Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Hasn't It Always Been Like This?

Spider-Man 3 holds an impressive 2nd place in my list of weirdest movie-watching experiences.

Let me explain.

Last summer, I rented the dvd of Ben-Hur to put into progress my long-awaited meeting with this legendary epic. I inserted the first DVD and the film started, as it’s customary in old epics, with an overture. I was taken aback when the story began abruptly, without any old-fashioned introductory sequences or narration, which had me alternating between admiring the originality and feeling confused about the characters and the plot. The story progressed more or less as I expected, I was able to see the big picture but was quite lost on details. Just as I was wondering why they would place the iconic chariot race scene at the very beginning of the film (and to what context it was serving) the first disc was over; and much to my puzzlement, credits started rolling. I had read, at many different websites, that the film lasted close to 4 hours and I was still denying the notion that I had just finished watching a 3+ hour epic.

Then it struck me to try the second disc. As soon as I put it in and when the film actually began this time, everything started making sense. It appears that they had somehow mixed the labels of the two discs and I, mistaking the intermission for overture, had started watching the film from its second half. I was relieved to be properly introduced to the characters, to learn their backgrounds, to see why they did what they did in the second half and most importantly, the context of the chariot race. It was a unique experience, watching an old classic as if it’s recut in a more modernist style, the whole first half presented as a flashback.

Not that I’d recommend this over the normal way you watch the film but it’s still my weirdest movie-watching experience.

As for Spider-Man 3, I had the film for a very long time but never got myself to start watching it, mainly because I wasn’t a particular fan of the first two Spidey movies and because of the fact that the third installment received even worse reviews than the previous two. Yesterday, I started skimming it for reasons still unclear to me, watching certain scenes and jumping forward whenever I started getting tired them. This mostly meant that I got to see the action sequences and skipping the actual storyline. In the middle of the final and ultimate fight scene, I stopped when I realized that I was really impressed with the quality of these action sequences and that I really wanted to learn what the actual story behind the film was; why was M. J. so pissed off at Parker, what was the tragedy of Sandman and where did that black, sticky symbiote came from - although I was kind of familiar with all of them from the cartoon versions of the story that I used to love as a kid. So I took it all back and re-started watching it, not skipping a single scene although, more than once, I was strongly inclined to do so.

Turns out, there was no story after all. Not one worth mentioning anyway.

It was a weird experience because my first attempt to watch it, by skipping whenever I felt necessary, left a better impression on me than the second one where I sat through the whole thing. But I’m not here to pick on the film with artsy, pretentious sentences because;

1) The guys at Rotten Tomatoes are better at that than I am (e.g. “The utterly simplistic theme of revenge weaves through this jumbled hodge podge of depthless character stories.”^[1] or “As the Goblin and Sandman and whatnot multiply and start whizzing about, the proceedings in this grand hodgepodge are so disordered that it would be no surprise were a Nazgûl to wing into the scene, perhaps ridden by Dr. Zaius.”^[2] or 2/5"Aesthetically and conceptually wrung out, fizzled rather than fizzy, this latest installment in the spider-bites-boy adventure story shoots high, swings low and every so often hits the sweet spot, but mostly just plods and plods along."^[3])

2) I really liked the action sequences and...

3) I don’t have much to say about the film itself. I think everything is quite simple.

I’d rather talk about the hypocrisy surrounding the critics and fan circles regarding where they place this last chapter, which is, I believe, is as low as it shouldn’t be. Granted, it’s the worst of the three, but when you look at the trilogy as a whole and try to see the big picture, isn’t it the same cheesy romance, one-dimensional drama, cartoonish characters, talentless Tobey Maguire and failed attempts to delve into the complexities of being a superhero? Didn't we all choose to endure cheap morality tales in exchange for some quality aerial action? Hasn't it always been about the breathtaking visuals, fight sequences and our childish, guilty pleasure? I’m really curious about what some people couldn’t find in Spider-Man 3 that was actually present in the previous films, maybe with the exception of a more decent plot for the first one.

Why did everyone betray Spidey?

I’m inclined to think that the franchise is starting to feel a little tired and people, failing to realize this, are attributing their disappointment to the actual quality of the film. Or, some other Marvel adaptations have raised the bar so high that the naive pleasure these films used to give us have suddenly disappeared. Or maybe the 'sticky symbiose' was a fan favorite among Spider-Man villains and its superficial handling caused an extra disappoinment. Maybe it would've been better if its screen time was not divided between Sandman and New Goblin - would having a single villain worked better? I'm not sure about the reasons, but for me Spider-Man films have always been about admiring the action and tolerating the flaws in nearly everything else; so I’m having a hard time following the sudden shift in feelings when it comes to this last installment. Am I really missing something?

5/10

[1]: Wesley Lovell from Oscar Guy

[2]: Thomas Peyser from Style Weekly (Richmond, VA)

[3]: Manohla Dargis from New York Times