Spider-Man 3 (C+ or 2/4 stars)
Things are going well for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) early on in 'Spider-man 3', a comic book adaptation directed, again, by Sam Raimi. His relationship with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) is flourishing. He's happy with his superhero status. But bad times are on the horizon ... no way. There are plenty of neat things in this film, including some action sequences, comedic moments, and some surprising growth of character. But it is long, and there are way too many moments where cringe-inducing melodrama sprawls across the screen. Poignant moments are handled poorly, & the whole thing comes across as a silly, hokey mess!
Harry (James Franco) is still out for revenge after Peter killed his father/Green Goblin. Harry will try to take Peter down as 'The New Goblin'. Peter must also deal with 'The Sandman' (Thomas Haden Church), who may have killed Peter's beloved uncle. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is a rival photographer at Peter's job. His alter ego is 'Venom', a creature formed from a black gooey substance which fell to Earth via asteroid (no, that's not a typo). And he may lose a potential fiancee in MJ because he fails to give her attention, & directs it towards a girl he recently saved from harm, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard). AND, not only does the aforementioned gooey substance inhabit 'Venom', when worn by Peter ... his red suit turns black & his powers get darkly amplified. Enough subplots for ya?
'Spider-man 3' takes 3 infantile storylines & tries to create some interesting exposition behind them; it just doesn't work. It's like they ran out of ideas. After being inflicted with and recovering from temporary amnesia (ugh), Harry follows his dead father's footsteps as 'New Goblin'. But will Harry be emotionally able to kill his friend, Peter Parker? Can they become allies once again? New Goblin is a 'villain' for about 3 seconds; aka, not a good one. James Franco is in this movie a lot, & shockingly enough, that's a good thing. While his performance is often too cheeky, I welcome him to Maguire's vapidness or Dunst's blandness. The more I think about this franchise, why cast these 2 particular actors in one of the biggest Marvel screen adaptations of all time?
The 2nd villain {coughs ... storyline} involving Thomas Haden Church as potential uncle killer/'Sandman' doesn't work because he doesn't have an evil bone in his body. His aim in life is to provide for his sickly daughter. In his most villainous moment, the Sandman appears ominous & flies around New York; he certainly looks cool. But a scary villain with purposeful reason to kill? No. And the 3rd & most impressive villain, per say, is Topher Grace as Venom/black gooey substance. But this villain doesn't surface til midway through the 140 minutes, & most of the action/dialogue pre and post 'Venom' is tedious, at best. Maybe the movie would have been better to have 1 of these 3 villains and develop a truly great movie around that '1'. But no. And an abundance of woeful/contemplative moments between our many protagonists only weaken the film further. Too many character developments are introduced that eventually fade away, anyway.
Not all is bad. Tobey Maguire does the best he can to make Peter Parker something that resembles a multi-dimensional hero. It's interesting to see an emotional struggle between Peter & MJ. But the catalyst of this riff being Bryce Dallas Howard's character? Pathetic. Some action sequences are cool, but there aren't nearly enough. But then again, I've actually never been too impressed with 'Spider-man' special effects, as they often look cartoony. Some moments are intentionally humorous, but way too many are un-intended where the entire audience mocks some lengthy portions of the film. All I could do was agree with my fellow audience members (delinquent as most may have been) and shake my head in joint disappointment. 'Spider-man 3' isn't overwhelmingly dull, but it isn't overly fun, either. And we want Spider-man to be fun! Corniness + substandard special effects don't equal grand success. This movie deserved to be better.
Harry (James Franco) is still out for revenge after Peter killed his father/Green Goblin. Harry will try to take Peter down as 'The New Goblin'. Peter must also deal with 'The Sandman' (Thomas Haden Church), who may have killed Peter's beloved uncle. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is a rival photographer at Peter's job. His alter ego is 'Venom', a creature formed from a black gooey substance which fell to Earth via asteroid (no, that's not a typo). And he may lose a potential fiancee in MJ because he fails to give her attention, & directs it towards a girl he recently saved from harm, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard). AND, not only does the aforementioned gooey substance inhabit 'Venom', when worn by Peter ... his red suit turns black & his powers get darkly amplified. Enough subplots for ya?
'Spider-man 3' takes 3 infantile storylines & tries to create some interesting exposition behind them; it just doesn't work. It's like they ran out of ideas. After being inflicted with and recovering from temporary amnesia (ugh), Harry follows his dead father's footsteps as 'New Goblin'. But will Harry be emotionally able to kill his friend, Peter Parker? Can they become allies once again? New Goblin is a 'villain' for about 3 seconds; aka, not a good one. James Franco is in this movie a lot, & shockingly enough, that's a good thing. While his performance is often too cheeky, I welcome him to Maguire's vapidness or Dunst's blandness. The more I think about this franchise, why cast these 2 particular actors in one of the biggest Marvel screen adaptations of all time?
The 2nd villain {coughs ... storyline} involving Thomas Haden Church as potential uncle killer/'Sandman' doesn't work because he doesn't have an evil bone in his body. His aim in life is to provide for his sickly daughter. In his most villainous moment, the Sandman appears ominous & flies around New York; he certainly looks cool. But a scary villain with purposeful reason to kill? No. And the 3rd & most impressive villain, per say, is Topher Grace as Venom/black gooey substance. But this villain doesn't surface til midway through the 140 minutes, & most of the action/dialogue pre and post 'Venom' is tedious, at best. Maybe the movie would have been better to have 1 of these 3 villains and develop a truly great movie around that '1'. But no. And an abundance of woeful/contemplative moments between our many protagonists only weaken the film further. Too many character developments are introduced that eventually fade away, anyway.
Not all is bad. Tobey Maguire does the best he can to make Peter Parker something that resembles a multi-dimensional hero. It's interesting to see an emotional struggle between Peter & MJ. But the catalyst of this riff being Bryce Dallas Howard's character? Pathetic. Some action sequences are cool, but there aren't nearly enough. But then again, I've actually never been too impressed with 'Spider-man' special effects, as they often look cartoony. Some moments are intentionally humorous, but way too many are un-intended where the entire audience mocks some lengthy portions of the film. All I could do was agree with my fellow audience members (delinquent as most may have been) and shake my head in joint disappointment. 'Spider-man 3' isn't overwhelmingly dull, but it isn't overly fun, either. And we want Spider-man to be fun! Corniness + substandard special effects don't equal grand success. This movie deserved to be better.