2007-05-20

Top Five-ish Things Wrong With Spider-Man 3

With great expectation comes great responsibility. No-one's gonna go George Lucas on Sam Raimi's ass because this sequel is far from an embarrassment - in moments it shows more complexity and maturity than its predecessors - but it ultimately disappoints. Here's why:

7. The locket didn't turn to sand when everything else did.
6. According to dialogue, Eddie Brock works at the Daily Bugle in Spider-Man (film one) but here he's trying to get hired. This one could be the son of the former and photography could run in the family but why create confusion for no reason? Why not pay off your set-up?
5. Not enough May or Jonah and no Alex Ross.
4. Ret-conning Ben Parker's death.
3. Peter and Mary-Jane's relationship faltering through a lack of communication like an average soap opera couple when I credit them both with more brains than that.
2. The Osborn butler waiting until now to speak up when he could have done so years ago and saved Harry ALL of his anguish.
1. Telling an even worse version of Venom's story than in the comics!



By featuring two villains (plus whatever Harry's doing this week) and adding only ten minutes to the run time, we can't explore either of them very fully. Sandman first trying to assemble in his new form was surprisingly emotional for an all-C.G.I. scene. They should've concentrated on him and the new suit and had the "creation" of Venom as a cliffhanger leading into Spider-Man 4. Why have the goo arrive by random meteor shower when Mary Jane's ex is an astronaut? Why have Eddie fake pictures of our hero robbing a bank when, in the comics, the suit committed crimes when Peter was unconscious and Spider-Man got the blame that way? Etc.

There was much I liked about the film. I'd rather see something new and imperfect than a re-tread of what's gone before, though that's not a popular view. If "1" scored a 7 and 2 got a 9 then 3 is a 5.

6 Comments:

Blogger Shocho said...

I agree with all of your comments, very well said indeed. Not sure about which villain should be left out, but clearly both were given a disservice and underdeveloped. And two of them just ruined the pacing of the movie.

I still liked the movie a lot, I just wish it could have been better.

17:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tee hee! I do have to laugh at your precise and considered film v. comic commentary compared to my, 'Well it was just very "meh", really' conclusion. Not that I'm saying you're a geek or owt, of course!

17:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the movie was all right, but I really can't stand Kirsten Dunst. I just don't buy Peter's infatuation with her because I personally don't like her.

23:56  
Blogger thisismarcus said...

Kat: True, true. I fancy Dunst rotten but she's a lot less supportive than the comics' Mary-Jane and a much less sympathetic character.

Shocho: I heard that the movie was originally going to be split in two. It's a popular theory online that a Venom cliffhanger would've been likely - or at least desirable. I'll still buy it on DVD, for whatever that's worth.

14:11  
Blogger Kimberley said...

Kristen Dunst is a bloody eejit, and I thought that even before she sneezed on a friend of mine in a Starbucks here in D.C. once.

Most comics cum movies are awful, just look at the latest offerings *ahem* Ghost Rider?

19:01  
Blogger SystemAbuser said...

Lets face it, it was crap. Stan Lee's cameo was cringy to say the least.

22:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home