Spidey Kicks Butt: Spider-Man 3 (2007) Movie Reivew

Spider-Man 3 Movie Review

I liked it, but…

I struggled with a way to open this essay until one day at work, I noticed that one of the residents of the cube city I was working at that week had a couple of Spider-Man 3 related pictures in his domain. Naturally, always pleased to find a fellow fanboy in my white collar paper pushing world, I asked him what he thought of the film. I wish I had captured his tortured reaction on camera. He shifted uncomfortably in his chair, grimaced, his eyes turning into narrow little slits as he carefully weighed his next utterance with all of the deliberation of a politician realizing that the next comment he makes will result in a 20% shift in the polls one way or the other.

“I liked it, but…”

Perfect. I had my subtitle and my opening.

And I think that statement captures the sentiments of most people on the film, not counting those on the extremes. If Spider-Man 3 proved anything, it’s that you really can’t please all of the people all of the time. After the almost universal praise and acceptance received by the first two films (particularly the second), the third Spider-Man film sharply divided both critics and the Spidey faithful. This is reflected in the infamous “Rotten Tomato” meter ratings, which for lack of any officially sanctioned standard, seem to be about the most reliable aggregation of critical (though not necessarily movie going audiences’) reception. For example, while Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 scored a very strong 90% and 93%, respectively, Spider-Man 3 clocked in at a disappointing 62%, inexplicably behind a not bad, but still weak compared with its own sequel X-Men (79%), a total turdfest in Superman Returns (76%) and equal to a Hulk film that my Hulk-loving brother described as “15 minutes good movie and 2 hours root canal.” I mean, really – whoever thought that “Deadbeat Dad” Superman vs. “Lame Revisitation of the Real Estate Scam” Luthor was better than Spider-Man 3 was not smoking anything remotely legal. While I appreciate the disparity of reviews and understand that some people will genuinely not like the film, I am nevertheless amazed at the venom (pun partially intended) that has been heaped upon this movie and upon Sam Raimi personally. He could do little wrong after the first two films, but after the third has been subjected to merciless second guessing and vilification which I thought went beyond criticizing the merits (or lack thereof) of the film. Producer Avi Arad in particular is singled out for abuse because he supposedly “forced” Raimi to feature Venom in the film.

As for me – I liked this film – quite a bit. I don’t say that just because I’m a slobbering Spidey fanboy. O.K. – I AM a slobbering Spidey fanboy – but that’s irrelevant to my appreciation or lack thereof of the film. And get the rotten vegetables ready – I liked installment #3 better than #2, an almost sacreligious opinion.

The near worship of Spider-Man 2 stunned me in 2004 when it debuted and still flabbergasts me to this day. To probably no one’s surprise, the original remains my favorite. Yes, I am biased because the original Green Goblin, Norman Osborn, ridiculous Power Ranger costume or not, is my favorite Spider-Man villain. However, the first film also includes the powerful origin story, and Spidey’s is one of the best of modern mythology, particularly superhero mythology. A boy is forced to become a man because of a horrible mistake borne of arrogance and self-absorption. He must forever live with the consequences of his decision, sometimes even sabotaging his own happiness because he feels he is unworthy of it due to his original sin. Scenes such as Uncle Ben’s life literally and figuratively slipping from Peter’s grasp (when their last conversation involved Peter’s unfortunate “stop pretending to be my father” slam, which he could never take back), and the rousing finish where Peter rededicates himself to his mission (“Who am I? I’m Spider-Man! ) have no equals in either of the latter films.

I liked film #2, really, (as you can see in Spider-Man 2 Review). BUT that film was hardly perfect. It sagged in the middle and had scenes lazily repetitive of the first one (Pete and MJ in the backyard, Pete saving a small child in a burning building, New Yorkers standing together to help Spidey out). I had mixed feelings about the ending, where we are supposed to be happy that Mary Jane decided that she loved Peter, but crapped all over a perfectly decent man who did nothing to deserve getting stood up at the altar by the little twit. Calling that film the “best superhero movie ever made” always was a stretch in my opinion. For my money (what little is left of it after being married), nothing quite compares to the original Superman film from 1978, the closest thing to an “epic” superhero movie, with the first half origin story strong enough to overcome the annoying camp of the second half.

Spider-Man 3 on the other hand, has two heavy hitters for bad guys, a great knuckle busting superhero/supervillain climactic battle, makes Mary Jane slightly more sympathetic than in 2, gives James Franco’s Harry Osborn a touching and fitting send off, introduces two beloved comics characters (the Stacys) to the movie series, and possesses more emotional power than the second, with lessons about the corrupting influence of power, self-righteousness, and forgiveness. However, all of this noise required precision editing, and someone who would tell the director where he might have been getting a little too schmaltzy and self-indulgent, and that he inadvertently weakened the power of his first effort. Where Spider-Man 3 stumbles, and it does many times, it does so largely because of dubious editing choices.

So, depending on the mood I’m in, the film either gets a B+ or A-, the exact same grade I give the other two. So what were you expecting? Citizen Kane?

For those of you expecting Welles, I sympathize. With today’s saturated media coverage, and the monstrous, out of control Hollywood hype machine, it’s almost impossible to walk into one of these blockbuster movies and not come out disappointed to some degree.

And the Spidey hype was ridiculous, as was the budget, a bloated $258 million, if not more, before marketing expenses. Hype this loud often backfires, resulting in many people loathing the film before it even debuts because they’re sick of hearing about it. Smug critics come from every angle determined to slam it, and competing to see just how cleverly they can deliver a phrase to do it. The magnifying glasses come out in force to expose every little weakness so they can be used to club it senseless. At the very least, people who aren’t pre-disposed to be negative come out of the theater feeling like they’ve been cheated because their lives haven’t been irrevocably altered.

So let’s begin our look at the film by examining one of the most common criticisms of it.

Too Many Bad Guys?
The first place to start is perhaps the most frequent charge against the film – that there were too many villains. It’s not an unreasonable criticism because the more villains in the film, the less screen time each gets and the less developed each character becomes. There’s no doubt that one of the major reasons (among several, including nipples) that the Batman films of the 1990’s declined in quality was due to the use of multiple villains. However, I find this a simplistic criticism that is far too easy to make, letting the film’s real problems off the hook. Besides, Superman 2 and Batman Begins each had multiple villains and both were well received by fans and critics.

First of all, the Spider-Man film saga, as it was unfolding on screen made the inclusion of multiple villains necessary. While the likely box office success of the third film would guarantee a 4th, it wouldn’t guarantee that it could be made with the same cast or director, whose options all expired after the third film. And that meant the loose ends left behind by the second film, specifically, Harry Osborn’s story, had to be tied up in this film. After the end of #2, the audience was expecting it to be resolved, and I don’t think it would have been as artistically satisfying to have the story finished in a 4th film with different actors and a new director. That said, there is no way the third film would solely be about Spider-Man versus whatever Goblin Harry dressed up as (Green, Hob, or New). While it might have been enough for the hard core among us, it would have been a tougher sell to the general public who had already seen a movie where Spider-Man fought a Goblin with the last name of Osborn. Not only that, but in the third film – Harry has to die. That’s the only logical end to Harry’s story, at least from a theatrical perspective. And, that’s how it wrapped up in the source material (Spectacular Spider-Man #200). After trying to wreck Peter’s life, Harry comes to his senses, saves Spider-Man from certain death, and after one last moment with his old friend, passes away. Admittedly, that’s almost too predictable, (and was unfortunately telegraphed well ahead of time by Harry’s statement in the hospital that he would die for his best friends)but really the only way to go. So – how is Harry going to die? Well, the story from Spectacular was not going to be retold (particularly since it prominently featured Harry’s wife and child, and was also a brooding, psychological tale from the master of those, JM DeMatteis, without the action necessary to satisfy your average filmgoer). Since Harry is not going to be the only villain in the film for marketing and merchandising reasons, the most logical conclusion is that Harry dies helping Spider-Man defeat your other villain.

But what kind of satisfactory resolution is that? After Spider-Man beats his two greatest enemies, the original Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus, all by himself in the previous two films, it would suck for Spidey to be a patsy in his third film and need someone’s help (for some reason, the image of Syndrome going “Help me! Help me!” while making fun of Mr. Incredible comes to mind). That makes two heroes against one villain, which is not much of a conclusion. So…

You need another villain, so that the situation is Spidey is getting ganged up on, two to one, the situation growing increasingly desperate, and then Harry rides in like the cavalry, coming to the rescue, and sacrificing himself in the process.

So, as we begin blocking the film, three villains seems to be your best bet for an exciting film that covers all of the bases. But who were these other two villains in addition to Harry going to be? I am not so naïve as to think that toy merchandising considerations did not play some role, but probably not as much as people would like to think. But realistically, merchandising considerations are part of the reason big budget Spider-Man films are made at all. No studio is going to finance these films as “art” pictures – Ang Lee’s Hulk nothwithstanding (you’ll notice that Universal didn’t pony up for another one).

In the earliest interviews after the release of the second film, Raimi indicated that the villain chosen was going to one that pushed what was possible in the realm of special effects. With a quick run-through of the villains in my head, I pegged the Sandman right away since most of the others did not seem too effects intensive and two that did, Mysterio and Electro, did not seem present extraordinary challenges to a crack special effects team. Raimi’s clear preference for the old Lee-Ditko villains, and Tobey Maguire’s own stated affection for the Sandman in the commentary of the second film DVD, confirmed in my mind that Sandy was a lock. According to producer and Raimi crony Grant Curtis in his book on the third film Spider-Man Chronicles, the Vulture was to be the third villain. I should note that I use Chronicles more than once as a reference. It’s a decent book – but too worshipful of Raimi and crew and bereft of any real analysis. But then again…Curtis knows what side his bread is buttered on, I suppose.

Only one name surfaced as a possible Vulture, Sir Ben Kingsley (no relation to Roddy, I’m sure), which frankly, would have been perfect casting. Not only does he look like the character when he shaves his head, he’s a seasoned, accomplished actor. Among the many things that Raimi has done right with the Spider-Man series is that he has avoided gimmick casting for the supervillains (The Governator, for instance, whose name was bandied around as a candidate for Doc Ock in a very old version of the first film), instead focusing on actors who can bring a touch of reality and empathy to otherwise outlandish creations.

But what is the theme of the film going to be? And how were these villains going to have that personal connection to Peter Parker that Raimi has been going for in the movies? Well, considering that in the first film, it was “Power Received,” and the second film was “Power Rejected.” Therefore, “Power Corrupts,” seemed to be the logical direction. What happens when our young hero begins to get drunk on his own power and abuses it – and can he bring himself to let go of the hate that has accumulated in his heart? In the original concept, the Sandman’s story would have stayed similar, killing Uncle Ben, and Spider-Man having to overcome his hate of this man. The Vulture would have been put in prison earlier by Spider-Man (breaking out with the Sandman at the beginning of the film), but unable to let go of his own hatred – is lost in the final battle scene as a result of it.

However, it soon became apparent that the Vulture was not working as a villain. Raimi wanted to give the villains a personal connection to Spider-Man or Peter Parker, which is understandable. I think that one reason that superhero movies tend to lose their luster after awhile is because it devolves into colorfully costumed guys just beating each other up. The inherent absurdity of individuals getting caught in an accident and receiving superpowers and deciding to use those to go on a crime spree or conquer the world, tolerable initially, gets pushed beyond the breaking point. But Raimi couldn’t come up with that personal connection (I’ll discuss the choice of “personal connection” made with regard to the Sandman in a little while).

And – that’s where Venom comes in. If you read Chronicles, while Arad proposes Venom, it’s ultimately Alvin Sargent that sees the inherent possibilities in the character, particularly of Eddie Brock, and tries to make it work. In fact, in the DVD, Raimi admits that Sargent was the one who essentially “created” the character for the movie. And remember in the second film, one of the original concepts of Doc Ock was that he would be a peer of Peter Parker (oooh, more alliteration). A love triangle between Peter, Ock, and MJ would have resulted (apparently at this time, Edward Norton, now the new Bruce Banner, was considered for the role). Frankly, I’m glad they didn’t go with that concept – because Doc Ock just doesn’t work unless he’s a pudgy middle aged man! The idea of “villain as peer” works much better with the Eddie Brock character.

Everyone likes to rag on Avi Arad, who “pushed” Raimi to use Venom in the film, due to the character’s sheer popularity, and the licensing possibilities. In the DVD commentary, Raimi doesn’t mention Arad by name, but does refer to a “mandate” to use Venom, because of the character’s popularity among kids. Raimi, of course, was interested in telling the stories of the Spider-Man of his own youth, with the classic villains. He knew next to nothing about Venom, and what he did know, he didn’t like. I’ve never really warmed to the character either, particularly the outer space angle. But when I wrote the Dark Side of the Spider series, I began to realize that it was not the concept of Venom that was bankrupt, it was the execution. Unfortunately, while probably nothing can be done to rescue the comic book character from its poor execution, Raimi and company could easily do the tinkering that made Eddie Brock a much more palatable character whose motivations, while not laudable, actually make sense.

Plus, one of the subtexts of the film was Peter confronting his darker nature, his desire for revenge, and his hatred of the man who murdered Uncle Ben. The Venom symbiote, as well as Eddie Brock, were each a manifestation of Peter’s darker side – the “all power and no responsibility” which was often cited.

And from a marketing standpoint – Black Suited Spidey was perfect. All you had to do was see Spider-Man in that suit and know what movie was being promoted and what it represented. And I really think it helped build anticipation for the film.

I suppose the filmmakers could have used Curt Connors as the Lizard since he does satisfy some of the requirements for a villain. He has a personal connection to Peter Parker – and the Lizard could have been used to show the impact of rage on a person, somewhat akin to the Hulk, with Connors becoming the Lizard in periods of stress and anger. However, using the Lizard creates another couple of problems, one of which has dogged the character’s potential use for at least couple of films. For one, he’d be another scientist Peter knows with a botched experiment turning him into a villain (following Norman Osborn and Otto Octavious). Also, Connors would have been a sympathetic villain – and with the Sandman was already in place playing that card.

I can relate to the Venom fans who feel he wasn’t in the film enough – but it makes sense for him to show up at the climax rather than sooner, since his appearance is the culmination of Peter and Eddie’s acrimonious relationship. And frankly, I’m not so sure that Venom really held up well under close inspection, coming close to the classic “guy in rubber costume.” While his myriad fans were disappointed, it may have been for the best that his appearances were limited until the climax of the film, and then only in fleeting glimpses.

Plus, it just seemed to me that Venom is scarier is we don’t really see him that much.

I do think that the Venom symbiote probably would have worked better if it were an experiment that escaped from Oscorp or the ESU labs. And yes, it is rather absurd that when it came from space, of all of the places on Earth it happened to land – it conveniently landed right by our hero! However, it was also pretty convenient for a certain nerdy teenager to be standing right there at the time a certain genetically altered spider just happened to have escaped from its surroundings and was looking for a bite. We already agree to suspend our disbelief when we buy a ticket to movies like this, so the outer space connection (man, that brings back memories of the 70’s and Eric Von Daniken), while silly, is not much sillier than what we’ve already willingly swallowed.

As far as why didn’t the filmmakers considering busting this film into two< moves, considering the number of storylines, according to Chronicles, that was considered, and even approved by Sony. However, they couldn’t come up with a satisfactory way to end the first film and not have the audience leaving feeling cheated, having only gotten half a movie after 2 hours and almost $60 for a family of four.

So, to make a short story long, which is what I inevitably do, I don’t think that the three villains were the film’s problem.

But there were missteps, particularly with the film’s primary villain…

Sandman Killed Uncle Ben?
But, the Sandman killing Uncle Ben? Movie fans might recall Tim Burton’s original Batman film from 1989 (was it nearly 20 years ago? Damn!), where it is revealed that the Joker, as a young punk, killed Bruce Wayne’s parents. Not only did comic book fans wretch, but it added nothing to the film. Batman needed no additional motivation to go after the Joker, the audience needed no additional motivation to loathe him and want to see him get his just deserts, and it failed to up the ante in the drama. But, it did not diminish or cast doubt upon the nature of Batman’s resulting zeal to battle crime.

In the Spider-Man comics, where the Burglar was merely arrested after Amazing Fantasy #15 and did not die, he could return, as he did in Amazing Spider-Man #193-200, and the score between himself and Spider-Man/Peter Parker was settled once and forever. But since “Dennis Carradine” died in the first film, another player had to be added to the mix. As an FYI for those of you who may not be familiar with the most arcane bits of Spidey-lore – the Burglar in the comic books went unnamed. However, during the infamous Clone Saga, in Sensational Spider-Man #3 (April 1996), Spider-Ben Reilly makes the acquaintance of a photographer named Jessica Carridine – whom Ben discovers to his dismay is the daughter of – well, you know who. Although this does not necessarily mean that the Burglar was named Carradine at all, but still, like with “Peter B. Parker” in the first Spider-Man film, someone behind the scenes was doing their research.

While I was uneasy when the news first came out that Sandman was going to be Ben’s killer, I waited to actually see the film before passing judgment. And while it was certainly handled as well as it probably could have been, I think it was a poor choice to make. For one, it implies that Peter Parker can actually obtain closure with Uncle Ben’s death. We know better than that. As long as there is a Spider-Man, Peter will never make peace with that event. That is part of Spider-Man’s curse. No matter how much good he goes, no matter how many lives he saves, he can never purge his original sin that he failed to save one of the only people on the face of the earth he gave a rat’s ass about at the time. And not because he tried and failed – but because he never tried at all.

And unfortunately, the “I forgive you” moment between Spider-Man and the Sandman doesn’t come off well at all in the film. Is it because of Tobey’s delivery? I don’t know for sure. But there are two major problems with it – one, the forgiveness comes far too easily. Now, I don’t forgive easily – and would probably have never forgiven ANYONE for the murder, regardless of their circumstances. That said, it’s easier to forgive a pathetic, tortured, repentant man, who is dearly paying for his crimes – he just doesn’t happen to be behind bars. Try forgiving a stone cold, unrepentant killer – now that is true forgiveness, which would be beyond most of us. But the dialogue doesn’t seem to come naturally. When the Sandman says “nothing matters now except my daughter,” I would have expected Peter to have sadly nodded and say “then go to her.” Marko was not asking for forgiveness, just understanding. In this way, Peter would have given that understanding, realizing that there is no pain, physical or emotional, that he could possibly inflict upon this man that would be worse than the hell he is already living in, with a dying child, a spiteful spouse, and a failed life. But he would have stopped short of the forgiveness aspect, which just came up a bit lame.

I think it would have been better for Marko to have seriously harmed Aunt May during the course of a robbery. That would have easily provided Spider-Man with sufficient rage and hate to want to beat the crap out of Marko, particularly with the influence of the symbiote. Going back and watching the first film, and “knowing” that it wasn’t the Burglar that shot Ben, weakens that iconic moment. I suppose it could be argued that Marko’s partner “surprising” him was what triggered the shooting, and if Peter had stopped the Burglar, the killing would not have occurred. However – the fact is – as a result of the third film, Peter Parker did not let Uncle Ben’s killer escape.

So, as a fanboy – of which I willing admit to being – the use of Sandman in this fashion was troubling and a violation of canon. But – I’ll bet the large majority of moviegoers that contributed to the nearly $900 million worldwide gross didn’t care.

Another problem was that the Sandman was not given a completed story arc in the film. He has this long and very moving set-up with his dying daughter and his determination to obtain the necessary funds for her medical expenses – and then it goes nowhere. What happened to the daughter? Does she die? Or was Marko able to save her? We’re frequently reminded of her because of the locket, but are left with some big question marks that the film fails to satisfactorily resolve.

Apparently, based on the Peter David novelization, production photos released (including one where the Sandman turns his hand into a mace – that would have been cool to see), and actor Thomas Hayden Church’s comments – the story of the Sandman’s daughter DID have a resolution, and not a happy one. The mother and daughter did visit the construction site to talk some sense into Marko, and his daughter told him she was beyond saving – so there was no point for him continuing his crime spree. Dramatic? Yes. Depressing as hell? No doubt.

Church stated that it was ultimately decided that the scenes were too much of a downer, and they were excised, which may have been the proper choice. The audience is already asked to accept a sad event in the passing of Harry Osborn – but for there to be another death – the presumed death of an innocent child? It was heart-breaking enough to see her sick in the earlier scene. But if you weren’t willing to take us to the ultimate conclusion, painful as it is, then why give us the set-up in the first place? Without this resolution, Sandman ceasing the fight makes no sense at all. At one moment he’s beating the life out of Spider-Man, and is probably just a punch or two away from terminating the web slinger. Then he gets his head blown apart, his arm cooked and shattered by Harry and his skystick – and then five minutes later he’s tearing up and begging for understanding? This seems to reinforce my earlier statement that the primary weakness of the film was the decisions made in the editing room.

With that said, and there’s more ragging to come, I don’t want to get too sidetracked without discussing the reasons why I ultimately liked the film.

The Cool Stuff
For all of its faults, the film has a lot of powerful and just plain cool moments, many which survive repeated viewings:

• Our first look at the Sandman’s home life. For me, this was a truly heartbreaking scene, when Marko comes in and sees his sick little girl hooked up to a breathing apparatus, and later when she says “I miss you too, Daddy.” The child actress in this scene was wonderful. Many times child actors are simply annoying and overplaying their scenes. But this little girl really evokes our sympathy. It’s a good thing the usher wasn’t walking up the stairs collecting Guy Cards in a large popcorn bucket, because I would’ve had to turn mine in. Yes, it was deliberately manipulative, and I hate being manipulated, but it worked. I do wish we had seen more of Theresa Russell as Marko’s wife.
• The Birth of the Sandman – this is probably the best dramatic scene in the film. Sandman’s struggle to compose himself was not only an amazing special effects sequence (which alone should be enough to earn the film an Academy Award nomination), but combined with the background music, a shifting pile of sand is given a personality and emotions. His stiff lumbering as he took his first few reconstituted steps was evocative of the Universal Frankenstein Monster, another somewhat misunderstood protagonist.
• Meet the Stacys. Part of the fun of watching Spider-Man on film is watching the characters you’ve read about all of these years being given form and voice by actors. Obviously, Gwen’s presence in this film blows the tires off comic book canon, particularly since she survives it – but when developing characters in the film – why not use the ones that exist in the comic? Gwen comes off a bit naïve and ditzy in this film, which will probably tick off her fans, because in the original Ditko, early Romita conception, Gwen was a dynamic presence and hardly a slouch in the sciences, but this is a necessary contrast to the street smart and world weary Mary Jane that has been established in the films. Still, it’s hard to dislike Gwen, or the actress who plays her, Opie Cunningham’s daughter Bryce, who as a natural Howard redhead – where was she when actresses were auditioning for the part of Mary Jane years ago? Also, I don’t understand – why does Gwen have to be a model? Is that the only job that the producers and writers think that pretty girls can get?James Cromwell as Captain Stacy doesn’t have a lot to do, but it was good to see him anyway because he’s a solid actor with the gravitas to carry off the role if it becomes larger in later films. We can easily envision him becoming a father figure to Peter Parker, and well as becoming very curious about Spider-Man and the young photographer who always seems to be in the right place and the right time.
• Spider-Man Day and “Spidey Scores!” These were just goofy moments that I liked. During Gwen’s speech, you can see one little cub scout grinning from ear to ear as if he’s thrilled to death to be there, and in more than one of the showings I attended people pointed him out to their partners and laughed. Spidey placing his upside kiss on Gwen, and then responding to the crowd with enthusiastic thumbs ups was just another enjoyable silly moment, as was MJ’s reactions to the “Spidey Scores!” headlines. What can I say, sometimes I’m just an easily amused old man.
• The Norman Osborn Painting – During their basketball exhibition in the Osborn mansion, both Harry and Peter are stopped dead in their tracks by this HUGE painting of Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn staring at them in mid snarl. The snarl, combined with the sinister stare, makes for one creepy painting. Spidey comic fans will recall seeing paintings of Norman Osborn pop up at various times during the series, notably during Harry’s swan song in Spectacular Spider-Man #200 when Harry credits the spirit of Norman Osborn for inspiring the good works of his foundation.
• The second fight between Pete and Harry is nice and vicious, topped off with the great line “Look at little Goblin, Jr. Gonna cry?” It’s not as classic in its ferociousness and brutality as the fight between Spidey and Osborn, Sr. at the end of the first film, but it was good.
• Harry to the rescue! Come on – you had to get some chills – when the situation seemed to be at its most desperate – to see that pumpkin bomb come whistling through the air. I enjoyed seeing Peter and Harry fight side by side – something I wish they had done in the comic books during that brief period of time that Harry flirted with being a crime fighting Green Goblin. The problem, which I allude to later, is that Harry seems to make the transition from scarred, bitter, foe to ally too easily.
• Harry’s death was touching and totally appropriate. It was event that both of the films had been leading to, and it was pulled off convincingly. It was true to the comic book canon – and although I have always felt that in the comics, killing off Harry was a mistake – in the movies it was the logical conclusion to the character’s arc.

But alas, as any good fanboy. I had issues with the film. A lot of issues. And even though I liked Spider-Man 3, and felt that it received unnecessarily harsh criticism at times, I must confess, it was much easier to write about what I didn’t like about the film than what I did like.

The Nitpicks
The third film by its sheer scope resulted in a lot to be dissatisfied with and made me wonder whether or not the film had been appropriately screened for patrons (and a few fanboys) who could have pointed out the obvious weaknesses which the filmmakers clearly weren’t aware of, considering how annoyingly self-congratulatory they seemed to be on the DVD commentaries and in Grant Curtis’ Chronicles book.

• The first Mary Jane singing sequence. First of all, this was a very dubious choice to lead off a movie – because the whole idea is that Mary Jane is not a very good singer – or why else would she have been canned so quickly? Therefore, why have a wince worthy moment right away? But the real problem was that the dub job seemed bad – I never got the impression that Kirsten was really singing at the time – she looked like she was lip synching – although in the DVD commentary Laura Zisken states that this was indeed Kirsten’s voice. In contrast, during the “singing waitress” scenes, everything sounded in synch. Also, this was the first of a number of annoying “Mugging Tobey” scenes, where he’s making goofy faces or saying silly things, such as “that’s my girlfriend” and seems fully aware that he’s being silly for the camera. Still, I did like a couple of aspects of the backstage scene, where the flowers Peter has brought MJ are dwarfed by the arrangement from Harry, and MJ’s “you are such a nerd,” line, because, at the core of the whole Spider-Man mythos is the nerd who became a hero.
• It takes too long for some butt-kicking Spider-Man action. While Harry attacking Peter Parker demonstrates that their confrontation is more personal than just two screwballs in masks, we already had plenty of Peter Parker – flattering MJ backstage, smooching with her in the spider web, then visiting Aunt May to tell her of the impending proposal. By this time, if you’re ten years old (and maybe even older), you’re itching for a slugfest in spandex – but we get Tobey Maguire vs. Goblin Jr., and Tobey spent most of the time running away from Harry instead of kicking his ass. Come to think of it – there was never a fight between Spider-Man and the New Goblin, which was a wasted opportunity. Even after this fight, it still takes several more scenes before Spider-Man shows up. And by the way, where the hell was the spider sense when Harry swooped by and snatched Pete off his bike?
• I visibly cringe during the restaurant scene where Peter imagines Mary Jane’s reaction to his proposal (“how’d that get in there – don’t cry”, another “Mugging Tobey” moment). Yet another such moment is when Tobey acts like a 10 year old mimicing the high school band at the key to the city celebration. In an already overstuffed movie, these scenes could have been dropped without anyone missing them.
• The Harry/MJ scenes in the middle of the film last far too long. A judicious cut, probably of the entire cooking and dancing scene (there was a lotta bad dancing in this movie), would have helped. The hard core fans already know that Harry and MJ dated in the past, and that Harry nurtured hurt feelings as a result of her taking up with Peter. And even the uninitiated could probably tell from Harry’s goofy smile in the hospital when MJ walks in, and the scene with the two in the park waiting for Spider-Man to receive the key to the city, that Harry has feelings for her. It doesn’t require a long cooking and dancing scene, and a royalty to Chubby Checker, to establish the existence of dormant romantic feelings.
• The deus ex machina near the end with Harry’s butler, Bernard, where the latter tells him that his father died as a result of impalement by his own glider is poorly handled, although it seems less bothersome upon subsequent showings – I suppose because familiarity and acceptance already set in. One of the primary problems is that the lines are delivered by a marginal actor who was perfectly fine as a background character, but not one who holds the key to the final act of the film. Even the actor’s weaknesses could have been somewhat overcome had there been any hint in this, or any of the other films, that Bernard was a man who held close the Osborn Family Secrets. Unlike Alfred, for example, in the Batman films, we don’t know anything about this man that would explain why he would cover Norman’s and Harry’s tracks, whether due to a long standing family loyalty, payment for favors done, or a genuine love for the two to replace a family that he never had or had lost. Why is Bernard able to pierce the veil of Harry’s madness when no one else has been able to – not his best friend or even the woman he always loved? Why is Bernard the only one who can force Harry to see his father for the man he really was? It would have been a more powerful, and logical, moment had we known that Bernard had been more of a father to Harry than Norman had been over the years, and I doubt that it would have taken very long to show this. The best scenes in the otherwise deplorable Joel Schumacher Batman & Robin travesty were Bruce Wayne’s brief, gentle flashbacks that revealed that Alfred was more than simply the Wayne family butler to him. And in Batman Begins, we really don’t even need that exposition – just having an actor of the caliber and presence of Michael Caine in the role tells us a lot of what we need to know about Alfred’s and Bruce’s relationship.
• While the newscasts, including the late Los Angeles anchor legend Hal Fishman and “that British TV reporter” do serve the purpose of bringing both Peter and Harry into the conflict, they were overused and the British TV reporter, in particular, takes us out of the action repeatedly with her accent (a nondescript voice would have worked much better) and describing what we don’t need described to us – that Sandman is brutally beating the life out of Spidey. And then there was the sappy “he has arrived just when all hope seemed to be lost!” It’s one thing to have an ancillary character describe something that would be too cumbersome, costly, time consuming or graphic to film – but we didn’t anyone to tell us “Spider-Man’s here!” or “Spider-Man’s getting his ass kicked!” And besides, why didn’t they use a New York anchor for the job? Do New Yorkers pronounce “Broadway” with a hard break between the syllables?
• Sam Raimi’s kids. O.K. – if I were a movie director, I’d sneak my kids and cronies in there, too. Everyone does it. If you see any of Ron Howard’s movies, you’ll realize that Sam isn’t the only one who puts his brother in all of his films. Also, it’s a nice little payback for and acknowledgement of the people you as a director have ignored for months on end because you’re filming around the clock or huddled up in the editing room. The scene with the daughter (Emma Rose – hence the name of the perfume that MJ was advertising in the second film) and JJJ was o.k. because that was a typical JJJ moment (and if it wasn’t done in the comics, it sure seems like it has been). But the “awesome” “wicked cool” scene with the sons just seemed overindulgent and breaks the flow of the film. Does anyone really say “wicked cool”? I’m an out of touch old man, so what do I know about youth slang? I don’t hear it from either of my kids, though. Then again, that’s Laura Zisken’s daughter saying “Look, it’s Spider-Man!” during the Oscorp community festival scene in the first film, and no one complained about that.
• The “Emo Peter” sequences have come under a lot of criticism, particularly because they were so over the top. However, some of this could have been cured with better editing. Peter strutting his stuff unaware of what a clueless dork he is is admittedly pretty silly and worth some laughs. But, if I had this evil symbiote ooze influencing the worst aspects of my nature, I wouldn’t be slicking my hair back, wearing “hip” clothes, and doing a poor man’s swinging pelvis Elvis – I’d be grinding the face of every punk who pissed me off into the dirt, and then do a Billy Batts Stomp (watch Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci in action in Goodfellas) all over them until they started crying for their mamas – and then I’d get mean. We should’ve had some clips of “Spider-Man Out of Control,” where he begins to act like the monster J. Jonah Jameson has always accused him of being. I would also have liked the jazz club scene to feature a few more moments of Peter Parker “cleaning house” because it’s always fun to see little guys kick bigger guys’ asses, particularly those who think they’re tough. And this scene was necessary because in Peter’s attempt to humiliate Mary Jane, he merely infuriates her and humiliates Gwen, a sweet girl who didn’t deserve it. But Peter slipping the waitress at the jazz club some money, calling her “Legs,” and especially the “Dig on this,” were just grating and a waste of “dark emotion.” Although considering that when he gave up his role as Spidey in the second film, “Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head” played, I really expected during his gothic walk when he’s eyeing the babes to hear Saturday Night Fever. Perhaps that was too obvious a choice, but I think it would have brought the house down. And it certainly couldn’t have been any goofier than “Raindrops.”
• Mary Jane in danger – again. This is really, really tiring. And I would have sworn that a couple of Spider-Man’s lines at the construction site “Mary Jane!” and “Hang on, Mary Jane!” were actually dialogue looped in from the first film. Women have to be tired of seeing female characters constantly needing to be rescued by the strong male hero – but it’s probably even more tiring when the female hostage is a victim of circumstance. Like I made the point once, there’s a big difference in coming to the rescue of Lois Lane, Nancy Drew or Emma Peel, who get captured because they are making their own heroic efforts to track the villain to his lair or expose him, rather than poor little old Mary Jane who’s always kidnapped because of her association with Peter Parker/Spider-Man. However – the DVD commentary by the filmmakers reveals that Gwen was the original damsel in distress, which would have been congruent with Eddie’s obsession with her. But, considering that Harry has to be brought into the action, it made much more sense for him to be shaken out of his funk to come to Mary Jane’s rescue rather than a girl there has been no indication that he knows. It sounded like Sam had to have a session with Kirsten explaining why this was ultimately best for the film, as she’s become tired of being in constant need of rescue.
• Peter picks the wrong girl – not once, not twice, but three times. Now, whether or not another person is attractive is truly a judgment in the eye of the beholder. Kirsten Dunst is a target for abuse by many because of her asinine public statements (making a disparaging comment about being the subject of 9 year old boys’ wet dreams, saying the 4th movie would be a disaster without Raimi, Tobey, and herself, letting spoilers out of the bag, etc.) and is often seen on the streets not looking her best, probably a mistake in a celebrity obsessed culture where your mug can distributed around the world at light speed. That said, I simply find Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy) and Elizabeth Banks (Betty Brant) far more appealing, both in character and out, than I do Kirsten Dunst as herself or as Mary Jane Watson. And I suspect I’m not alone – and sadly, that’s NOT what we should be thinking. We should want Peter and MJ to get together and stay together – not thinking “Geez Peter – dump that spoiled, self-centered whiny bitch and be the meat in a Gwen & Betty Sandwich.” I’ve always been a big booster of the Peter/MJ marriage in the comic books, but I don’t care if they ever get together again in the films because I just don’t like movie MJ.Speaking of the ladies, I forget whose blog I saw this on, so this is not an original thought of mine, yet it is an interesting idea. The best girl for Peter Parker? Probably Ursula! For my personal tastes I don’t find the actress particularly appealing (she’s too thin, for one – give me some curves and junk in the trunk), but Ursula the character is a sweet, likeable girl. She reminds me of the comic book character Debra Whitman. Considering that both Spider-Man and Peter Parker can be clueless and undisciplined, the ideal mate for Peter is someone who makes sure he eats regularly and correctly, dresses properly, makes the correct fashion and social choices, and keeps his bills paid. And there’s already existing tension between Peter and the gruff father, Mr. Ditkovitch. However, as with Debra, I doubt that Peter Parker would sufficiently appreciate such a devoted lady in Ursula and therefore doesn’t deserve her.
• No weird warble for Venom. Come one, he’s black, he’s shiny looking, he’s got fangs, a long tongue and claws, comes from outer space, and he sounds just like – Topher Grace? Think of what would have happened had George Lucas stuck with David Prowse, the actor in the Darth Vader suit, for Vader’s voice (if you search the net long enough, you can find outakes of shooting scenes with Prowse’s voice). Sure, the hulking form, the mask, the cape and John Williams’ “Vader March” is cool and all – but Asthmatic James Earl Jones MADE that character.
• The movie asks a lot of people uninitiated in Spidey lore. A character such as the Sandman is ridiculous even in contrast with the others who have has appeared in the movies. Spidey, the Goblins and Doc Ock, although “enhanced,” are still realtively “normal.” We fanboys accept the Sandman on faith because we know comic book science isn’t science. Of course he’s made of sand – he’s the Sandman! What don’t you get? But in the film, even the comic book science is inconsistent – the same particle machine that turns Flint Marko into the Sandman leaves his daughter’s locket’s structural integrity alone? And why does he screech like a monster whenever he’s giant-sized? All of his other senses work in giant form – he hears, sees, feels, he senses pain – but can’t talk?
• Similar to the above – just what was that gooey black thing? Why did it mimic a simple superhero costume when it bonded with Peter Parker, but became a monstrous, screechy thing when it bonded with Eddie Brock? If the symbiote is an intelligent life form – then, once it took over Pete – why was it seemingly content to just sit in a footlocker for periods of time? And as one of the Spider-Man Crawlspace’s message board’s posters brought up – why when Peter rips off the black suit in the church is there nothing under it – when it is established earlier that the goo had merely covered and mimicked the original red and blues?
• As discussed earlier, Sandman decides to sit out the rest of the fight at the end without explanation. You’d think after being blown apart and deep fried by a pumpkin bomb and a skateboard, that he’d be more than a little pissed. In the original concept, which was filmed, his daughter talked him down. However, here, he just becomes a bystander with no explanation. When you give your villain a story, you have to give him a resolution – and there was none forthcoming. We don’t know what happened to Sandman’s daughter – we really don’t even know what happened to him. When Peter lets him dissolve and fly away (which actually IS a nice scene, and apparently thought up by the actor) – does he go back to stealing if she is still sick? Or is it too late – and he is merely going to her side to hold her as she dies? One of the huge disappointments of the DVD commentary is that BOTH of them completely avoid this subject, and deliberately it seems. They willingly discuss various other artistic choices in the film, such as the original plan to use the Vulture, Gwen as the damsel in distress, etc. Why didn’t they discuss that the original resolution was ultimately decided to be too downbeat?
• How does Venom know Sandman’s sad story – when he mentions that Spider-Man won’t let him help his poor, sick daughter? First of all, there’s no indication that Peter Parker ever knew Sandman’s story, which would have been necessary for the symbiote to know and pass the information on to Brock. Now, as photographers with access to Bugle files, either Peter or Eddie could easily have researched Flint Marko and drew the logical conclusions. However, that’s not apparent in the film.

When I write my regular Spidey Kicks Butt articles, I can weave all kinds of faux explanations because that’s what we fanboys do and that’s one reason people read my articles. But for the general movie going audience – whose dollars support these films – not ours (there aren’t enough of us), these are troubling gaps, and make the story look that much sloppier.

And what really bothers me, is that many of these things would have been picked up by some judicious screenings in front of selected audiences because not a one of them is a wholly original, creative, or inspired thought of mine – they’re common criticisms. This is what preview audiences are for. And it supports my contention that the film didn’t need wholesale changes to make it work – just some more judicious and precise editing, and someone nearby to say “Sam – that doesn’t work.”

Casting
There’s really not much I can say about Tobey that I haven’t already said in other reviews. He didn’t break any new ground in his portrayals of either Peter or Spider-Man in this film, but I also didn’t really expect him to do so. He fully established his legitimate portrayal of the character in the second film. My favorite “acting” scene of Tobey’s is at the French restaurant when Mary Jane’s heart is breaking into a million pieces, and he sits there completely clueless as to why this is happening in spite of all of his “efforts” to solve her problems. Of course, it probably was easy to play because it’s genetic for us guys. No one does clueless like we do clueless. Still, his scenes as “Dark Peter,” were a little too over the top and comical – and he came across as more ill-tempered than sinister. Tobey’s crying? Let’s see – Tobey cries three times during this film (1) when old wounds are re-opened as he relives how he perceives that Uncle Ben’s death went down with the new information that Marko was involved (2) when Mary Jane tells him she’s dumping his ass and screwing someone else and (3) when his best friend dies after a final connection. Hey, I’m a GUY like anyone else (except when I get my Guy Card revoked, such as the scene with Sandman’s daughter), but (1) Spider-Man is not John Wayne, or even Batman, there’s always been a core of sensitivity to him, and the character has done his fair share of bawling in the comic books (2) the character is still a college age student, and technically not a grown man (although Tobey, in his 30’s, is, and that’s becoming more apparent with each film, which might explain the disconnect) and (3) none of these were inappropriate crying situations. However, during one of my viewings of the film in a theater, when Tobey begins to cry as Harry dies, laughter rippled through the audience. Looking back, maybe it isn’t the actual crying as much as it is Tobey not convincingly pulling it off.

I liked Kirsten Dunst more in this film than any of the others – and I don’t like Kirsten that much, an opinion which unfortunately and perhaps unfairly, is influenced by her goofy public statements. Unlike the second film, where Mary Jane actually comes off pretty poorly by treating John Jameson like crap, she is more sympathetic here. Rather than just a shrill, whiny, and bitchy female, we understand her feelings of inadequacy and self-loathing this time, particularly since her partner isn’t doing a very good job of hearing her out. Is Kirsten miscast? Probably. But the real problem is that the character she’s playing is NOT the Mary Jane Watson of the comic books. As conceived in the comics, Mary Jane Watson was a fun-loving goofball and airhead, all body and no brain – the seductive temptress who was supposed to spice things up before our hero finally settled on the much more “sensible” Gwen Stacy. We comic fans later learned that there was a lot more to her than we realized, a deep seated lack of self-esteem and vulnerability, and a hidden strength that has enabled her and her marriage to survive situations that would have destroyed lesser people. Comic book Peter Parker could not survive without Mary Jane, nor does it seem that he would want to (well, I guess he’ll have to after “One More Delay”) In Kirsten, we get half a Mary Jane – the vulnerability, but none of the flamboyant “cover.” While it’s more the writers’ fault than the actress’, I don’t want to see any more of Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane.

James Franco gives his best performance by far as Harry Osborn, embracing the wide gamut of emotions, from childlike innocence, to manipulative monster, to hate-filled psychopath, and finally, to self-sacrificing hero who achieves redemption. I’ve read several reviews that knocked Harry’s “amnesia” (which – as with Spidey losing and regaining his powers in the second film with no explanation – it’s comic book canon) as a copout. However, if we don’t feel for Harry, then we’re not as happy to see him come to Pete’s aid during the final battle, nor are we sad to see him die. The brief amnesia period humanizes the character and reminds the others (and the audience as well) that this was once a good person who our hero and his girlfriend loved.

Topher Grace was well cast as Eddie “Haskell” Brock. Again, this is another part of the film that has received some undeserved heat, probably because Topher is still too well known as Eric on “That 70’s Show.” And what kind of name is Topher? Tobey and Topher? That’s a marquee. Admittedly, he’s not likely to win any Academy Awards in the near future. Still, as played by Grace, Eddie Brock is a self-serving opportunist, a fraud, and probably more than just a little unhinged. When Gwen puts him down during the Spider-Man celebration scene, it takes just a brief second to see that Eddie is going to take this very hard, in a very unhealthy way. He is clearly the “Anti-Peter Parker.” His embrace of the Venom symbiote and the power it represents is easily understood – and unlike the other villains in the films, who were all in one way or another wounded and tortured souls – he likes things this way. This is what Eddie Brock should have been in the comic books.

Thomas Hayden Church was the perfect choice for the Sandman. Kudos to Raimi and Company for casting someone who looked like the Sandman we know from the comics, (down to the shirt!) but with enough acting skill to show profound sadness behind the chiseled look.

Stan Lee’s moment is corny? “I guess one person can make a difference. Nuff said!” Yes, it certainly is, and yes, it does take you out of the picture a little bit. But come on! It’s Stan Lee talking to Spider-Man (or Peter Parker)! It’s not a Marvel movie without Stan Lee showing up somewhere, whether as Willie Lumpkin in the first Fantastic Four, a hot dog vendor in X-Men, saving girls from falling debris in Spider-Man 1 & 2, an obviously too old security guard (Hulk – along with Lou Ferrigno), or in his best turn yet, trying to crash Reed and Sue’s wedding as himself (Fantastic Four 2) without an invite.

Every time I saw this film, the audience began laughing immediately when they heard Bruce Campbell’s voice, when they can only see his hand. Although Campbell always fits in the films as a character better than Stan (his first appearance as the wrestling announcer remains his best) – it’s still Bruce Campbell doing Bruce Campbell schtick. And Sam’s brother Ted is there doing his usual goofball “Ted Raimi” character, be he Hoffman or Joxer or whoever. It’s not a Sam Raimi film without Bruce or Ted showing up somewhere.

Little is asked of the rest of the cast other than to parrot their performances from the previous films. And while I always enjoy J.K. Simmons as Jonah, I hope that if the actor continues in the role, that the writers use JJJ for more than just comic relief and actually develop him as a character, allowing Simmons to flex the dramatic muscles he clearly possesses. As an aside, Spider-Man 3 is currently my son’s favorite film, and his favorite moments are Betty repeatedly zapping Jonah over the proper timing and method of taking his medication.

Special Effects
CGI is CGI. I only notice it when it’s really good or really bad. The Birth of the Sandman is beyond “really good,” it was flat-out awesome and will hopefully be remembered at Oscar time. The way the sand gently rises and falls, then begins to rise higher, coalescing into something vaguely human, collapsing, and then gradually become more definable is almost breathtaking – giving a tragic humanity to a pile of sand.

On the other hand, the scene near the end when Spidey first arrives to join the climactic battle – landing on a building and running past the American flag – is jarringly sped up – looking indistinguishable from a cartoon. As far as the flag itself goes, yeah, it’s a hokey moment – but the whole American superhero mythology IS hokey and often wraps itself in the flag (none more so than when we talk about some other red and blue suited figure fighting for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”). But this was a poorly done sequence, and the flag looked out of place. To see a similar scene done right, we need look no further than the finale of the first film.

Music
Good music can enhance the audience’s mood going into the film, and good music can cement the experience in its mind long after it has walked out of the theater. Unfortunately, the music in this film did neither. At best, I can describe it as “Elfman-Lite.” Frankly, I was never that jazzed about Danny Elfman’s Spider-Man themes, but having seen the first and second films so many times, I associate them with the Spider-Man films, so I just naturally expect to hear them. However, since Elfman and Raimi had one of those nasty Hollywood fallouts where you don’t know if there are legitimate grievances or just overly sensitive and oversized artistic egos, another musician, Christopher Young, took over the score and the result is a weaker and not nearly as rousing version of the original themes. It’s hard for me to describe, since I, to use a cliché, couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket and wouldn’t know the difference between a chord of music and a cord of wood. Although things start off on the right track with the Elfman theme and the highlights from the previous movies, the bottom falls out when the representation of the Venom symbiote starts splashing onto the screen, and the score limply leads into the film.

Even worse, at the end, when the screen goes black after Peter and Mary Jane embrace, the score lapses into weak, unremarkable music that resulted in me leaving the theater totally uninspired. I admit to being partial to loud, angst-ridden tunes like “Hero” that starts the credit roll ending the first film (still the best song of any on the Spider-Man soundtracks), and the lesser, but still goosebump inducing “Vindicated” at the end of the second. Also, those films each ended with a rendition of the “Spider-Man theme” from the 60’s cartoon show, the first had the classic rendition and the second a jazzy turn by singer Michael Buble. However, all we got this time around was a barely perceptible rendering by a high school band during the key to the city ceremony. “Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does whatever a spider can” IS Spidey’s official theme – and should have found its way into the closing credits sequence, even it was the Ramones remix, which is not a favorite of mine, but is very popular with Spidey fans.

But to be fair, the music dramatizing the re-birth of the Sandman, which added to the mystique and the sadness surrounding that character, was very well done.

Spider-Man 4?
Uh – why don’t we just catch our breath for awhile o.k.?

I’m in no hurry for a 4th film, which is blasphemy, I know, and unrealistic, because there is no way that Sony is going to sit for very long without cranking the machine up again, if only to maintain a firm grip on the film rights to the character. While I can see most of the other Marvel characters (with the exception of the X-Men) slipping back into the hands of Marvel Entertainment from lack of interest from the original opting studio, such as the Hulk and Daredevil, I can’t see Sony letting Spider-Man go – even if it has to buy Marvel to do it.

While I don’t subscribe to the prevailing notion that the film was weak, or that the Spidey film franchise is burning out, there were enough glitches in #3, and softness in the franchise that Sony should breathe a sigh of relief at the nearly $900 million worldwide gross. Whoever came up with the idea of releasing the film overseas two weeks before the domestic market deserves a fat bonus, as the robust international grosses helped take the edge off what would have been a pre-inflation 10% decline in domestic grosses from the second film. A prolonged pause before setting the direction for what will likely be another three film series is needed.

I would like Sam Raimi to stay on, even if only as Executive Producer if he decides he doesn’t want to direct. Admittedly, some of his instincts weren’t as sharp as they should have been in this film and he may have gotten creatively stale and self-indulgent, BUT, he “gets” Spider-Man. I know that’s a bit ambiguous, but with these pop culture characters, you either “get” them or you don’t. That doesn’t mean that you slavishly cater to the source material or the fanboy cult, for lack of a better term, because a film that does so will not have legs at the box office. But you can’t ignore the core concepts that made the character popular in the first place. And I think Raimi is conscientious enough to look back and realize that some of his artistic choices in the third film were not the wisest. However, he has devoted seven years of his life and career to this franchise, and if he decides he’s tapped out, or would simply rather do something else, then let’s thank him for the memories and let him leave graciously. If he says he will come back only if Tobey or Kirsten do as well, then by all means, hold the door open for him and usher him out.

I don’t care if Tobey Maguire comes back, not because I dislike Tobey in the role, far from it, but unless the next film progresses the character several years to a closer line-up with Maguire’s age, then he’s simply too old for the part. If the decision is to have an older Spider-Man, one who has taken beatings and hard knocks over the years, and has begun to fade or even vanish from the public eye, and then must rededicate himself to his mission, then yes, bring Tobey back. If the decision is to keep Spider-Man in college, or even grad school, then another actor will be essential.

But under no circumstances do I want to see Kirsten back. Either recast the part or send Mary Jane packing. Peter and MJ’s reconcilement at the end of the third film is suitability ambiguous to allow for them to either stay together or split for awhile. James Franco is obviously done. However, I wouldn’t object to the rest of the supporting cast, such as May, Jonah, Robbie, and Betty to continue to be played by the same actors, although Rosemary Harris has a more limited shelf life than the others. I wouldn’t object to a reluctant romance with Gwen Stacy (if played by Bryce Dallas Howard again), and while I like Felicia Hardy and the Black Cat, the general movie going public would see her as a Catwoman ripoff.

There is an insane notion that every film has to be bigger, louder, and more ostentatious than the previous one, with the stakes being raised higher and higher. Eventually the whole concept then collapses upon itself. Spider-Man is not Superman. He is not going to single-handedly fight alien armadas invading Earth (with apologies to the Guardians of the Galaxy, where in their parallel Marvel Universe, Spidey did just that), or hordes of demons running loose in New York City (that insipid “Inferno” crossover from the 1990’s notwithstanding). Spidey villains, Venom as a notable exception, are a little more grounded. And there are only three villains (Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom – whom I call the “Big Three”) I believe are capable of carrying a movie as the sole baddie. Although I like the classic villains, most of them tend to be just guys with silly costumes and goofy powers and lack the gravitas, and the personal connection to the hero, to carry the film. They are more often than not just super-powered goons. The Lizard has possibilities, since Dr. Connors has already been established in the films, and there is a certain tragedy to the character. Electro could be a special effects treat, as well as a powerful and frightening character. The Scorpion and Shocker could work as henchmen of the main villain, but not as leads. Neither the Chameleon nor Kraven the Hunter are ready for prime time movie villainy. Mysterio is something of a wild card, an otherwise lame villain with cool gimmicks that could lead themselves to strong visuals. The HobGoblin is out of the question since there have been two Goblins already, and Carnage – let’s not waste our time.

But in my opinion, at least one of those Big Three, has to come back for the next round of films. A natural would be bringing back Willem DaFoe as Norman Osborn, this time seeking revenge on Peter for the death of Harry, and this would be true to the source material as well. However, I appreciate the fact that not everyone is a fan of the Green Goblin. The Osborn subplot was a major component of all three of the first films, and he did have a rather definitive death (which of course, means nothing in the world of superheroes and villains). Now, Doctor Octopus as the Master Planner – that has possibilities. For one, rather than increasingly outlandish accidents bestowing dubious superpowers, Ock could be creating supervillains deliberately, ultimately forming his own “Sinister Six.” It would allow Alfred Molina to do some serious scenery chewing and give us a more maniacal and diabolical Doc Ock than we saw in the second film.

Another idea is to dial back and create a more street level, crime busting Spider-Man, taking on a Silvermane or Kingpin type character who employs a couple of superpowered goons for color.

Conclusion
In the end, Spider-Man 3 is a victim of the inflated and perhaps unrealistic expectations of its core audience, and a critical community that was eager to take it to task as punishment for the overwhelming success of its predecessors. Still, the director and producers put the blood in the water with sloppy editing and overconfidence. But regardless of all of this tortured self-righteous and smug analysis, whatever happens, I suspect that come May 2010 or 2011, I will be there on opening night, certainly older, hopefully wiser, but probably no less a fanboy than on that fateful day of May 3, 2002, when Spidey first burst onto the screen in full cinematic glory.