Superhero Media: Spider-Man 3

Full disclosure: I loved this film when it came out. I enjoyed the hell out of it, warts and all. And I was 18 or 19 at the time too, I remember skipping a lecture to go see it. The fan narrative about Spider-Man 3 is that Sam Rami had a genius vision for the film, but has it "taken away from him" by the studio and producers, resulting in the mess we got. I don't buy that, mostly because that's not really how these things go, and also because, more than a decade and a film degree later, I can see where everything was stitched together. Yes, including Venom (and probably casting Topher Grace, of all people) was directed by Sony to cash in on the popularity of the character, but the infamous dance scenes and the comedy proposal with Bruce Campbell is pure Rami, through and through. When I watched Spider-Man 3 this time, I found I was really analysing it in a way I hadn't bothered with before, because, to use a phrase, the film is a hot mess. 

If Spider-Man 3 were just a bad end to a good series, I think people would forget it, rather than still complain all these years later, but that's not the case. There are plenty of good moments, great characters and fun ideas in Spider-Man 3 that punctuate the narrative and serve to make the bad parts even worse. For example, Sandman is pretty well realised and his story works, right up until the point that he admits to killing Uncle Ben and Peter forgives him with no emotional struggle. I like Harry Osborn becoming a new Goblin and trying to get revenge on Peter, even the amnesia part of the story (very Silver Age), but the costume is terrible and why does he come to help Peter after he beat him and scarred his face? Each story works as a narrative in it's own right, but the film is far too long and the resolution of each story is too brief to really satisfy. So rather than the "too many villains" problem that many like to spout about this and Batman & Robin, I see the issue as more "too many conflicting story lines". 

Or how about "too many characters"? Why are Gwen and George Stacey in Spider-Man 3? I mean, they're there because they're both super important in the Spider-Man comics, but they don't really have much to do and could have been just as easily been Liz Allen and Jean DeWolff for all the difference it would have made. Now I've gone and complained a bunch, there's plenty I enjoy in Spider-Man 3, like Peter having to buy his new "bad-ass" outfit at a thrift store because he's still broke, or Elizabeth Banks absolutely stealing the few scenes she's in as Betsy Brant without trying. How about J Jonah Jameson having another moment of congruence when he fires Eddie Brock for plagiarism and we get to see what his genuine anger looks like rather than the bluster. Aside from the rather offensive accent, Bruce Campbell is great as the romantic waiter, and Stan Lee puts a button for the ages on the introduction. Spider-Man 3 is a mess, but I do still get something out of watching it, perhaps it's latent nostalgia, or just how much I really love the dance scenes, but when I re-watch the Rami trilogy, I never skip this one.