In the middle of 1988 writer David Michelinie and artist Todd McFarlane introduced comic book fans to Venom through the pages of "Amazing Spider-Man" #298 - #300. Reading the Venom stories back then, it occurred to me for the first time that a Spider-Man movie would totally kick ass. When I saw "The Abyss" in 1989 and "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" in 1991, Jim Cameron's then cutting-edge CGI. liquid effects were mind blowing, but more than that they had my friends and I talking about how a live action Venom could now be pulled off. I believe there are a lot of us who have been waiting to see Spider-Man fight Venom in a movie since that first issue almost 20 years ago. "Spider-Man 3" offers a black-suited Spider-Man, an alien symbiote story, and Venom, but it is not the Venom fight I've been waiting 20 years to see. To put it simply, I enjoyed "Spider-Man 3." It's a good film and worth seeing for movie fans and comic fans alike. However, I can also say that it's the worst Spider-Man film of the three. It isn't "The Godfather part III" of the Spider-Man trilogy, but it certainly comes up short.

Tobey MaGuire (or more accurately "some stunt man") in Spider-Man 3.

View Slide Show (39 images)

Spider-Man 3 finds Peter Parker on top of the world. The city loves Spider-Man and he's about to ask Mary Jane to marry him. It's unfortunate (and damned unlucky if you ask me) that his old friend/enemy Harry Osbourne chooses now to attack him in the guise of Marty McFly from "Back to the Future part II." Not only that but a malevolent outer space oil slick attaches itself to Peter's moped, and the real killer of Peter's Uncle Ben escapes from prison and gets turned into a super villain. Talk about a bad week! Right off the bat, the story is overly complicated fraught with too many subplots that rely on coincidence to intersect. It isn't difficult to follow, but it's scattered and fragmented, and the pieces suffer because of it. Any two of those stories would mesh into a compelling movie, but including all three becomes a jumbled mess. The Sandman story and Gwen Stacy both feel shoehorned into an already busy movie that only addresses them in the downtime of the symbiote storyline. Raimi wanted to tackle the character of Peter Parker being seduced by the Dark Side as it were, and that is where much of the focus of the movie resides. I'm not one to complain about a "black suit" storyline, but having the alien symbiote crash land on Earth yards from Peter and Mary Jane in a meteor didn't work for me (especially when there was an astronaut character in Spider-Man 2 who could have, just as easily, brought it back on the shuttle). Giving the black suit and Venom both stories in one film was a poor choice. It would have been better to tell a black suit/symbiote movie (with Sandman or Green Goblin II as a second plot), wrap up those stories, then during the denouement introduce Venom right before cutting to the credits. That way in the next film we get to see Venom as a proper Spider-Man villain and the third movie could avoid the "Butler ex machina" to tie up the plots.

There're many things in "Spider-Man 3" that I liked. First of all, I think I'm ready for a movie and/or TV series starring J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. Let's cancel a doctor show (leaving only 3,000 others on network television) and give me a Jameson show. Minute-for-minute he's the best thing about all three movies. The birth of Sandman sequence where Flint Marko crawls from the sand for the first time was also very well-handled, but I wish the character was a bit more villainous. This is a comic book movie, Lowell. You've got to go bigger! Really gnash those teeth and emote. I enjoyed that Venom scared the little girl sitting next to me. It's good to know that movies can still scare kids without being horror, and that parents are still willing to damage their young. I carry some scars of my own from a theatrical double-feature of Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" and "Watership Down" (who knew cartoons could have so much blood?). I know it probably won't be well liked by the comic book intelligentsia, but I laughed during the sequence where Peter has worn the black suit for too long and he basically turns into Teen Wolf dancing down the street. It would not have been out of place if Jerry Levine pulled up in a "Spider Mobile" playing Beach Boys music. Well, maybe a little out of place, but I liked that bit nonetheless. It was completely unnecessary, however, to carry that joke further into Peter doing a dance number in a jazz bar later on. That was too much. Despite the story being too complex, I wanted to see it unfold. Perhaps it's the comic book fan in me, but I just like seeing these characters interacting on the big screen. They don't have to always be fighting (although it helps), but I'd prefer it if they didn't sing and dance very often. Speaking of fighting and action, "Spider-Man 3" has some wonderful superhero action scenes, but it still feels light on action when it's over. To all you other comic movie directors, a good rule of thumb to use when editing a movie is to always choose superhero fighting over singing and dancing. Actually you romantic comedy directors should do that as well.

Venom's appearance in Spider-Man 3 is short but memorable.

"Spider-Man 3" let me down, but that's more the fault of "Spider-Man 2" for being so damn good. It didn't deliver the Venom experience I waited for, and didn't raise the Spider-Man bar like the second movie did. It still stands up as a quality comic book movie, but leaves you thinking of the missed opportunities rather than the spectacular action. Sony has all but confirmed that three more Spider-Man movies are planned, and Sam Raimi has stated on more than one occasion that leaving the franchise would be very difficult. There are many more rogues in Spider-Man's gallery that I'd love to see on film, but Venom was a fan-favorite that should have been handled better.

Join our discussion on this topic