In addition, Sony estimated that SM3 grossed approximately $104 million worldwide yesterday, the highest single day gross in global box office history. The film delivered $45 million Friday in overseas ticket sales. This opening weekend, SM3 will definitely make more than SM1 ($114.8 mil) or SM2 ($88.1 mil) at U.S. theaters.Well, I did my part to help SM3 set the record. We caught a 4:45 p.m. showing yesterday. The theater was about three-quarters full.
It seems obvious that SM3 is intended to be the last of the series. All the loose ends of its predecessors' are tied up and there is really nowhere else to go for the romance between Peter Parker/Spiderman and Mary Jane.
And therein lies the movie's glaring flaw: too much being done in one flick. One of the antagonists is the Sandman. After his first encounter with the villain, Spiderman swings to a building top and asks, "Where are all these guys coming from?" Trust me, you'll ask the same question long before the movie is over. Sandman is only one of three - count 'em, three - villains with super powers in SM3.
The screenplay tries but fails to keep the movie coherent. Somehow, all three villians, Mary Jane and Spiderman have to meet in a gotterdammerung at the end of the movie. But tying up the three main threads of conflict, plus Spidey's troubled relationship with MJ, just overwhelms the abilities of both screenwriters and director (who was one of the writers). The ends do finally get tied up, but the final battle is so over the top as to become a parody of itself.
Even so, the movie does entertain and keeps one's attention. All the credit goes to Tobey Maguire, whose mutlivalent talent for portraying Dark Side Spiderman is very effective and tuned just right. What would a superhero do if unrestrained by honor or duty? SM3 provides an answer. But it is not only Spiderman who does over to the Dark Side (literally, since Spidey's Dark Side suit is solid black), so does Peter. Example: after Peter makes a nuisance of himself in a jazz bar, the very large bouncer tries to show him to the door. Bad idea.
Peter finally sheds the dark suit because of MJ. Fortunately the movie then moves quickly to finale because Maguire's portrayal of Dark Side Spidey/Peter is the only real draw. Oh, yeah, Harry Osborn (James Franco), friend of both MJ and Peter, figures prominently, too. We learned at the conclusion of SM2 that he would adopt his dead dad's Green Goblin identity. He does with a true vengeance. Filled with wrath, his fights with Spiderman are knock-down, drag-out epics. Yet when Harry/Goblin meets Dark Side Peter/Spiderman, it becomes a fight to the finish as Peter is unrestrained by prior bonds of friendship and loyalty. They are both out to kill.
Let us now consider the hapless May Jane Watson, apple of the eyes of both Peter Parker and Harry Osborn. Portrayed again by Kirsten Dunst, actress MJ appears at the beginning of the film in a Broadway musical, singing the opening number. But the critics savage her and she's fired after one performance, winding up later as a waitress-singer in the jazz bar Peter visits. Sorry, Kirsten, but MJ fares no better in her faux-threatrical career than you do in this installment. Kirsten, you shone so brightly in SM2 and almost as much in SM1, but here you just showed up on the set and recited lines. Remember, you're an actress, so why so little acting?
Let me admit, though, that SM3 follows the thoroughly superior SM2, a tough act to follow. With the bar so high, SM3 was almost bound to fail to top it. There are many moments in SM3 that show a glimpse of grandeur. The problem is that they are peripheral to the main line(s) of action. I don't wish I had waited to see SM3 on DVD, though, so the movie is good enough for me to recommend you pay your hard-earned cash to see it in the theater.
I give Spiderman 3 6.5 webs out of 10.
Spider-Man 3 was very good, but only about 90% of what I expected and wanted.
Marvel seems to have this idea that a series has to be wrapped up in three issues, and the way to do that is to cram in a ton of villains, go berserk with the special effects, and hammer home the main message of the comic or the movie series. I thought they just got away with it in X-Men: The Last Stand (2006). I thought Spider-Man 3 suffered a little.
There were enough villains for issues (movies) #3, #4 and #5, and there was enough preaching for three movies too. There was no need to heavy up like that. May Parker has always made her point.
Every Spider-Man movie should be solid in every department, and offer something special. In this case, I would say the script was only about 80% right, but James Franco as Harry Osborn and the new Green Goblin rocked. That was special.
I could have done without all the mask removal. I thought the second issue pushed it, but the third issue overdid it.
Donald Sensing's review is good, though I liked the movie a lot better than he did. Then again, I'm an easy marker for truly spectacular superhero movies.
I agree that Tobey Maguire as a Darker Parker was top notch, but that didn't surprise me because I expect him to be great by now. He rocked as Red Pollard in Seabiscuit (2003) too. (And that is a good movie.)
However, because I liked Harry in the Spider-Man movies, I saw James Franco as Tristan in Tristan + Isolde (2006) too, and he was good but nothing special. The role of Harry or the direction of Sam Raimi or something must have suited James Franco exactly right. What happens with him is basically just crude plot twists, but he makes it feel - wow!!
Rosemary Harris as May Parker was as good as ever, but the script was not there for her. J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson was as funny as ever, but without the help from the script and the screen time he should have had. If you've seen Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson in Spider-Man (2002) and Spider-Man (2004), you've already seen the best of that character. Kirsten doesn't drop the ball, but she doesn't add anything to the character either - and I thought there was enough for her in the script to have done so. Bruce (the chin) Campbell was funny and good as 'Maître d’', but then you expected him to be good, didn't you? I liked Elizabeth Banks as Betty Brant, and I wish the series could go on, so I could see more of her, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
Everybody new was good. Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko the Sandman was the best, and Sandman is one of my favorite villains, so yay! :) But the more Sandman was treated as an excuse for gigantic special effects, the less interesting he was. He was more interesting the more human he was, and when he was struggling to get his act together.
Sam Raimi showed a great gift in the previous issues for making the fights complicated and in the right style for Spider-Man, while keeping things clear and big but not too big. This time, after the first fight, I thought the Spider-Man style continued to be solid, but there was some acceleration beyond the point where acceleration makes sense. I was as thrilled as I was going to get in the first fight - there was no need to go "King Kong versus not one, not two but three, that's three tyrannosauus rexes!!" on it afterwards. I think King Kong (2005) should have told us "OK, that's enough!" not "here's the new mark that everybody has to surpass." I thought there was more juice in Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow singing "Bye Bye Blackbird" than in all the extra monsters on Monster Island - let actresses and actors of talent breathe, and they'll do the job for you.
Then again, I like Spider-Man better than the Pirates movies, but at the box office, the most spectacular movie set the records, so I guess it was a sound commercial decision for Spider-Man to be the most spectacular act possible.
Because of all the money it is making, maybe Spider-Man will disregard the three movie idea. I hope so.
In that case, here is a pattern to break:
Movie 1: one great villain.
Movie 2: two classic villains, but with Doctor Octopus needing to be watered down a little to fit in the plot.
Movie 3: three major villains, squeezing out other parts of the movie, and still none of them with room to fully expand.
Dial it back, guys. Sometimes "too much!" is good, and sometimes it's just too much. 4 --> four would be a bad idea.