There are too many villains, too much poor use of CGI, the script is all over the place, the philosophy is muddled, the acting weak, there is too much of the bits you don't like and too little of the bits you do from the other movies and alright already! I get it! you comic book fans hated the bit where Spiderman went 'dark' slicked his hair down and went maliciously ballroom dancing in front of his ex. Sheeesh!
As I explained in the previous blog I am not a comic book fan and therefor do not have a passionate attachment to the source material, I look at this as a movie, as a comic book movie and as a Sam Raimi movie. I watched it again because it was my first time watching it in a long time and I wanted to see if it really was as bad as everyone made out and I came to the conclusion that no it isn't.
Is it the worst film out of the Spiderman trilogy? possibly but I have a problems with each and everyone of them, is it the worst comic book movie ever made? not by a long shot! and then we come to something I do care passionately about, is it the worst Sam Raimi movie ever made? Well... I couldn't make it all the way through 'For The Love of the Game', I made it all the way through this and I like baseball, so it can't be but it's probably a close joint second along with Crimewave.
My main problem that I have with Spiderman 3 is that after Spiderman 1 proved to the studios that Sam was ready for the big time and 2, the most obvious Raimi movie out of the three, made all that money and was critically acclaimed by professionals and fans alike why on earth didn't the studio just leave him alone to do his own thing in the 3rd film?
Maybe they gave him just enough rope to hang himself though because they did let him and his brother write the script but considering they also penned Army of Darkness one of the greatest films of all time, I am going to continue to blame the studios.
Now I think if Raimi knew he was wrapping up his trilogy for good he would've done things differently but maybe he went along with all this crap because he thought he'd get his chance in part 4. I have no idea, this is all pure speculation by a Sam Raimi fan who pines for him to go back to his original sort of film making and who also hoped beyond hope that he would one day give Bruce Campbell more to do in a big Hollywood film.
The best thing about all three films are the Raimi touches, the humour, the camerawork, the casting of Bruce Campbell, Ted Raimi and J.K Simmons and that scene when Doc Ock wakes up in the hospital where Raimi finally gets to do his thing.
Now to that contentious montage in the 3rd film where Maguire Saturday-Night-Fever's it down to a stereotypical jazz bar and then tears the place up with some ludicrous hip swinging. This is clearly, for those who know the man's work, Raimi's invention, it is just his motives are unclear. Did he do it because he genuinely thought it was funny? or did he do it to stick it to the studio for forcing him to put the fucking awful venom plot line in there? we will never know but while it does jar with the rest of the film (which considering what the rest of the film is like isn't necessarily a bad thing) and while it is cringe-worthy hilarity that Maguire doesn't pull off completely as he is no Bruce Campbell when it comes to this stuff and while you could've made the point that scene makes in any number of far more suitable ways, I don't have as huge a problem with it as everyone else does because I don't hold Spiderman aloft as some sacred icon. I just can't take comic book movies seriously.
I think comic books are great art forms and great story telling devices, I entirely see why people get involved in the characters and the mythology and maybe one day they will leave a film maker alone long enough to tell a decent story with all of that but based on all the superhero movies I have seen and you can assume I have seen most of the main ones and their sequels, their plots and characters don't rise above the level of Australian soap operas at their worst and 80s saturday evening TV (The A Team, The Hulk, Knight rider) at their best. They are simple good vs. evil morality plays dressed up in funny costumes, surrounded by bright lights and explosions. To criticise Spiderman 3 because it doesn't manage to cover up the plot holes and messy structures of these things as skillfully as other ones seems a little redundant.
All of which makes me a complete and admitted hypocrite because if this was what Raimi gave us as Evil Dead 4 I would probably be depressed for months, so I do understand how fans of something could've been mad at this film but blame the studios for being wrong and blame Raimi for not having the balls to walk out once they tried to force things on him.
As Bruce Campbell once said all Hollywood films these days are B Movies. If someone gets bitten by a radioactive spider then it's a B picture!
Well I agree and people should watch it as such with all the cheesy dialogue, hokey plots, and 2 dimensional characters to be expected and indeed cherishing. So while I am in no way celebrating Spiderman 3, I can't condemn it totally either.
It wasn't painful to sit through, well maybe bits of James Franco's over acting and that bizarre British news woman at the end but basically it left me feeling numb to it all. What I take away from it is a big CGI induced headache and a shrug of the shoulders.
5.5 out of 10 blancmanges in the shape of a giant spider
Point from The Wife 8 out of 10