Spider-Man 3
Tuesday, 08 May 2007 14:38
Spidey battling another villain
Directed by Sam Raimi, out May 4th, in cinemas, starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Topher Grace, running time 140 mins .
In a nutshell…
Superhero sequel fails to soar
What's it all about?
With Spider-Man firmly ensconced in the heart of New Yorkers, something's bound to go wrong, and a syrupy beginning disrupted by a meteorite falling from space - yes, really - starts the whole messy process. A gooey black substance attaches itself to Peter Parker and brings out the enemy within, as the villain count is upped to three, and Spidey's seemingly perfect little set-up starts to unravel.
High-school friend Harry Osborn (James Franco) is still smouldering from Peter's involvement in his father's death, while hotshot photographer Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) starts a workspace rivalry. Meanwhile, Mary-Jane's (Kirsten Dunst) career is faltering, escaped con Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) has an ulterior motive for his sandy mischief and blonde bombshell Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) is aiming for a place in Parker's heart.
Who's in it?
Maguire's as competent as ever in his signature role, showing some adept comic touches, but slightly less believable when exploring his 'dark side'. It's not entirely his fault – a 12A movie can't show anything too unsavoury, so Spidey's darkness is limited to a Travolta-esque swagger, a bizarre emo fringe and cavorting like Ron Burgundy in a jazz club.
Topher Grace and Bryce Dallas Howard don't get the screen-time they really deserve, while Church's character is so thinly drawn that he's disappeared from our memory as quickly as his customary sandstorms. The less said about the insipid Dunst, the better.
As an example…
"Uncle Ben wouldn't want us living with revenge in our hearts, it's like a poison. It can take you over and turn us into something ugly." – Aunt May, with one of her standard life lessons.
Likelihood of a trip to the Oscars
The superlative CGI deserves huge plaudits, with the execution of The Sandman's powers especially stunning. As with the first two movies in the series, the web-swinging action remains breathlessly exciting, although it's starting to feeling a little tired. The special effects are, however, the only aspect of the movie that should be picking up any silverware.
What the others say
"The film doesn't teem; it just seems cluttered – a collection of scenes and occasionally great visuals or gags, strung together by an inadequate plot." – Daily Telegraph
"Still smart, still exciting and still action-packed. It's just a shame to note that, after promising greatness, all Spider-Man 3 delivers is satisfaction." – Chris Hewitt, Empire.
So is it any good?
After a trailer that whipped fanboys into a frenzy and a can't-miss premise – three villains! Gwen Stacy! – it's sad to report an overwhelming sense of disappointment. The action is as exhilarating as ever, even when Raimi irritatingly crowbars the Stars and Stripes into a fight scene, and it's certainly the funniest of the franchise. JK Simmons and Bruce Campbell are both comic delights, and Howard blows the lifeless Dunst off the screen.
Screenwriting, however, has never been Raimi's strongest suit and the exposition-heavy dialogue is alarmingly stilted, and doesn't give the undeniably talented cast enough chance to, well, act. It's an overly long movie, with far too much time devoted to anguished arguments between Peter, Mary-Jane and Harry, and the whole mess smacks of wasted potential. Underused characters, a confused plot and misfiring emotional beats mean that when a news anchor proclaims, "this could be the end of Spider-Man", he might just be right.
6 /10
Lewis Bazley
Agree with this review? Have a different opinion? Let us know your thoughts (without being too abusive to our poor reviewers please) and we'll post the best ones on the site.
Write your comments below: