In Defence of Spiderman 3 and Pirates 3

Recently, the comment boards on IMDb.com and elsewhere have been rather negative towards Spiderman 3 and Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End. The hatred has gone so far, even I (a devote fan of Sam Raimi and his Spiderman series) recieved an invitation to a group of people who believe the only good quality in Spiderman 3 was Bruce Campbell.



Personally, I liked Spiderman 3 and believed it to be the logical step for the next movie in the series. The usual complaint was there were too many villians. However, going into the movie, we knew Harry Osborn (Flyboys'James Franco)is going to take his father's footsteps. If they put this off any longer, then Harry would only be walking around like he did in the second movie and we'd grow tired of him.

Then there's Venom. But the more interesting side of Venom is when Peter Parker (Tobey MacGuire) is sporting the black suit, not Eddie Brock (Topher Grace). But if Spiderman is to fight bad guys in the black suit, he'd need a supervillian. This is where Flint Marko, the Sandman, (played by Thomas Haden Church) comes in.

If you're still asking why there's so many villians, think of what Spiderman 3 summarized, what theme would it have? Sam Raimi wrote the story with his brother, Ivan Raimi, focusing on cruel heroes and sympathatic villians.

Did we really want another superpower-heavy action movie? No, that's what the X-Men trilogy is for. Did we want another hero without a darkside? No, that's Superman Returns. Okay then, dark-sided hero without apologies? No, that's Batman. If the first movie of Spiderman was giving us an upclose look at the choice to become a hero and the second movie was giving us a look at what it costs, then Spiderman 3 couldn't just repeat the first two, so it moved on into Spidey's personal life: the Harry-Peter-MaryJane love triangle and the hero's attitude.

The ironic thing I've noticed about the complaints about villians, is few mention the true villian of the movie: Spidey himself. If he hadn't been selfish (even when he didn't have the blacksuit on) then he wouldn't have lost MJ to the temptation of Harry in the first place. Had he not broken Eddie's camera, would Eddie still have framed Spiderman? Let's not forget: Spidey hit MJ too.

For Pirates 3, the main complaint I've heard of is no one likes the ending with Will taking over the Flying Dutchman. I loved it. Finally, an ending we didn't see coming, putting Jack on the spot to "do the right thing." Is there a reason we can't have the unexpected ending? Recently, crowds have enjoyed Saw trilogy for/despite its twist endings, and down the hall a full audience enjoys Mr. Brooks for pulling off a double-twist ending that actually twists. We can save the traditional guy-saves-girl-off-in-sunset ending for, well, pretty much all the other movies. This is one of the few chances a movie has to be different and Disney took the opportunity. Just think how romantic it is for Elizabeth to sit on the shoreline with her son in ten years, waiting for Will. Oh, did you miss that part? It's at the end of the credits.

Anyhoo, I'm not going to go on forever. Comment if you want.

Thanks,
Jack.