Archives
The Bottom Line

5/09/07

Versus - Spider-Man 3 vs. the Spider-Man comics

Well, here we are yet again with another installment of Versus. This review tackles one of the most anticipated "summer" movies, and definitely the most anticipated comic book-related film of 2007, Spider-Man 3.

In my last column I spoke about movie producers altering details from the source material of the comics in an attempt to make a comic-book property more appealing to the average movie-goer. As I stated, sometimes it works well and sometimes the consequences are disastrous. However, there is another strategy that producers in Hollywood employ in making these movies that has (in my opinion) yielded no success whatsoever. That strategy is taking multiple storyline elements (and sometimes even entire stories) and cramming them into a single movie. This was done in the abysmal Batman & Robin with three heroes (including a Batgirl that is not Barbara Gordon but a relative of Alfred), three villains (yes, I am counting Bane as a villain) and a piss-poor plot. And I've already touched on how it detracted from X-Men: The Last Stand in a previous Versus review. The bottom line is that no matter how well-executed a comic book film is written, too many characters and/or storyline elements in a film make the pacing of a film seem rushed and also significantly dilute the impact they may have carried in the original books they appeared in. Since the movie is combining different storylines, there isn't a particular graphic novel or comic storyline to use as a comparison, so I'll just be drawing parallels where applicable.

My initial impression of the Spider-Man 3 trailer footage that we have all been bombarded over the past month was that they would repeat this sin. Does Spider-Man 3 repeat the cycle or refute it? Let's break it down, shall we?

What the movie got right

For starters, they brought back everyone that made the Spider-Man movie franchise great to begin with. From Sam Raimi in the director's chair to James Franco serving up the angst to Tobey Maguire slinging the webs, this talented group of people can do no wrong. Hell, they even have what has become the obligatory cameo by fanboy favorite actor Bruce Campbell, this time as a maitre'd at an expensive restaurant. You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd say Mr. Raimi is a wee bit superstitious about the cast of these films. Upon further consideration, I don't care if he's got OCD of Howard Hughes-proportions. As long as he stays involved with the Spider-Man franchise I think we'll continue to see quality stuff come out of it.

The new additions to the cast this time around did a fabulous job as well. Thomas Hayden Church (of Sideways fame) brought a hint of humanity to the character of the Flint Marko, a.k.a. Sandman, a character that hasn't exactly been known for being anything more than a one-note thug in the comics. And I was pleasantly surprised by Topher Grace (Eric from That 70's Show) as Eddie Brock/Venom. Topher chewed the scenery by playing Brock as a less goofy, morals-free version of Peter, and it mirrored his eventual transformation into Venom (a darker version of Spider-Man) rather nicely.

Overall, the action sequences were very-well shot & executed, and definitely more elaborate. This movie has the best fight scenes of any comic book movie thus far, including the balls-out battle royal at the end of the third X-Men film. The fast-paced scenes where Peter uses his spider-agility to rescue damsels-in-distress Mary Jane & Gwen Stacy (played by Bryce Dallas Howard of The Village & Lady in the Water) were flawlessly choreographed, topped off by Spidey side-stepping falling debris and threading the needle through a crane arm.

The old-school fanboy moment comes from the scene where Peter rids himself of the black costume in a church tower. That visual came straight out of the first issue of Web of Spider Man back in the 1980's, and it translated very well from comic to big screen.

The storyline that has been brewing since Spider-Man 2, Harry Osborn's obsession with getting revenge on Peter for the death of his father Norman, finally comes to beautiful fruition. It goes from an action-packed aerial battle, to a nice little mind game that makes devious use of the Peter/MJ/Harry love triangle, capped off with a less-spectacular but very brutal fistfight in Harry's penthouse. If this storyline had been given the full opportunity to blossom it could have stood alone as the plot of this film.

The involvement of Flint Marko/Sandman in the death of Peter's uncle was a nice touch that gave the usual Spidey/Sandman smackdown from the comics a much-needed dose of emotion. Gee, if this side plot had only been explored further, it could have easily been the sole plot of this film.

I could go on about how much more detail could have been given to the Black Costume/Venom saga, but the last sentence would end up sounding like the conclusion of the last two paragraphs, which brings me to the 2nd half of my review...

Where it went wrong

This is where I harp on the fact that the writers of the script for Spider-Man 3 threw too many stories & concepts into one film. There was really no good reason to do it, because the two Spider-Man movies before this one seamlessly integrated an incredibly moving story with action that rivals almost anything Jerry Bruckheimer & Michael Bay could crank out. There are only two reasons I can think of for them doing what they did. One is that a group of movie producers paid too much heed to action movie junkies in their focus groups, decided that too much action is never enough, and that mentality infected the script-rewriting process. It could also be that Sam & Ivan Raimi wrote this script wanting to squeeze in all of their remaining ideas into a single movie because there is a possibility that this will be the last Spider-Man film Raimi directs. If it was the latter, I can understand why they did it, but it really took away from the emotional impact the movie could have had if they had stuck to one story.

For example, when Harry died saving Peter after he found out the truth behind his father's death, it was clearly meant to be one of the movie's most pivotal emotional moments. But it took a backseat to the equally emotional moment of truth when Sandman tells Peter the truth about how his uncle died. Both were great emotional moments, but their impact was diminished because they came back-to-back.

The origins of the black costume and the Sandman were also rushed because there were too many good story concepts vying for screen time. The black costume's origin in the comics was drawn out from the first Secret Wars series over many issues of the Spider-Man comics of the time until it culminated in the origin of Venom. Obviously they could not take that kind of time in a movie, but they didn't even bother giving it a backstory, instead relying on the old 1950's method of having it come from a meteorite. The Raimis have written some quality stories up until now, so this glossing over of the black costume's origin is inexcusable. Flint Marko becoming Sandman is handled in an equally lazy fashion, where Marko just happens to stumble into an experimental area while running from the cops. They could have easily had rogue scientists kidnap and experiment on him, something similar to what was done in the Ultimate Spider-Man series, and it would have taken just about as much time. Hell, they could have introduced a group like Hydra or A.I.M. in the process and not lost any time.

Well, now that I've said my peace about the jam-packed script, I'll move on to the other thing that bothered me about this movie. That is the sequence where Peter Parker lets his dark side run wild in his civilian life while in possession of the black costume. First of all, I've never been crazy about how dorky they have made Peter out to be throughout each of the movies. That all came to a rather ugly head when Peter was supposedly "cutting loose". Sure, he was acting like a jerk, but he was also acting like a super dork. I'm certain this was intentional on the part of the Raimis, but the comic book version of Peter Parker was more timid than dorky, so the series of scenes that have Peter strutting, flirting and dancing ala Tony Manero came off horribly. Even more disturbing was the way Peter's appearance changed. Peter did come off as a badass in a couple of scenes (especially in his final fight with Harry), but all the while I just thought he looked like a sad imitation of an Emo Scene-Kid.

After the dust has settled

Spider-Man 3 should definitely be seen on the big screen. In fact, if I were a man of means I would probably go see it a second time on an IMAX screen to get the full effect. But don't expect to get the same emotional reaction you got from the first two films. Spider-Man 3 has plenty of action but just lacks the same heart of the first two.