A Scientist at the Movies Reviews by Greg Paris

The Evaluation System Reviews by Title Reviews by Date

Reviews from Video Reviews of the Classics Personal Background

Title: Spider-Man 3

Date Viewed: 5/19/07

Details:

Tobey Maguire

Kirsten Dunst

James Franco

Thomas Haden Church

Topher Grace

Bryce Dallas Howard

Rosemary Harris

J.K. Simmons

James Cromwell

Director: Sam Raimi

Score: -1/2

The Review: Sequelitis maximus extremis.

I can imagine the dialog in the veggie-filled back-rooms of Hollywood... "One villain is not enough, let's use two!" "No, two villains are still not enough, let's use three!" "Oh, wait, why not have Spider-Man himself become yet another villain -- so he can fight himself?!" "Ooh, ooh, let's have an alien goo join the cast, straight out of War of the Worlds, only smaller and easier to SFX!" "And what about a girlfriend crisis or another girlfriend -- won't that wrap things up well?" "No, let's have a girlfriend crisis and a best friend crisis and a total rewriting of the death of a beloved character two episodes ago -- this will really stir the pot, and give us the chance to reuse some footage from Spidey-1! Aren't we being cost-efficient?" "Oh, and we can have Parker strut his stuff down the city street as if he's a clueless disco geek, in a clothes advert, with an inflated sense of self-worth and the world's gift to women!" Huh?

Instead of movie fun, let's confuse the audience beyond all recognition, cripple the franchise, and not add anything of interest to the legacy of film entertainment -- other than a new record for spending (nay, wasting) a ton of money! (Let's see, at 1 gram per dollar bill -- that greenback we mere mortals see most of -- then $300 million translates into over 300 tons! Although I haven't calculated the volume involved, it must be close to the displacement of the Titanic.)

Welcome to Spider-Man 3, the first in a full silly-season packed with sequel-retreads, a purported blockbuster that will blow the audience out of their seats. Well, yes, but the problem is that some of that audience will voluntarily leave their seats in disgust or disinterest. This episode is by far the weakest of the three so far issued, and a tremendous step down from the simpler, more straightforward, Spider-Man 2.

If this is what $300 million buys today, my response is "just say no!" Ignoring the real world, just imagine other film entertainment tasks to which this fortune could have been purposed -- nearly an entire year's worth of one new independent movie per day; or perhaps 500 different, novel documentaries; or a good dozen of any high-budget dramas with finely crafted screenplays and a battery of excellent actors. How many new Lions in Winter, or Inherit the Winds, or Men for All Seasons might have arisen?

Instead, what did we get here? A bloated, over-long (nearly 2-1/2 hours) and overly complicated plot peopled... by characters with cryptic motivation at best (or muddled beyond recognition at worst), by celebrities that are acting (if at all) nowhere near the top of their range (Maguire has done much better), with long (interminable, boring, unnecessary) waits between smash-'em-up scenes of massive scope and destruction. You might argue that comic book characters and heroes are intended to be one-dimensional -- but were this so, how would you explain some of the better examples in this on-screen genre? Like the 1978 Superman (with Christopher Reeve), the 1989 Batman (with Michael Keaton), or even the 1994 Shadow (with Alec Baldwin)? Buried in all these films were significantly more complex characterizations that actually worked and engaged your attention, actors who acted (some quite well), and a distinct sense of whimsy or humor (or both) that infused the plot -- entertainment, for sure.

The only reason my score is not further in the negative range, is that I did pay attention to some of the SFX and found them a fascinating computational puzzle (something to distract me from the plot, such as it is). The design, visualization and virtual execution of the animation, mind you, not the plot turns.

Not recommended.

(20-May-07)

Back to the chronological list of reviews