SPIDER-MAN 3 REVIEW

It's 4:06 a.m. and I've just returned home from South Setauket on Long Island, the Girlfriend's hometown, where we watched the 9:30 p.m. showing of SPIDER-MAN 3. I tell you all this to both explain why the review is being posted so late at night and to excuse myself if there are any typos I miss -- I'm sure by the time I'm done writing this, proofreading won't be prominent in my mind.

I'm going to try to avoid including spoilers in this, and when I do post spoilers they will be clearly marked, for those of you yet to see the movie.

Let me begin by saying this: I will be going to see this movie at least once more before buying it when it comes out on DVD. It is too visually stunning not to be enjoyable. The fight sequences were spectacular, and as far as I am concerned, the fight between Peter and Harry (I'd call it a spoiler, if not for all the trailers) near the beginning of the film is the TOP FIGHT in the Spider-man Trilogy. It's jaw-dropping.

That said -- this was far and away the weakest of the three Spider-man films. It was a collection of spectacular clips, all strung together by very thin string.

There was plenty to like. As I said, the fights were great, Harry's new Goblin look is much better than his Dad's, and Mary Jane was incredible. But, the movie is plagued by three major problems...

MAJOR PROBLEM #1: To put it simply, there was simply too much to fit into one movie. Spider-man 3 suffers from what I call "Trilogy-itis." Trilogy-itis is what happens when actors and producers decide that the third movie is going to be the final one -- only they still want to do SO MUCH. So the producers go to the writers and say "We want to do this and this and this and this and this and this -- oh, but you still only have two and a half hours to work with."

This time, they wanted to include the Sandman for visual pleasure. They wanted to include Venom and the black-suit story because fans were dying for it. They wanted to culminate the Harry Osborne story to round-out the "Trilogy." Oh, and they wanted Mary Jane and Peter's relationship to still be the central idea. That's a bit more than the past two movies were dealing with, with only one villain in each!

But this was not inherently a bad script -- it just was executed much too fast. As a result, there was no slow build to anything. Everything just happened, and we are expected to accept it.

Remember how in Spider-man 1, we slowly see how Norman Osborne is driven to becoming a psycho? Remember how we see Doc Ock as a three-dimensional character before he became Doc Ock in Spidey 2?

Well in this movie -- SPOILERS HERE -- the black suit symbiote randomly lands as a meteorite near where Peter and MJ are hanging out, and Flint Marko randomly falls into a molecular sand experiment, which isn't mentioned before he falls into the experiment, and is not mentioned again afterward. Oh, and Eddie Brock just happens to be in the same church that Peter is in when Peter gets rid of the symbiote. IT ALL JUST HAPPENS. -- SPOILERS OVER

And Flint Marko could have been a solid villain onto himself. He has an emotional reason for becoming a bad guy, and if that was actually developed, then he would have been an emotional character -- but he is not developed at all. We see him fight a few times, but there is no return to his emotional story. So by the end of the movie, when the movie wants the audience to be feeling sympathy for him, it just isn't there.

What Sandman is reduced to is a Plot Device. He is there to be an example for the rage Peter is feeling, and a metaphor at the end of the movie. How such a potentially great villain was so underused is beyond me.

On the other hand, I thought they nailed the character of Eddie Brock. His "I'm such a victim" attitude was perfectly acted out, and it was enough to show why he would want to become Venom. However, again, because there is so much to show before Venom even shows up, we don't get enough of Venom.

Because of this, I really think this movie could have been PERFECT if Sandman was simply not involved. Harry's Goblin was more than enough to add to the black suit/Venom stuff.

As long as we're talking characters, though, I should mention that Kirsten Dunst steals the show as Mary Jane. Nothing goes right for MJ in this one, as she is the brunt of Peter's rage and used as a pawn by others -- and Dunst makes the audience feel every last bit of sympathy she can. I absolutely love her mixture of hurt and jealousy in the dinner scene.

Her acting and ability to interject emotion into a story that just jumps from moment to moment way too quickly saves the movie.

MAJOR PROBLEM #2: One of the aspects of the first two Spider-man movies that has made it so successful is that, while it is located in a comic book world, it is grounded in reality. This one? Not so much.

It's not terribly noticeable -- but everything just seems a caricature of itself. Everything is taken to the absolute outlandish extreme. For example: J. Jonah Jameson is said to have high blood pressure, so on his desk they put at least a dozen different types of pills and ant-acids, just sitting there. They then proceed to do a comedy bit pointing out just how many he has. Funny, sure. Realistic it is not. Most of the film is similar.

There are several times during fight sequences, when certain people are in peril and the villain is not in sight, that instead of leaping up to save them, Spidey stops to banter and tell a one-liner. At one point I wanted to just yell out "Swing up there, you moron!!!" And when you have one of these moments near the climax of the movie, it can be jarring.

And on this same note of being outlandish -- I mentioned Mary Jane's tough luck in this movie -- well much of it seems pretty outlandish in itself. You know, the bad luck NOT super-villain related.

Now, to a certain extent you can say "Well, it's a comic book movie, it's allowed to be a bit outlandish." I agree. All I am saying is that this third Spider-man movie is more goofy than the first two combined.

The movie was way too aware of itself. Stan Lee makes a cameo, and actually said the phrase " 'nuff said!" Sure, as a comic book geek, it was great to hear. It just didn't have the realism.

MAJOR PROBLEM #3: This is a superhero movie in which the main superhero is unlikeable 95% of the time. I am not exaggerating. Because even before Peter gets his Black suit (which increases aggressiveness and anger and whatnot), he is set up to be VERY self-absorbed.

To an extent, that is good writing -- I mean, this is a nerd who is getting a taste of living the popular life for the first time. That doesn't change the fact that Peter's actions are NOT LIKABLE. With some of the things he did, I was cheering against him being with MJ.

Once he does get the suit, he's 100% asshole. And in another goofy move -- They actually had him change his hairstyle almost immediately after getting the suit, dictating that he has a new prerogative. Instead of parting his hair, he wears his hair down. It reminded me of cheesy shows where someone has an evil twin, and you know which one the evil twin is because the evil one is wearing a Goatee.

Again, on the whole I don't think this is bad writing --it's just hard to cheer for a guy that is such an asshole.

I really have to refrain from giving more specifics on this, or else it would really Spoil a lot, so I will simply move on.

Oh, but one last thing on Peter -- at least we know he could get a role in West Side Story. You'll see what I mean. Ridiculous.

Conclusion: I feel like I've been bashing this movie, and maybe I am, but that does not change the fact that I still feel that Spider-man 3 is enjoyable. Taken on a scene-by-scene basis, there was some jaw-dropping stuff here. As I said, I will be seeing it again soon.

However, it is just kind of sad to think about just how great this movie could have been if it didn't have the extra character of Sandman slowing things down. Nothing was able to be as fully developed as it could have been, and consequently we are not given as three-dimensional characters as we were given in the first two movies.

This really should have been two separate movies. And there was more than enough material for it to be.

This sequel was not as bad as other sequels with too much going on, like "X-Men the Last Stand" and "Batman Forever," but it unfortunately is not on par with Spidey 1 and 2. Still very fun, just not on par.

On a side note, I would have much preferred for the black suit symbiote to be created in much the same way that it was in the "Ultimate Spider-man" comics -- it could have been an experiment of Dr. Connors' that Peter accidentally gets a drop or two of his blood into, which is what initially would give the symbiote life and make it attracted to Peter. Much more realistic, dontcha' think? Plus the experiment could have been one that might lead to a certain Lizard coming out to play in a sequel...

One last thing -- while I've been writing this I've been listening to the Spider-man 3 Soundtrack, which I picked up this afternoon. It isn't bad, some fun tracks, but it isn't quite as good as the Spider-man 2 soundtrack, which I loved. Sounds kinda familiar...

So I am sure you all have thoughts on both this review and the movie -- So what are your opinions?