Bad Movies We Love: Spider-Man 3
We revived Bad Movies We Love last week with Cher's Chastity, a quaint '60s jam full of boring monologues and menacing lesbianism. But Movieline is barreling ahead with a film that combines superhero glitz, melodrama and the campy pizazz of a Gwen Stacy dye job: Spider-Man 3. You think James Franco is fancy now with his Oscar buzz and amputee cred? Wait until you revisit him in Spider-Man 3, the film that pinned our disbelief under a boulder and forced us to saw it off using Topher Grace's frosty tips. Are you emotionally ready to revisit when Spider-Man went emo?
First, a synopsis: Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) is a superhero. Fin. That's it. And I guess he fights villains and specializes in dining with his tepid girlfriend Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who is heretofore called Tepidia. Whatever. He also faces personal hardships that end up fueling his big battles. But that's it; Spider-Man 3's assorted plots don't make it a Bad Movie We Love. You must survive the rotating storylines -- including the true identity of Peter's Uncle Ben's killer, Mary Jane's momentary romance with amnesiac Harry Osborn (James Franco), and the evil rise of Peter's Bugle rival Eddie Brock, Jr. (Grace), who turns into Venom -- in order to get at what's lovable here: the unbearable hilarity of Peter Parker's "blue period."
Here's what Peter looked like in the first two Spider-Man installments:
Blithe, nerdy, and torqued to ride Seabiscuit. Here's what he ends up looking like in Spider-Man 3:
Bleak, nervy, and ready to star in Willard. Rodents race at this man's galoshes. He stalks sewage systems and grimaces skyward at humankind. His hair is combed forward. Growl/meow. Except while Crispin Glover might actually unleash a fury of kangaroo rats if you botch his Pinkberry order, Tobey Maguire looks angry enough to unleash a devastating acoustic ballad. At his worst, he's moody. That's the glorious part of Spider-Man 3: The filmmakers seem to agree that nonsense about killers, supervillains and Tepidia is quite tiresome. Their solution is to toss it all aside and expose our protagonist for what he is -- a projection of the (primary) audience's boyhood angst. It's an uncomfortable and priceless statement.
The justification for Spider-Man's emo-lution is as follows: After Tepidia dumps him and evil compels Harry into betrayal, an oily black substance (a "symbiote") finds its way towards Earth and affixes itself to Peter's Spidey suit. Of course. The black Gak overtakes the costume, turning it a foxy jet color and giving Peter enhanced powers that make him act huffy and selfish all the time. Oh, he slams doors now! Yeah! And he scoffs. And he uses the computers at the public library without taking the online etiquette course first. He is an unhinged maniac. Or his hair is just combed forward. Maybe I mean that.
In his first moment of Willard-ly achievement, Spidey storms the offices of The Daily Bugle, where rival photographer Eddie has earned his coveted staff job, and exposes the man's work as a forgery. You'd think that would be satisfactory enough for an arbiter of poetic justice like Spidey, but no: He starts an out-and-out brawl with Eddie after the nebbish starts begging for forgiveness.
"You want forgiveness?" Peter sneers, preparing to toss Eddie into a glass display case. "Get religion."
Pages: 1 2
Comments
What this movie offers is that unmatched feeling of "is this really happening? (or am I just really high?)". The fact that someone thought the inclusion of a Bob Fosse dance number was a great idea will always make this film a thing of wonder to me.
Yeah this movie is totally watchable for some reason. I find the Clooney Batman movie the same way.
This movie's kind of inspiring- in the theatre, every moment all I could think was how amazing it was that millions upon millions of dollars were dedicated to enabling this weird vision.
His appearance is more douchbag with a dash of emo.
Fascinating, if only to see what a conference room table of extremely rich Sony entertainment pros consider to be 'timely', 'youthful' and 'now'. This film is the leaking tumor of Sam Raimi's career. But it's sort of funny, in a shitty kind of way
It is supposed to be funny - the women are not sharing at him lustfully, thet are loke: " what's wrong with thar guy?". You have this movie all wrong. I guess some people just don't get little things like humor and irony.
And in what way does the film justify domestic violence? Cool your jets guys.