Film Review: 'Spider-Man 3'

How does a good --perhaps even great-- movie trilogy go bad? There are examples of four great trilogies which improved from first film to last: The Lord of the Rings, both Star Wars trilogies, Indiana Jones. All fantastic examples of how great movie trilogies can and should be developed. Sadly, such examples are certainly not the rule... they are, more and more, becoming the lone exceptions. Perhaps directors become bored with the material; perhaps they just get lazier, more secure in the knowledge that the film will gross massive box office revenues no matter the quality of the finished product. In the end, everyone loses. After all, the Wachowski brothers could certainly tell us a thing or two about a failed film trilogy, considering the abysmal letdowns the latter two Matrix films turned out to be. Gore Verbinski should be smacked for letting his Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy get so completely carried away. Even Robert Zemeckis let himself get a bit too creative and far-fetched with his latter two Back to the Future films (although, to be fair, the third film is pretty fun, if still a far cry from the first). Yet, if you had told me that Spider-Man 3 would turn out to be possibly the single greatest emberassment in movie trilogy history... I would have laughed in your face all the way to the theater.

Upon seeing the film, I'd be begging for my flippancy to be forgiven.

Spider-Man 3 is an absolute emberassment not only to its predecessors but to life-long Spider-Man fans worldwide. Where the first two films succeeded as well-scripted, innovative adaptations regarding the escapades of the webbed crusader, the third entry is a melodramatic joke, incapable of making up its own mind and even less capable of making logical sense. For starters, the inclusion of Sandman as an accomplice to Uncle Ben's murder completely destroys the premise for Peter's vengeance from the first film; to call that kind of a plot contrivance sloppy is being generous. Not to mention the very inclusion of Sandman as a villain is insultingly bland. Also, instead of bringing the awesome evil of Venom (Topher Grace, a casting train-wreck) and his own saga to glorious life, Sam Raimi instead opts to briefly introduce him, treat his character like a clown (and not the gruesomely evil kind of clown, ala Final Fantasy VI's Kefka), and very quickly end his life; his entire story arch is essentially a giant middle finger to the fans from Raimi himself. I know you don't have much love for the character, Sam, but I hate to tell you that most of us other Spider-Man fans do! I never thought I would live to see the greatest comic book villain of all time treated this way; it is a massive travesty. His own incredible saga could have easily been made into several amazing films all their own.

The film's narrative is also complete mess, proving why Sam Raimi should stick to directing and never script a film: Peter Parker living large, Peter Parker encountering strain in life, Peter Parker becoming distant and depressed, Peter Parker's relationship with Mary Jane shattering, Peter Parker realizing his mistakes, Peter Parker, as Spider-Man, killing off movie villains, Peter Parker reuniting with Mary Jane, Peter Parker living happily ever after. It's generic but not exactly impossible to pull off if given enough nuance and appropriate time to evolve. Unfortunately, the movie essentially tries to cram in way too much material and doesn't bother to leave itself the necessary time to fully complete any of it in an even halfway satisfactory manner. Conflicts are resolved in unrealistically frantic fashion (Peter and Harry's dramatic make-up scene is nothing short of ludicrous), the action setpieces devolve into hum-drum special effects showcases (Raimi can't get enough of showing how "amazing" CGI sand looks, for instance), and any drama between the characters is completely obliterated by Sam Raimi-and-Son's laugh-out-loud ham-fisted dialogue (the term "Lucas-esque" comes to mind).

Also, bringing Gwen "I'm Already Dead in the Original Spider-Man Story" Stacy into the picture as a rival love interest for Parker fails on dozens of levels (it's basically an afterthought in the context of the overlying, overly-complex plot) and watching Peter Parker go "goth" and "emo" after the alien symbiote attaches itself to his suit (and, by extension, his personality) made me want to bury my head in shame. It's a far cry from the original story, in which Parker actually became evil upon the symbiote's attachment to him; he did not transform into some mamby-pamby, whiny drama queen.

I will now encapsulate a few more grievances I have with this film quickly, albeit this is by no means all of them (the movie is just that awful): Christopher Young's score (with countless patched-in edits of Elfman's original music for the first two films, making one wonder why Raimi didn't bandage up his relationship with Danny to begin with) is sadly weak; the pacing, as noted by the outrageously large plot, is horrendous; each performance appears to place the actors on the precipice of slumber; plain photography (an aspect of Sam Raimi's films you are either irritated by or admire) keeps the movie feeling boxed in; and, while high-caliber, the special effects can't rescue a single scene-- they become completely forgettable in tandem with the idiocy playing out before your eyes. Considering how entertaining and relatively strong the screenplays of the first two films were, this third installment is not only a head-spinning failure, but concrete proof that Sam Raimi should never, ever, ever be allowed to write a screenplay. It is not only the single greatest disappontment of 2007 but a worthy nominee for just about every available Raspberry Award possible. Shame on you, Sam Raimi. I can never forgive you for this travesty.

If you value your childhood memories and respect for the original Spider-Man plot, so full of depth, sweep, and heroic grandeur... avoid this debauchery like the plague.

F-

Film Review: 'Dial M for Murder'

A fantastic update of the original stageplay, done in an elevated manner which only a man like Hitchcock could have provided, Dial M for Murder is amongst the director's most underappreciated films.

Getting some trivia out of the way first, it was one the original batch of motion pictures to be filmed using the 3D process, an exceedingly popular gimmick in its day, meant to deliver a unique new experience to a public which seemed to be growing more enamored with television and less so with the picturehouse. Sadly, the 3D version of Dial M for Murder is not an available option on the current DVD release and it would certainly be a particular treat to watch many of the scenes and angles from a three-dimensional perspective, the way Hitchcock originally intended. On the bright side, the movie in no way suffers from the lack of a 3D release as the shots, angles (particularly the way objects are framed), and shadowing (courtesy of Robert Burks, a cinematographer with whom Alfred had a long and exceptional partnership) sneak in that extra sense of dimension, as though you're actually moving amongst the unfolding drama.

The story centralizes around a man named Tony Wendice (portrayed almost like an evil twin brother of James Stewart by actor Ray Milland), a husband who has come to the realization that his wife, Margot (the beautiful Grace Kelly), is cheating on him with another man, Mark (Robert Cummings). Tony decides to seek vengeance on his lovely partner by enlisting (perhaps coercing is a more appropriate verb) the aid of an old college friend, forcably blackmailing him into killing Margot. The plan Tony lays out is rather routine and seemingly bulletproof; but this is a Hitchcock film, and not one part of Tony's strategy goes precisely as planned. Thus, the chase ensues, a part of which is taken up by Mark's own talent for writing crime novels, another part taken up by the inimitable and endlessly charming character actor John Williams. It's a story that never feels perfectly at home in the real world and the fact that it takes place mostly in one room gives the unraveling story all the focused perspective it needs, along with a healthy dose of prognosticated claustrophobia and unease.

Dimitri Tiomkin scored four Hitchcock films; none of the four particularly stand out overall, yet they all serve their purposes in their respective films quite well, including some remarkably well-written setpiece moments in each of the four. His music errs a bit too loudly on the romantic side (something Hitchcock himself would find a remedy for in the turbulent music of Bernard Herrmann just one year after Dial M), never distracting from the drama, but rarely delving past the surface of the filmic material. The best of the four is certainly this one, which makes use of some very dark, violent passages in the strangulation scene in tandem with some devilishly lighter moments that feel near-perverse against the proceedings; delightfully so, in fact.

What we end up with is... well... a Hitchcock thriller. And there's very little to complain about there. The acting is superly engaging, the beautiful photography is close-knit to the action, Tiomkin's score fittingly dramatic, and Hitch's direction a very tightly composed affair. It's not amongst Hitchcock's top-tier endeavors, but even a second or third-tier film from the Master of Suspense is far better than most first-tier movies from contemporary directors. Dial M for Murder performs precisely up to its own expectations and proves that Alfred Hitchcock could take even the most seemingly basic of murder stories and transform them into a three-ring circus of engrossing atmosphere, handsome villainy, and dark, holistic comedy.

B+