Who let Joel Schumacher direct Spider-Man 3?
May 5th, 2007 by EoinI had the misfortune of seeing Spider-Man 3 last night. Before I go any further I’d like to point out that I really liked Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. I was looking forward to seeing this film as with Raimi, Maguire and Dunst still involved I believed they had one more good film in them. How wrong I was.
I just don’t know where to begin with my complaints about this film. While watching it I was reminded over and over again of the Joel Schumacher Batman films. Maybe it was because Christopher Young’s score reminded me of the music Elliot Goldenthal gave us in Batman Forever and Batman & Robin? Why anyone would decide to replace the excellent Danny Elfman I don’t know but that was the least of their mistakes.
Just like Schumacher’s massacres, Spider-Man 3 had too many characters and the story was fragmented. The film was also far too long. Raimi is a very good director and showed his skills with the first two films, so where did it all go wrong? The fragmentation and overly long running time must be down to either the director or the editor, but Raimi and Bob Murowski worked on all three films. I found the answer after further investigation of the credits. The first two films were written by David Koepp and Alvin Sargent both professional scriptwriters. For Spider-Man 3, Sargent was joined by Raimi and his brother, Ivan Raimi.
Ivan is a doctor by trade, although does have a few writing credits, and Sam has several writing credits - the most notable being The Hudsucker Proxy, although it must be hard to go wrong working with the excellent Coen brothers. It’s not that I think the Raimi brothers are incapable of writing a decent screenplay, I merely feel that Sam Raimi had things too much his own way on this film and it didn’t work. It is a real shame and watching the film I got the impression that Raimi’s attention was elsewhere. Maybe he was thinking about The Hobbit or maybe there were too many family members around?
His other brother Ted played Hoffman (J. Jonah Jameson’s suck up assistant) and his children Lorne, and Henry had small parts in the film. There’s also a Emma Raimi in the cast list but I couldn’t find any confirmation that she was Sam’s daughter.
The news that Spider-Man 4, 5 and 6 have been confirmed doesn’t make me happy, but I don’t expect Raimi, Maguire or Dunst to be involved. It’ll be interesting to see who they get. At least David Koepp looks to be back on writing duties.
Entries (RSS)
May 6th, 2007 at 4:08 am
I have to say it worked for me.
You may be right in Raimi being more relaxed than in previous efforts but if anything this leant the movie a sort of charming swagger in its deployment of action, comedy and romance. Tobey’s confident and playful performance spearheads a cast clearly allowed decent leverage in their characterisations but their relish is never allowed overstep the mark. Thus the perfectly pitched ‘emo-Parker’ sequence in the middle of the movie, a potentially disastrous incarnation of the hero, had screen 1 of the Renovated Gate laughing for all the right reasons.
I too have issue with the length of the movie, but this seems par for the course these days, and affected Spidey I and II in equal measure. And I suppose the most expensive movie ever made is more difficult to leave on the cutting room floor than… well, ‘Sideways’ for instance!
The movie did feel a little jumpy and patchy at times, but not for me in the crucial central portrayal of the love triangle. Where Spidey II developed its soppy Dunst-heavy romance in a lazily pedestrian manner the current film flits along, relying on our familiarity with the concerned trio to simply illustrate key turns in the story. Witness therefore surprising moments along the way (upside-down lab-partner kiss shocker!) shaping a much more rounded love story than its previous traditional incarnation.
All in all then Eoin, I see where you’re coming from but differ in seeing Raimi’s licence as assuredly relaxed rather than remiss.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Warning! Possible Spoilers within!
I have to agree, as a Spiderman fan, begrudgingly with Eoin. I enjoyed the film to a degree, but in a fairly disengaged way… the comedic moments were very well done in themselves, but not very well integrated into the film.
I did think the script was much sloppier than either previous film.
I take particular exception to the Sandman pummeling Spiderman nearly to death and then saying to him ‘I didn’t choose this. I’m just a poor ol’ dad who deserves your sympathy. Right I’m off now buddy.’ or whatever he said.
I see where you’re coming from with the illustrating key turns, but I didn’t think it was done well… for my taste there needs to be more of a world built around characters than just the key elements to get the story told…
Anyway, it’s too late (early?) for analysis. Goodnight all!
May 6th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Very similar review to Eoin’s in the Sunday Times today. Not that that proves anything, just interesting.
May 6th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Spiderman 2 was such an excellent film (I almost want to use words like masterpiece or classic to describe it) that the franchise has likely hit it’s peak, and it’s all downhill from there.
This most recent installment did feel disjointed, a bit lengthy, with too much reliance on special effects (I’ve never seen falling debris used so generously in fight scenes before).
It’s too bad that they are going to drag this thing out for another 3 installments- I have the feeling that it will only get worse from here. Especially considering that the third movie didn’t make any hints about a sequel being in the works.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I’d go so far as to call it a crock of shit. Peter Parker’s darkess of the soul consisted of him buying a cheap black suit and upstaging his ex-girlfriend in a jazzy dance routine. FFS. Real existential angst there.
I really couldn’t believe certain scenes, like the one of Peter walking down the street with a stupid walk and pointing at all the women that (suddenly) appeared and walked past him. WHAT A BADASS MOTHER.
Also everyone was far too comfortable with their mad new powers straight away.
My bullshit sense was tingling from the start.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
John I did find the comedy in the film worked well and I was laughing at the sequence you mentioned too. Like Frank though I don’t feel the comedy elements fit with the rest of the movie.
Unfortunately I was also laughing at the romantic scenes. They were badly written and badly acted. I thought Spidey 3 could have done with more of the Dunst heavy nature of Spidey 2. In Spidey 3 they didn’t seem to know what to do with MJ.
Sly I didn’t even find the special effects were that good. The creation of the Sandman was beautifully done but the fight scenes were nothing compared to those in the first two films.
Green Ink I didn’t think of it that way. Have to agree though. The comic sequence of Parker strutting was enjoyable but really didn’t do justice to what was supposed to be happening to him.
The comfort with the mad new powers seems to be something that happens in sequels. The first film in a franchise tends to show the hero’s struggle to adapt and so also gives us an enemy with similar struggles. In sequels we get enemies who adapt immediately to compete with the hero who has become accustom to his powers. It was more noticeable in Spidey 3 alright.
Anyone else have a problem with the lack of Spidy-senses? He didn’t saw anything coming in this one!
May 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Wow, it’s recouped its budget in the opening weekend. Shows what I know I guess! Although I will say that box office history has shown that it is Spidey 4’s takings will be hit by the poor standard of Spidey 3. Makes the opening of Pirates 3 interesting.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Thing is, when you’ve invested in a story like ‘Pirates of the Bag of Shite’ you kind of feel you have to see the last bit even though it’s crap.
That’s what it was like for me and the Matrix anyway.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
That’s true. Think I could wait until DVD or TV to see it though. If only there was a way to see it without paying? ;P
May 8th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Very good review here. The “In Raimi’s defense, he’s always said he never cared for the character of Venom and watching the movie you can see that” says it all really.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:47 am
I think 3 villains was a bad move - they should have cut one out (maybe Sandman, or, gasp, Venom - a character I love but as a result one I believe should be given centre-stage as a Spiderman bad guy).
The bit with the flag at the end - barf.
And yes, I don’t think the inner turmoil was conveyed nearly as well as it could have been - the emo haircut, eyeliner and sudden asshole attitude just telegraphed the whole thing where they could and should have been far more subtle.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I think Sandman and Venom with no Goblin would have been fine. I appreciate that the Harry storyline needed to continue, but I felt his was the least interesting of the 3. They could have made all three work and maybe set up one of them for no.4 instead of trying to finish all the stories in this one movie. That’s the problem I have with Spidey 3 really, they could and should have been able to make it work.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I agree totally with Eoin’s review. I have been a huge Spider-Man fan for some 36 years now, and the first two movies made me think of Raimi as a lost, kindred brother. All I can say about S-M 3 is, “What the **** happened, Sam???”. Good gravy, the depth and seriousness that made S-M 1 & 2 work just disappeared. I knew this was going to happen when I started reading about not one, not two, but three villains all being worked into the same script. You said it, Eoin: Holy Shades of Schumacher! Another one of these, and the S-M franchise will need to be mothballed until someone can start over again. Please, Evan Almighty, don’t let the upcoming Batman movie go down the same path….
June 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I’m sure The Dark Knight will be good.