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.