Editorial: Movie Dilemma of the Decade

From time to time since I first saw Spider-Man 3, I think about whether or not I like the movie. I was in Japan this summer for a little over a month and during one long train ride my mind returned to this thought. I went to Montreal one weekend and while walking on Boulevard Saint-Laurant I again came back to this same conflict. It is a recurring debate in my head. I own the DVD and still watch it, but I just cannot decide whether I like it or not. This is my movie dilemma: as an action movie, I think it sucked, but as a story about redemption and forgiveness, I think it was really good. Can I say I liked some of it but not all of it? On the other hand, do I have to like all or nothing? Since this is not a movie review, I am just going to pick out the parts useful for my arguments.

The Prosecutor says that since it was a superhero movie it should have been action oriented. From my point of view the action was not well done. It did a poor job using Venom and the Green Goblin as villains and a poor expression of symbiote Spider-Man. I understand that the symbiote intensifies emotions but I did not expect that deep down Peter Parker was actually a suppressed emo jazz dancer. By embracing the symbiote, he should have become more antagonizing and colder, not fashionable and spiteful. Whatever emotion it was supposed to bring out, I wish it was presented in a different way. I do not care for Peter when the black goo forces him to dance and gel his hair. Now if it made him violent, that would be interesting.

I was not impressed with Topher Grace as Venom at all. Everyone knows Eddie Brock is a tough guy who has a bone to pick with Peter, not a weak whining but optimistic loser. They tried to mirror Topher Grace’s Eddie Brock to Peter Parker to show that he made all the wrong choices that Peter overcame, but what is the use of doing that? The movie did not need two Peter Parkers. We already have to deal with the issues and angst of one, what is the point of having the other? They could have made him the way he should have been, a jerk who wants to defeat his competition. Then when the symbiote fell on Brock he would turn into a more resembling Venom, aggressive, psychotic and lethal. I always thought to myself that Topher Grace’s Venom was crying underneath his mask. Not much of the frightening character he is supposed to portray.

It was also lame writing to have Harry Osborn get amnesia for a bit of the movie, then regain his memory and become murderous towards Spider-Man, and then all of a sudden return as his partner against Venom and the Sandman. The flip-flop was inconsistent. Mainly though the amnesia part was the most frustrating thing in the relationship between vengeful Harry and innocent Peter. The Green Goblin is a cool villain, but in this movie the “New Goblin” just lacked cohesion. If they had left out the amnesia interruption and just had Harry try to kill Spider-Man a few times, then near the end somehow realize he was wrong and then aid Spider-Man against two villains, okay maybe that would be a decent plot thread. The amnesia was just a weak confrontation delay.

I also did not like the inclusion of Sandman as Uncle Ben’s killer. It just seemed like an “oh by the way, this guy was there the whole time and you just didn’t know it until right now” cop-out. They tried to use it as a surprise connection between the Sandman and Spider-Man so angry black suited Spider-Man would have something to avenge, and as a form of guilt for Flint Marko (human form of the Sandman) to mull over. It reminded me of the way in Batman & Robin (with George Clooney as Batman) they made Two-Face the killer of Robin’s parents. That was unacceptable comic book heresy.

In defence, the Spider-Man mythos has always been more about emotions, morals, relationships and complex characters than action so I suppose they had the right to try something like this. Spider-Man as a character is sensitive and introspective to begin with and I liked how he thought so much of himself now that he was a celebrity in New York. It was good characterization to have him think that everything revolved around him, Spider-Man with a swollen head, and contrast that to Mary Jane with her dwindling Broadway career. That was a well designed relationship conflict.

More than anything, I liked the crowning themes of redemption and forgiveness. Those are genuine, solid movie themes that are rarely presented so well and appreciated so much. The Sandman character presented them best. The poor guy was estranged by his wife and daughter and outcast, then had his genetics restructured into sand.  He was an antihero. These themes applied to the other characters as well, transforming them into human characters in a world they do not control. Despite Peter’s powers, he is still capable of making mistakes in his relationships. Just as the Sandman’s life was ruined by that fateful day outside the library and how he since sought forgiveness for it, so to did Peter require reconciliation with Harry over the death of his father. The relationship between Peter and Mary Jane grew distant with Spider-Man’s success, and because of the affects of the symbiote. This falling out between Peter and Mary Jane was reconciled after her rescue in the end, and they all seemed to figure out that best intentions never end well for anyone – even Spider-Man. True themes should rise above the action, and these themes I happen to feel are important.

Therefore, Your Honour, I like the movie for its genuine quality, but I dislike it for its lack of action, disjointed and cumbersome plotlines, and the incorrect portrayals of the villains. So how do I say that I liked Spider-Man 3 but I don’t, or I thought the movie sucked badly but I really enjoyed some parts of it a lot? This is my movie dilemma.

Weigh in your thoughts in the comments section of this article or take it to the forums for a full on discussion. I am undecided!