie, but there’s also a lot of goodness here, always providing you aren’t gluten intolerant.

Post the Marc Webb Amazing reboot, Spidey 3’s decriers have tended to regroup slightly, on the basis that it wasn’t all that bad in retrospect. I was never among them (the decriers), although I can’t deny there are times when you can feel Raimi trying his best not to let this behemoth, over spilling with villains, one of whom he fought against, and two love interests, and effectively two Peter Parkers, get out of control.

What undeniably survives is his vision of Peter Putz Parker, still making all the wrong choices and being entirely oblivious to the needs the woman he professes to love. Thrown into the mix is Bryce Dallas Howard in the fairly thankless role of Gwen Stacy – again, the most effective love interest in the movie is the unrequited one from Mageina Tovah’s Ursula – there for rescuing (a crane goes super apeshit beserk in a sequence that wouldn’t look out of place in a Fast and Furious) or igniting jealousy (Peter, in an act of shocking lack of awareness, prostitutes his upside down kiss with MJ from the first movie for the cameras; “She’s just a girl in my class”).

What’s been lacking in Raimi’s movies – because he needs his underdogs, and he needs them to suffer, even when they’re super-powered – since the fight with Flash Thompson in the first movie is Peter actually taking charge with effortless confidence. Even as Spider-Man he’s mostly on a back foot rather than cutely quipping. But being Raimi, when he doesallow his worm to turn, he turns him into Emo Peter, probably the most hilarious and entirely controversial move of his trilogy. For me, it’s the absolute highlight of Spider-Man 3, even if it lasts for little more than fifteen minutes (in a movie that runs more than two hours fifteen). However, I’d quite forgotten how the random symbiote-laden meteor crashes to earth right at the very start and then proceeds to squidge around Peter’s bedroom for an hour before doing anything of note; whatever else the screenplay, credited to Sam Ivan and Alvin Sargent, has going on positively, it’s structurally a disaster, also managing to side-line Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) for ages.

The effect of the symbiote, aside from turning Peter’s costume black and rendering him as a very obvious CGI double – seriously, while the effects in the trilogy are very variable, here in particular they have not aged well, probably because Raimi’s more visibly reliant on them than before – is to give him a kind of coke high, emo fringe and eyeliner. He consequently thinks he’s very much cooler than he is (dancing down the street to the disconcerted looks of any women walking by), and eventually hijacking MJ’s pub gig with a piano recital before dancing down the bar (and only reconsidering his ways when he accidentally hits MJ). On the other hand, we also get to see him smash morally-compromised Eddie’s camera (“See ya, chump”), flare up at his landlord (“You’ll get your rent when you fix this damn door!”) and finally give Harry what-for in a much more effective fight than the earlier high-flying one (“He despised you! You were an embarrassment to him!”)

So effective are these scenes – you can feel Raimi, whatever his qualms about the symbiote, really coming into his own here – that one can only conclude it was a grave error to devote so little screen time to the Venom plotline. Coincidentally or not, this third movie also manages to follow the Superman template (the second movie has the protagonist give up the good fight, the third movie has him turn evil for a spell); the problem is, while Avi Arad might have “persuaded” Raimi of the merits of Venom/ the symbiote, it clearly wasn’t enough to integrate him/it into an effectively told story. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace, who’s fine in a reflection of Peter way but lacks, well, he isn’t Tom Hardy, and there’s no relish to Venom – “I like being bad. It makes me happy” is a bit sappy) only connects with the symbiote with half an hour to go, in a very evidently can’t-be-arsed scenario (the bank robbery when Peter and May are opening an account in Spider-Man 2 was coincidence enough, but this time Peter’s tearing off his costume while Eddie’s praying in the church below).

Raimi clearly doesn’t care about Brock’s transformation, as there’s none of the care bestowed on Sandman earlier, a villain he didwant to include (he also wanted Ben Kingsley as the Vulture until Venom took precedence). While the effects in much of the movie are shonky – possibly a symptom of John Dykastra passing on supervising this one – the birth of Sandman is a thing of beauty, all the more so with the lyrical accompaniment of Christopher Young – replacing Danny Elfman’s vanilla scoring – as Flint attempts to martial the properties of his new granular form.

On the one hand, this is another science experiment with a human caught up in it, but on the other, Flint’s motivation is very different to the boffins of the previous pictures (“I’m not a bad person. I just had bad luck”). Church’s mournful performance does as much as it can to flesh out a character Raimi must take the blame for sabotaging; retconning Uncle Ben’s perp seems to have come with his blessing, but it’s an unnecessary decision and one that ultimately feels hollow, a rote attempt to force further angst/ character development on Peter (the Joker killed my parents). And with the overstuffed melange of villains, Marko is ultimately dealt short shrift (there’s also that Raimi never finds a way to make him a sufficiently effective antagonist, simply because he’s too sympathetic – granted, one of his reasons for including the character was to question Peter’s conviction that criminals are criminals but that attitude isn’t really evidenced in anything we’ve previously seen other than Uncle Ben’s killer).

Raimi does, though, manage to finish Harry’s arc effectively. But while Harry makes a good bastard best friend, he is not a great villain, meaning that, despite there being three of them, the picture’s ultimately lacking in that regard. Harry here is possibly the purest distillation of James Franco on screen, at least until the climax, so there’s that. The memory-loss device is very cheesy, but it does at least elicit Harry’s shit-eating grin as sabotages the parts of Peter’s life he hasn’t already sabotaged (“How was the pie?”: “Soooooo good”). It’s more classic Raimi.

We also get Bruce Campbell (once earmarked for Mysterio), of course, playing nice with Parker this time as a Monty Python French waiter attempting to aid him in popping the question to MJ. And there are further high notes with J Jonah Jameson, including a priceless routine with Elizabeth Banks (an early role, playing his assistant in all three movies) raising his blood pressure further by continually buzzing him (“Time to take your pill”) and his horror at the faked Spidey photo (“I haven’t printed a retraction in twenty years!”). And then there’s his being extorted for cash when he needs a camera during the climax.

Which isn’t very good, really. Yes, it pays off Harry well enough, but it also brusquely dispenses with Venom, involves MJ being kidnapped again, doubles down on the trilogy’s obsession with unmasking our hero (not really much different to the Burton Batmans on this point, I suppose) and features some absolutely appalling reportage interludes that help to destroy any tension.

So as a trilogy capper, Spider-Man 3 never really finds its groove, but it does have moments of greatness – early scenes with Flint, anything with Emo Peter, anything with JJ – and it certainly isn’t the massive step down, quality wise, that many suggest. Whatever the movie’s perceived problems, they didn’t damage the box office (the most successful of the trilogy worldwide). It might have been nice to see Raimi continue with the series for a couple more movies, but on the other hand, given the compromise he was encountering (he suffered four versions of a 4 script and still hated it, apparently, so we never got to see Malkovich as the Vulture), perhaps it was time (he has since called 3 “awful”). It’s just a shame that the next incarnation of Spidey was so creatively compromised, scoring a director who wouldn’t or couldn’t push back, with entirely dispensable results.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.