The Critics Are Right, but I'm Still Feeling the Love: Thoughts on Spiderman 3

I have long been an unabashed fan of the Spiderman movies. In my view they stand head and shoulders above all their spandex-and-CGI counterparts. While Batman Begins garnered much praise for being "dark" and the X-Men movies had decent acting, these movies were too busy delivering fast thrills to pay attention to characters and themes. In contrast, Spiderman is from beginning to end all about the travails of being human, and executed with such delicacy and humor that the action, while engaging at times, exists to heighten the drama rather than to provide it in the first place.

The third installment is definitely the weakest, as many critics have said. There are too many villains, and at least two of them--the black ooze from space and Topher Grace with a bad haircut--fall into the story so arbitarily that it's almost silly. The writing doesn't always have the nuance of the previous movie, where the hand of Michael Chabon was beautifully in evidence. And the first half of the movie juggles so many disconnected elements that it's hard to see how the ending can possibly justify the buildup.

However. What this movie never does is wander off into a CGI-packed wonderland that forsakes character development for explosions, as so many other movies of its kind would do. Raimi demonstrates once again that what interests him the most is the human element, with every character--even the most minor--asserting some level of importance simply by virtue of being human. This is made most apparent with the villains, all of whom are driven by motives that are on some level justifiable--there is no one to purely hate. Harry is, at worst, deeply misguided; and the Sandman is a classic case of a man who blundered too deep into crime to find his way out. Eddie Brock, a deeply unlikeable photographer who competes with Peter and later becomes yet another villain, is driven to cartoon evil by genuine despair and failure. Peter's conflicts with these villains evoke a measure of internal conflict in the viewer.

But this is the heavy stuff, and it would be a pity if I neglected to mention the delightful J.K. Simmons returning for another hilariously cantankerous stint as editor of The Daily Bugle; then there's his secretary who has a soft spot for Peter, Peter's Russian landlord who gives him vintage Old World advice about women, and the landlord's daughter who provides many moments of sweetness and humor. That's leaving out the main actors, because there's really no need to mention them; but perhaps it should be noted that Harry's vulnerability is particularly affecting.

The major theme of Spiderman 3, when it emerges, is that there is a fine line between a hero and a villain, and Peter spends most of the movie teetering on the brink. A common comic book theme and executed reasonably well when the plot isn't dithering too much; but for me the best moments were the tiny human details: the sly French maitre d' who conspires with Peter in his proposal to MJ, the way Peter echoes the thoughts of many viewers after one of his encounters with the Sandman, as he shakes the sand out of his clothes and mutters "Where do all these guys keep coming from?" In acting there is the concept of "the moment before," when the character is inspired to action; Raimi often focuses on the moment after, the less dramatic but intensely real aftermath.

And like the previous two movies, Spiderman 3 is a love song to New York, depicting the city as a mythic realm both of opportunity and deadly loneliness--a place where superheroes are needed most. 

Comments

[Diana]

I really don't understand the critical panning. Leave the social allegory to X-Men; leave the brooding to Batman; but let Spidey be fun. (Note that I also adored the two X-Men movies [sad that they never made a third] and Batman Begins; I just don't need all of my comic adaptations to have the exact same approach.)

I think that what it did could have been managed without Venom, but really, I think they did manage to juggle the multiple villains well without getting bogged down (even at 2.5 hours).

I've also seen people complaining a lot about the strut and dance sequences...but I took them to be meant about as seriously as the "Raindrops" sequence in the second movie. Plus, they showed that even when Peter's infected by evil alien goo, he's still a dork. Heh.

And I love Bruce Campbell. SO MUCH.

[Gil Hoffman]

This is a beautifully written review but I respectfully disagree. I found the movie very disturbing at times. One reason is that Spiderman was not just flawed, he was very, very flawed. I wish a superhero could just be a guy who is all good for once. We have enough people in the world who are flawed without claiming to be super.

Another thing I found disturbing was how the movie was so disconnected from reality. I could accept there being a man who is made out of sand and can never die and another man with spikes in his chest being able to live long enough to have a deep goodbye chat with his buddies. But Peter Parker being such a jerk that he would hit MJ - that just wouldn't happen.

Many people who used to identify with Peter Parker will never be able to ever again after that. I hope Spiderman 4 will be better.

[Diana]

"I wish a superhero could just be a guy who is all good for once."

Superman! But only one of those is enough.

"But Peter Parker being such a jerk that he would hit MJ - that just wouldn't happen."

Is a person responsible for his or her actions while drunk, drugged, or under the influence of a gooey alien? Yes. But neither is it the case that Peter just hauled off and hit her on his own.

[Ilana]

Diana:

For me Spiderman has an emotional component as well as being fun...but yeah, it's definitely also fun. I can understand the panning, though, because Spiderman 2 was so great that it would have been hard for anything else to measure up.

I thought pretty much ALL the movie except the really intense moments were tongue-in-cheek--that's one of the things I've enjoyed about the movies until now.

Gil:

It's true that it is hard to see Peter the same way after the way he acted. On the other hand, the way I tend to look at this kind of story is as an opportunity for metaphorical self-exploration--even if it's in a pop culture sort of way. But I agree with you that there should be consequences for Peter's actions if there is a Spiderman 4.

[Alec]

I finally got around to seeing the film and was thrilled actually. For all of its flaws, it does much better in the sequal department than most series do. They did try to pack quite a bit into it, but I thought they handled it fairly well. At least every character had some development rather than it just seeming like "hello, my name is ___, let me show you my special effect superpower. Oops, that's all the screen time for me" (yes X-Men 3, I'm looking at you).

Plus, despite the number of villains, they did a good job tying them together into the main theme. Each character, including Spiderman, has to deal with bad choices, anger, and falling too far, and we get to see each come to a different resolution depending on their choices.

I'm also glad the Spiderman movies don't turn dark like so many. It's refreshing to have fun, even quirky films, that still manage to have serious themes.

A couple last comments:

-Bruce Campbell makes everything better.
-I also liked the "evil Peter strutting", and that for once turning bad doesn't automatically make you suave and cool.
-Very much liked the ending, and how they get back together in such a way that indicates (to me at least) they'll work things out but a lot of bad stuff has happened which can't just be forgotten or fixed overnight. The movie ending on a emotional hug rather than the stereotypical kiss really worked IMO.

[e-belle]

"Raimi often focuses on the moment after, the less dramatic but intensely real aftermath."

Kudos noticing (and noting) that - you ALMOST make me want to go see this...rather than just taunting my eldest that we were going without him.

Some movies I do like to see twice - once just to enjoy/take it in, and a second time to REALLY note the director's hand. Of course it's usually only those movies where their artistic effort is glimpsed in the first place.