Anthony Stokes comes to the defense of Spider-Man 3...
![Peter Parker dancing in Spider-Man 3]( "Peter Parker dancing in Spider-Man 3")
There are some rarely unchallenged consensuses in the geek community.... The Wrath of Khan is the best Star Trek movie, Christopher Nolan is a genius, etc. One of these is that Spider-Man 3 is a god-awful movie and a disappointment. Even stepping in to defend this movie instantly ruins credibility. It's normal for people to be hyperbolic, but there seems to be a special kind of hate for Spider-Man 3. In the past decade the Spider-Man trilogy has gone from one of the most innovative collection of movies in recent memory to a punchline. But is this hate for the third installment just and fair?
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies ride a thin thematic line between dark character study and slapstick and absurd humor. For some reason people get the impression that dark means "gritty" or "realistic". Dark means introspective, gloomy, or somber. Raimi used goofy humor to juxtapose the ultimately depressing and sad world that Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker inhabits.
Take for example earlier in the franchise - Peter has been pining for Mary Jane for two whole movies. Mary Jane leaves her fiance at the alter to get with Peter. They share a moment of pure joy before Peter gets called away to save the city, leaving Mary Jane alone in his apartment, questioning if she made the right decision. This embodies the bittersweetness of the series, and nails home exactly what Raimi was going for. The reason I love Spider-Man 3 is because it takes that little moment and builds upon it throughout the entire movie. None of the characters are happy unless they're indulging or being selfish.
A big complaint about Spider-Man 3 is that there's too much going on. I wholeheartedly disagree, and there's never a dull moment. It's acknowledged that the studio made Raimi incorporate Venom into the movie. Raimi was obviously aware of the fact that this was a lot to handle, and he even contemplated splitting the movie into two parts, before compromising by only showing the characters in terms of how they relate to the main storyline. There's no fat to trim and as a result the movie feels very tight and well-paced. While Flint Marko and Eddie Brock could have been more developed, if they'd spent any more time on them it would've ruined the pacing and the story. For example, until Peter gets rid of the symbiote there's no Venom. Venom is a manifestation of Peter's bad side. Outside of Brock working for the same newspaper, how much more development is necessary to tell the story?
![]()
Another thing I loved about Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 is that Peter Parker gets abused the whole time. As a matter of fact, his life gets worse after he gets his super powers. Ultimately, he sacrifices his personal life for the city, and is constantly battling with himself about whether he should even continue to be a superhero. All this abuse pays off in Spider-Man 3 as Peter is influenced by the symbiote and stops being a walkover. It's satisfying to see someone who has been constantly taken advantage of turning around and stopping being the victim, but in the end his selfishness manifests into Venom and he has to face it.
This brings up some rather valid complaints. The juxtaposition of black humor and slapstick starts to bend and break a little. I'll be the first to admit that Peter wearing eye liner was too much. The jazz club scene is so completely unforgivable that I won't even attempt to defend it and it's easily the low point of the franchise. But one thing people always complain about is the montage where Peter dances and tries to act cool. What people forget is that Peter is a dork. He's only been with one girl his entire life and has no style, so his attempts to be cool fall completely flat, which makes the scene both funny and tragic at the same time.
My ultimate praise for the movie is that it happens to have a few twists on reccurring themes common in superhero movies - the main one being how revenge leads to unhappiness and ironically dissatisfaction, which is embodied in a majority of the character arcs - and all the plot threads are seamlessly woven together almost poetically. I love how Raimi retconned Marko to being Uncle Ben's reluctant murderer. This plays into both themes, adds layers to the story, and of course develops Marko as a villain, whilst giving Peter a legitimate reason to don the black suit. Even Eddie Brock, who is always described as a one-dimensional villain, only wrongs Peter because he's put into a corner and agitated by Spider-Man. Peter tries to reconcile with Eddie and by the end when Peter has an opportunity to finally confront Marko, he doesn't want to, showing he's learned his lesson and also completed his arc. The final shot of Peter and Mary Jane holding each other is both ambiguous and bittersweet, and it's unclear if they'll even remain together.
Spider-Man 3 may be a step down from the stellar first two movies, but I really don't believe the film is worthy of the level of criticism it's received and if people re-watch it with an open mind I think they'll find it fairs a lot better. I've also noticed a lack of appreciation for the trilogy as a whole, which disheartens me. They're still a fantastic set of films, and I doubt that anyone who sits down and revisits them will find themselves disappointed.
Anthony Stokes is a blogger and independent filmmaker.
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies ride a thin thematic line between dark character study and slapstick and absurd humor. For some reason people get the impression that dark means "gritty" or "realistic". Dark means introspective, gloomy, or somber. Raimi used goofy humor to juxtapose the ultimately depressing and sad world that Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker inhabits.
Take for example earlier in the franchise - Peter has been pining for Mary Jane for two whole movies. Mary Jane leaves her fiance at the alter to get with Peter. They share a moment of pure joy before Peter gets called away to save the city, leaving Mary Jane alone in his apartment, questioning if she made the right decision. This embodies the bittersweetness of the series, and nails home exactly what Raimi was going for. The reason I love Spider-Man 3 is because it takes that little moment and builds upon it throughout the entire movie. None of the characters are happy unless they're indulging or being selfish.
A big complaint about Spider-Man 3 is that there's too much going on. I wholeheartedly disagree, and there's never a dull moment. It's acknowledged that the studio made Raimi incorporate Venom into the movie. Raimi was obviously aware of the fact that this was a lot to handle, and he even contemplated splitting the movie into two parts, before compromising by only showing the characters in terms of how they relate to the main storyline. There's no fat to trim and as a result the movie feels very tight and well-paced. While Flint Marko and Eddie Brock could have been more developed, if they'd spent any more time on them it would've ruined the pacing and the story. For example, until Peter gets rid of the symbiote there's no Venom. Venom is a manifestation of Peter's bad side. Outside of Brock working for the same newspaper, how much more development is necessary to tell the story?
Another thing I loved about Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 is that Peter Parker gets abused the whole time. As a matter of fact, his life gets worse after he gets his super powers. Ultimately, he sacrifices his personal life for the city, and is constantly battling with himself about whether he should even continue to be a superhero. All this abuse pays off in Spider-Man 3 as Peter is influenced by the symbiote and stops being a walkover. It's satisfying to see someone who has been constantly taken advantage of turning around and stopping being the victim, but in the end his selfishness manifests into Venom and he has to face it.This brings up some rather valid complaints. The juxtaposition of black humor and slapstick starts to bend and break a little. I'll be the first to admit that Peter wearing eye liner was too much. The jazz club scene is so completely unforgivable that I won't even attempt to defend it and it's easily the low point of the franchise. But one thing people always complain about is the montage where Peter dances and tries to act cool. What people forget is that Peter is a dork. He's only been with one girl his entire life and has no style, so his attempts to be cool fall completely flat, which makes the scene both funny and tragic at the same time.
My ultimate praise for the movie is that it happens to have a few twists on reccurring themes common in superhero movies - the main one being how revenge leads to unhappiness and ironically dissatisfaction, which is embodied in a majority of the character arcs - and all the plot threads are seamlessly woven together almost poetically. I love how Raimi retconned Marko to being Uncle Ben's reluctant murderer. This plays into both themes, adds layers to the story, and of course develops Marko as a villain, whilst giving Peter a legitimate reason to don the black suit. Even Eddie Brock, who is always described as a one-dimensional villain, only wrongs Peter because he's put into a corner and agitated by Spider-Man. Peter tries to reconcile with Eddie and by the end when Peter has an opportunity to finally confront Marko, he doesn't want to, showing he's learned his lesson and also completed his arc. The final shot of Peter and Mary Jane holding each other is both ambiguous and bittersweet, and it's unclear if they'll even remain together.
Spider-Man 3 may be a step down from the stellar first two movies, but I really don't believe the film is worthy of the level of criticism it's received and if people re-watch it with an open mind I think they'll find it fairs a lot better. I've also noticed a lack of appreciation for the trilogy as a whole, which disheartens me. They're still a fantastic set of films, and I doubt that anyone who sits down and revisits them will find themselves disappointed.
Anthony Stokes is a blogger and independent filmmaker.