'Spiderman 3' review

Rating: * out of ****

WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

'Spider-Man 3' really should have been the second film in the series for two reasons. Number one: it is the darkest of the three and has many of the signs of a dark second chapter (characters killed, relationships/reputations damaged, secrets revealed). It was very reminiscent of 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Batman Returns' in that way. Number two: it would have made 'Spider-Man 2' (already in the top 3 comic book movies of all time in my opinion) even better when it over-shadowed this chapter. It is so unfortunate that it is this movie that signs off such an epic franchise as the 'Spider-Man' series. Almost in the way that 'X3' was a let-down for that franchise.

A quick synopsis as provided by iMDB: "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."

From the beginning of the series, director Sam Raimi has always prided himself on being a lover of the comic, a fan of the material and it's universe. You'd never guess by looking at 'Spider-Man 3'. So much has been changed, altered, or added for eye candy reasons alone that it all ends up feeling like a muddled mess.

For starters, did anyone notice how pointless the ENTIRE Sandman plot-line was? You could have literally cut him out of the movie completely and not lost a single step of the way. He really served no purpose to the story except to provide more special effects moments, a poor attempt at a redemption story (which failed due to the minimalist back-story provided for his character), and a laughable moment that I half-expected to pop up in a new Godzilla movie. One word kept coming to mind every time Sandman was on screen: 'Perfunctory'.

Moving on to the Venom story. First off, they completely changed the origin story of Venom. In the story, John Jameson (J. Jonah Jameson's son) comes back from space and has the 'Venom-goo' attached to his ship. Am I the only one who assumed that that was why they bothered introducing the John Jameson character in the second movie?? But no, there is no reference of him in the third chapter, and they use a convenient and cliched 'it crashed to earth in a meteor' story to explain where it came from. I could forgive that injustice as long as Venom himself lived up. But alas, no great use was made of him either. How could they have such an epic villain as Venom at their disposal and use him for so little. Venom is one of the darkest, meanest and coolest villains, perhaps in the history of comic books. But here, they use him for so little and what he does do just comes off as corny and flat, considering the character. He is only used to set up a large ending sequence (which I will speak more about in a bit), which didn't really succeed in the thrills it was clearly aiming for. Furthermore, his alter-ego (Eddie Brock) was so one-dimensional that I couldn't believe the filmmakers expected us to feel for his plight and sympathize. I honestly felt nothing for him, which in turn made Venom less interesting. You must like the secret-identity in some way in order to like the alter-ego. The reason Spider-Man is such a good character is because he's human and contains human characteristics that average people can relate to and empathize with. I can't be expected to like, or fear, a villain who comes from such a shallow, one-dimensional character in the first place.

A few elements felt very 'thrown-in' as well. The Gwen Stacey character was relatively useless and they completely changed her character from the story. Originally, Gwen was the first true love of Peter Parker and the Green Goblin murdered her. This has always been a pivotal point in Spider-Man’s history. To this day there are still large debates over who is Spider-Man's 'one true love', Gwen or Mary Jane Watson. That would have made for an interesting subplot - introduce her as Peter's first love, then have the Goblin kill her and have Peter mourn her and be torn over who he really loved more. But no, they make her 'some girl' who shows up to make Mary-Jane jealous and to try and fuel the 'Eddie Brock anger' plot-line, but falls flat in doing so. Perhaps had the character been Felicia instead of Gwen it would have worked better.

Another 'tossed in' element is Harry's butler, Bernard, who shows up last minute with some interesting news. I will not divulge this news, suffice it to say it would have been helpful had he told Harry this news maybe 2 YEARS AGO!!

Now back to that aforementioned ending sequence. The best way I can describe it is to say that it felt like something out of one of the bad 'Batman' movies. I'm talking Schumacher's 'Batman' ('Batman Forever' & 'Batman + Robin'). It was so contrived and over-the-top that I found myself laughing out-loud at many moments. It was just one large excuse to showcase special effects, have the villains team up (for some reason?), and to force the obligatory "i forgive you, now lets team up for the greater good" plot.

I am a huge fan of Sam Raimi and will continue to be. However, I have a strong feeling that the reason behind the lackluster 'Spider-Man 3' is the introduction of Sam and his brother Ivan as screenwriters in this chapter. Sam Raimi's writing style is a unique and creative one, but I don't feel his style lends itself to the Spider-Man series. 'Spider-Man' walks a very fine line between being fun *wink-wink* kind of cheesy and full out cheesy. Sam Raimi's material doesn't always walk that line very well and often falls flat out into full cheesy territory.

The movie does have it's up-points. It has some amazing action sequences (such as an out of control crane against a skyscraper) and the special effects are top notch (even though I found they took a step down from the second film to the third). The acting is on par with what you've come to expect from the first two films. It is an entertaining summer action movie that many audiences, especially children, will surely enjoy. Many comic book fans on the other hand...

I wouldn't recommend 'Spider-Man 3' to any fan of the books or the animated series. I would recommend it to people who just want a summer action flick with cool effects. Had they seen either of the first two films, I would give them a stern warning before they entered the theater.

Ironically, Venom is part of the poison that brings down 'Spider-Man 3'.