Lookin' at Spider-Man

Spider-Man 3 is out. I finally got to see it Monday. Definitely worth the more than 2 hours I invested in it.

Evolutionblog shared some thoughts on the film.


Spider-Man Three

I saw Spider-Man Three this weekend. I liked it. A lot.

The critics have been panning it pretty severely, but they are wrong. They've been complaining that there is too much CGI, that there are too many supervillains, and that the story is unconvincing. Actually, I was impressed by how restrained the film is. In a two and half hour movie there are really only a handful of big action sequences. Unlike many recent action movies, people actually talk to each other in this one. And, c'mon! The CGI is pretty spectaular. The Sandman effects alone are worth the considerable price of admission.

The one criticism with which I agree is that they tried to do a bit too much. I think either Sandman or Venom is interesting enough that they could have been the sole bad guy in the movie. Venom in particular is woefully underdeveloped here. I suspect the reason for including both (not to mention Harry's stint as the new Green Goblin) was (a) The erroneous feeling, prevalent especially in the Batman movies, that you have to keep topping yourself by doing more extreme things in each sequel and (b) the uncertainty as to whether there would be other Spider-Man movies and the desire to include most of the iconic Spider-Man characters just in case this was the last one.

On the other hand, I thought the writers did an impressive job of weaving together the various characters' subplots. For example, the triangle between Peter Parker, Mary Jane and Harry Osborn weaves together nicely with Sandman's own quest for forgiveness.

In the end, the movie passed it's most important test. After two and a half hours I didn't want it to end. More so than most comic book movies, the Spider-Man films are made by people who understand that the characters come first, and the action second. I hope they make many more.

I have to agree, a good movie. But one of the villains was unnecessary. Sandman or Venom (the symbiote). Use the symbiote and have it unglue Spider-Man's center while battling the all too close stabs of the Goblin. Or have the Sandman and have the vengeance Spider-Man seeks against Sandman mirror Goblins vengeance against Spider-Man. But together the Spider/Goblin and Parker/Osborne stories suffer and underfed.

The movie is good. But the studios push to include Venom was the kind of interference that wasn't needed. The dual vengeance stories would have been poetic on their own. The tragic stories of Harry Osborne, manipulated and misconstruing events leading to the loss of all he truly had, and Sandman, a dad trying to do the right thing for a dying daughter...who needed the space alien...except...Okay as a minor subplot, introduced as a new tool that nearly destroys Spider-Man, then he dumps it at the end, leading to Venom emerging for a showdown in the next film.

And one more.


Spider-Man, Again

Robert Farley, writing at Tapped, has an excellent review of the new Spider-Man movie. I think he perfectly summarizes the film's good points and bad points. He makes the point, exactly right in my opinion, that it's not that Spider-Man III is unusually bad, it's that Spider-Man II was unusually good. I've placed two excerpts below the fold:

I suspect that much of the negativity about the third film stems from how poorly it stands up to the second. I think that we have an Empire Strikes Back problem. Thinking people everywhere understand that Empire was, by far, the best of the original Star Wars trilogy. Jedi appears to be a weak entry in large part because of the strength of the second film, but Empire is the real outlier. Similarly, Spiderman III really isn't any worse than the first Spiderman flick. The problem is that Spiderman II was much, much better than it had any right being. One of my favorite scenes from the second movie comes when Ursula (Peter Parker's next door neighbor) brings him some milk and cake. He accepts, and they sit down and eat the cake. It's a complex, interesting, understated, and generally outstanding scene, but what struck me as most notable is that it had no business whatsoever appearing in a summer popcorn blockbuster. For whatever reason, Spiderman II, like Empire, transcended the form. A repeat performance was too much to expect. Nevertheless, there were some genuine problems with the execution of Spiderman III.

And:

Each approach has its merits, and Spiderman's focus on smaller problems (street crime, saving babies from fires, etc.) is probably more true to the ethos of the character than some grand fight against ideologically driven supervillains. It's Superman (who I believe is an illegal alien) who has always been burdened with the ideological baggage. Of Batman I have little to say. Anyway, the critics are correct to say that Spiderman III is overlong and has some serious structural flaws. Nevertheless, I found the film entertaining, and I think that there's still some value in exploring the Spiderman character.