Movie Review: Spider-Man 3

(andPOP) - Spider-Man 3 reminded me why I stopped reading comic books. I loved the characters, I loved the worlds, I loved the situations - but nothing ever came to a resolution. Problems were stretched out, back stories were rewritten, events contradicted themselves, heroes became villains and vice versa (only to rejoin the other side again), characters were killed only to rise from the dead, couples broke up and came back together - just so the series could keep going. In the end I realized: my Spider-Man and X-Men comics weren't cut from a larger cloth, so to speak, they were simply long piles of knitting without any regard for the overall tapestry. I respect Marvel's tendency to reimagine their heroes for each new generation, but part of me wonders if their efforts should be focused on creating a new set of characters every ten years. Every comic book fan I've met has at least one great story up their sleeve. Who knows, the publishers might find another Stan Lee and/or Jack Kirby.

Films aren't like comics. With few exceptions (the James Bond series comes to mind), they need conclusions (recently a number of television series, such as Lost, have learned this the hard way), otherwise they risk alienating the audience. What was great about the first two Spider-Man movies is they felt like they were cut from a larger cloth - Sam Raimi and co. seemed to have condensed years of Spider-Man lore comfortably into a single motion-picture trilogy. Spider-Man 3 loses that feeling; Raimi and his brother Ivan seem to be making up this installment as they go along.

First, the good news: while not a masterpiece like its predecessor, Spider-Man 3 is better than the first; the pacing is consistent, the characters are believable, the action is exciting and the special effects are terrific. It skillfully balances its multiple plot threads, so that even though Peter Parker faces three villains and has a new love interest (sort of) this time around, the film never feels overstuffed (unlike Pirates of the Caribbean 2) and you'll never lose track of what's going on. Raimi and co. also haven't forgotten what made the first two films work: Spider-Man 3 has some eye-popping set pieces (the production reportedly cost as much as $300 million), but it pays attention to its characters. The parts you'll remember most aren't necessarily the battles (those are cool too) but scenes like Eddie Brock (Venom)'s flippant entrance, Peter and Mary Jane lying in spiderweb, watching the stars, MJ and Harry Osbourne dancing while they're cooking, J. Jonah Jameson's latest rant, Bruce Campbell's cameo as a snooty French maitre'd, and the obvious way Ursula, the daughter of Peter's landlord (a welcome carryover from the second film), has a crush on him.

As usual, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco, as Peter, Mary Jane, and Harry, are solid, as are J.K. Simmons (Jameson) and Rosemary Harris (Aunt May). Of the newcomers, Thomas Haden Church, as Sandman, gives the best performance, though Topher Grace (as Eddie Brock/Venom) has a lot of fun too - I'm glad I'm not the only person who wanted to see Maguire and Grace share the screen; they look incredibly similar in their multiple scenes together. Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village, Lady in the Water) is reliable as always; thankfully as Gwen Stacy, she's working with better material. The film does a good job of justifying the multiple villains and its new love interest, even though it relies on one or two contrivances and rewrites some of what happened in the first movie to do so.

Make no mistake, Spider-Man 3 is well directed. Many will enjoy it. There is no comparison between this one and the aggressively mediocre X3. If you plan on seeing it, I will not dissuade you.

And yet...

Something about the film doesn't sit well with me. Unlike the first two movies, the screenplay in Spider-Man 3 has no feel for the big picture. It starts out focusing on one theme, about problems with communication, and ends up exploring another, how by sinking to the level of your enemy you're no better than they are. Characters die when they don't need to. Even by comic book standards, certain events come off as melodramatic. I don't buy several aspects of Peter and MJ's relationship (he knows she's insecure about her own acting career, has witnessed him kissing Gwen Stacy, and is bearing witness to Spider-Man's success - and is wondering what's wrong?). And even though there's three shots where the film could have ended, by the time the credits roll the most important stuff hasn't concluded, and the "conclusions" (except for Sandman's final scene), when they do come, are perfunctory. The sad thing is, they're also the sequences that were cheapest.

In case it isn't abundantly clear, I still love the characters; Spider-Man was an easy four-star movie and I would have given Spider-Man 2 five stars out of five. I give Spider-Man 3 three-and-three-quarters, which I'll grudgingly round up to four.