One addition, while I liked the "recap" at the beginning theme (great idea), I have to admit I enjoyed the Alex Ross paintings from the second to the "clips" shown here. I know it may have seemed repetitive to do that again, but it had a more "comic booky" appeal to me. But no biggie.
As for the movie franchise, few movies do well after three. Fewer still get to a third without stumbling. I would prefer a franchise retire when people are still begging for more, vs. throwing tomatoes at the screen. Of course, BATMAN BEGINS, SUPERMAN RETURNS and TMNT sort of break that rule as they had many years in-between to add to the franchise, but that was because their franchises got bungled. SPIDER-MAN overall has been a success and I would rather it end that way. Especially since resigning many of the major stars is going to take a lot more money and wrangling.
I sort of agree on Dunst, but her issues in the role and strengths have been known for a while. I'm just so tired of MJ making dating a superhero so damned boring. Some people dismissed Black Cat/Felicia Hardy as a Catwoman-rip psycho, but at least she never forgot to have fun. Some people blame all of Spider-Man's comic flaws on MJ, and I feel that is unfair, because she usually is written a certain way, but this flick did nothing to dissuade that.
Part of reviewing a film sometimes isn't just the initial experience, but what gamers call "replay value". Both the previous two SPIDER-MAN films I saw at least 4-5 times while it was still in theatres before I grew tired of it until it hit VHS/DVD. I watched S-M3 for the 2nd time this morning and I could tell that I still liked it, and stand by my review that I posted the link to, I certainly won't be watching it that many times. A reviewing can give you some added things to notice once you're no longer being surprised by the film.
- Once this movie hits DVD shelves, a rather effective drinking game could be made of it; a full shot for every time someone cries, and a half shot for every time someone's eyes water up but don't actually tear. You'll be sloshed to high hell by the end. Quite literally every major male character aside for J.J cries at least once if not twice here. It's definately interesting if you compare these films to 80's action fare where heroes barely flinched at stepping on broken glass or something (or movies based on movies in that mold, like 300 or SIN CITY).
- While the movie was very busy, again, the fact that Sandman and Venom teamed up here is interesting in a comic book sense as both villians in the comics spend lengthy periods of time being heroes, and both villians are ones who critics charged lacked "substance" in their origins.
Sandman in the 60's started as a typical career con who gets sand-powers and just runs around robbing banks or working for any mobster who'll hire him. Sometime in the 80's or so he decides to try going straight, even to the point of befriending The Thing, becoming a reserve Avenger, and even joining Silver Sable's Wild Pack team (in which he actually fought Venom, who was himself an "anti-hero" by then). However, it was retconned in that Sandman had mental problems and is back to being a villian again. The only "sympathy" he had was once, he roomed with a family and then Dr. Octopus threatened and then killed them to get him to rejoin the Sinister Six.
Venom debuted in the late 80's, and while his origin was tied to a then-recent storyline involving the serial killer the Sin-Eater, Eddie Brock had no build-up; he essentially "came out of nowhere" with an origin that essentially blamed Spider-Man for ruining his life off panel. While I bought it as a "little person" being squashed in a superhero adventure (much like those nameless pedestrians always dodging falling debris), it naturally would never match the Oomph of, say, Norman Osborn being the Green Goblin. Many felt, a decade later, that without a more personal connection to Spider-Man, Brock was a waste. Subsequent writers focused more on the symbiote costume than the actual man behind it, and once he became popular he was turned into an anti-hero like Punisher and Wolverine, a move that, as my ezboard name suggests I liked once upon a time, now I see was handled very, very poorly and the character hasn't been as relavent since. Ultimate Spider-Man made Eddie Brock "Jr." a friend to a couple that Peter's parents were friends with to sort of invent a personal connection. The 90's cartoon built up Brock by having him appear as a rival photog in 2-3 episodes before becoming Venom, which worked better.
Venom & Sandman have even battled each other twice.
So, being that both were A-List Spider-Man rogues who'd both flirted with being heroes, it was interesting seeing them team up in a flick where Spider-Man flirts with being a villian, least in a pure geek sense.
- The second time watching it and Venom/Eddie Brock Jr. STILL comes off as the most obligatory thing in a movie that was already rather busy. Reports said that Raimi had to be "convinced" to use Venom by the producer, and I wonder if most of that was because Raimi liked the concept of the Black Costume turning Peter/Spidey Wicked. Most of the movie was on that struggle and the metaphors therein. That concept was also a holdover from the 90's cartoon (which Mr. Arad also produced), but Raimi obviously liked that aspect more than Venom himself. Brock Jr. has barely more development than Gwen and is just there as an example of what Peter may have become had he been twisted fully by his desires. Don't get me wrong, Venom looked cool, the battles were good and Topher Grace was fun with his weaselly set up, even if he needed all the cosmetics and CGI in the world to almost look scary. But I look at the film as a whole and Venom is just sort of there. On the upside, without Venom, the ending with the "apology/forgiveness" bit with Sandman & Spider-Man would have been WAY too anti-climatic. And without Venom to kill Harry, Sandman would have lost all sympathy had he done so. Still, while Sandman's "BS" origin included him more seemlessly into the movie's mythos, Venom more than anyone just seemed crudely inserted. It still was a load of fun, and the ads refusing to run a full image of him was a masterstroke of hype.
- Speaking of Sandman, naturally altering his origin was going to bring debate. Giving him the sickly daughter served as a good motivation for his bank-robbery schemes and towards giving him sympathy, whereas in the comics he usually was just a lunk, not unlike The Rhino. The other major bit was making him the actual shooter of Ben Parker, and not The Carjacker. In a historical sense, this is hardly unusual; most superhero movies have struggled with using the concept that "heroes fight crime" because it seems too impersonal, so they usually like villians with ties to the origin of the hero. The greatest example was 1989's BATMAN, which literally revealed the Joker as the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents. Some would say this was equalivent, but it is not. Joker is Batman's #1 arch nemesis, the most popular and overused. He really doesn't need much to be tacked onto him to make him exciting to an audience. Sandman, in contrast, even as one of Spidey's earliest rogues, is hardly his most popular. Joker, while flat in a way, at least is darkly amusing, Sandman was mostly a thug with his infrequent bouts of heroism. Plus, as I mentioned in the above link, it gave Peter a good reason to gun for Sandman and a good reason to give their battles weight given Sandman's own motive. I do agree somewhat with Mix that it would have been better had Sandman's origin not been immediately revealed. To compare, in the 90's Batman cartoon episode "HEART OF ICE" that essentially gave Mr. Freeze his sympathetic origin, Batman initially battles the villian during a robbery and we don't find out his motives until the end of the 2nd act. I actually expected them to do something simular with Sandman but the pacing was different. Making Marko the killer of Ben Parker helped alliviate some of this, but I agree the pacing of this tidbit could have been maximized better. But I really didn't see it as a major problem. I mean, Dr. Octopus is portrayed positively until he becomes a supervillian in S-M2 (although, in fairness, the movie claimed he was essentially being controlled by his mechanical arms, thus not in full control of his actions & morality). The previous two movies sort of showed the villian's origin in a straightforward, A-B-C fashion so I was used to seeing that again.
- I like the fact that while Dafoe's Goblin is naturally iconic, that Peter's relationship and conflict with Harry is actually more complicated and in a way deeper. It was built up over two films so it has a lot of weight. As noted before, the films remembered that it was Norman's legacy that helped make him the monster he was, not entirely his acts while living (although naturally killing Gwen Stacy during a time when death in comics was rare helped).
- Raimi has also admitted in previous interviews that he never cared for Gwen either, so it was no surprise she doesn't have much to do but look pretty and get rescued (and make MJ jealous). One could argue that John Jameson served little purpose in S-M2 but to make Peter jealous, although he definately got some more life out of it methinks. I sort of missed John Jameson, actually, but the movie was crammed enough as it was without him. Although while I could understand why audiences appreciate simplicity, in the comics MJ was hardly Peter's first or last girlfriend, so sometimes her seeming like the be-all or end-all true immortal love for the virginal Peter Parker in the movies sometimes can seem awkward. But again, I don't mind it.
- Despite the fact that overall I enjoyed S-M3, I honestly don't think a 4th is going to be any better, but Sony will only see dollar signs here. And despite my liking for the film, this is another trilogy that, to me, peaked with the second, like STAR WARS, BLADE, and X-MEN. Of course, it was miles more enjoyable to me than X3 or BLADE:TRINITY, or any of the 3rd films of the Batman & Superman franchises, so there you go.
Dunst really can't pull off lines like "go get 'em, tiger" or some of the stuff comic MJ was known for, at least pre-marriage, but that's been obvious since S-M1 so it didn't bother me. She doesn't reak of arrogant self-importance like Halle Berry does.
I did notice how self-pitying she was in the beginning, though, moreso this time. One scene in particular; MJ goes to Peter's apartment after seeing the first bad review, and Peter competantly uses his past experience as Spider-Man to attempt to relate, and she just completely brushes that off. Like the kind of people who feel no one's suffering can ever be equalivent to their own. But, again, people in real life are usually flawed like this, responding to things illogically and emotionally, so I didn't immediately get appalled. MJ did get the damsel routine into overdrive though, man. Even Lois Lane in typical SUPERMAN films only get kidnapped once.
Despite the fact that Raimi has made the New York citizens rise to defend Spidey in every film until now, the outright Spider-Man worship from NY seemed a little awkward, especially as it just made J.J. more of a crank for being his only critic. Superman essentially invented modern superheroes, but Spider-Man redefined them; part of that redefinition that gave him his charm, though, was the fact that people weren't just holding daylight parades for him like Superman and even Batman at the time got. I could buy people defending him in the middle of a crisis, so long as there was some reasonable "mystique" about him overall. But here he all but made Superman in Metropolis seem hated. It makes sense, but simply makes Spider-Man look more like a generic superhero, if you get my drift.
I still would kill for a writer to write Peter & MJ together and make that poor redhead for once seem to enjoy the fact that she is married to a damned superhero. The problem naturally is she fell in love with Peter, and sort of tolerates his life as Spider-Man as a fetish, something she can accept so long as he hides it to a certain degree. MJ complains, "That was OUR kiss!" but when was the last time they kissed like that?
Of course, so does removing his secret identity, eliminating his supporting cast and having him join various super-teams, but them's what the comics have done.
Well... I'm not scared anymore.
