Labor Day

Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: Kate Winslet, Josh Brolin, Gattlin Griffith, Tobey Maguire, Dylan Minnette, Clark Gregg, Brooke Smith, James Van Der Beek, JK Simmons, Alexie Gilmore, Brighid Fleming
Running Time: 111 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ (out of ★★★★) 

There are two scenes in Jason Reitman's stab at an Oscar-friendly period piece, Labor Day, that had me howling with laughter. No, it's not the infamous peach pie scene, in which Josh Brolin's escaped convict romantically teaches Kate Winslet's single mom how to make a peach pie. It's ridiculous for sure, but what  beats it is a long soliloquy from a manipulative teen girl that's one of the more hysterically out of place and overwritten speeches in recent cinematic memory. To say dialogue like this wouldn't come from the mouth of a girl that age isn't even doing it justice. It wouldn't come out of the mouth of any human being on the planet. Even in 1987. The boy listening to it has this dumbfounded look on his face the whole time and who can blame him? He'll later have a dream about her that's the second most ridiculous scene in the film and an embarrassingly bizarre depiction of an adolescent's first stirrings of sexuality.

Give Reitman credit for going way out of his comfort zone in adapting a Joyce Maynard novel, even if it's a place I hope he never goes again. And that's coming from someone who thought his last film, Young Adult, qualified as a darkly comic masterpiece. Apparently, enough people disagreed for him to attempt this mishmash of tones, which starts promisingly as a lurid crime drama before evolving slowly and painfully into what feels like a lightweight Nicholas Sparks adaptation. While featuring a pair of strong performances, it contains holes in logic large enough to drive a truck through, which is odd considering just how dull and formulaic the story ends up being. If this came from any other director it would probably be considered a decent if middling effort, but from a talent like Reitman, it's an unwelcome departure and an even bigger disappointment. If nothing else, we should at least give him credit for admitting it. The faster he puts this behind him, the better.

Adele Wheeler (Winslet) is a depressed single mom raising her 13-year-old son Henry (Gattlin Griffith) in a Boston suburb in 1987. After husband Gerald (Clark Gregg) left her for his secretary, it been difficult for Adele to even leave house, with young Henry stepping up to assume the responsibilities of the household. As luck would have it, the one time a month the agoraphobic Adele can bring herself to the store, bloodied fugitive and convicted murderer Frank Chambers (Brolin) takes her and Henry hostage, formulating a plan to evade police while hiding out in their home. But he gets a little too comfortable, and so do they, with Frank becoming a sort of surrogate father to Henry and the husband Adele wishes she always had. After a while, the word "hostages" hardly applies as the stoic fugitive warms up to the idea of a new family even as he's haunted by a troubled past. But police are closing in, forcing him to decide whether his freedom is worth the potential  harm that can come to this woman and her son.

The story is narrated by an adult Henry (a miscast Tobey Maguire) and is in a way presented as a coming-of-age tale centered around his journey and memories of that Labor Day weekend in 1987. Ultimately though, that portion is where the film falls shortest, taking a backseat to the dopey romance. At the risk of dating myself, there's little in the film that gives us any real sense it's taking place in 1987, or was part of anyone's childhood, save for maybe the period cars. There's also little in the way of establishing the setting which we're lead to infer is a Massachusetts suburb primarily because of Frank's Red Sox cap and little else. After the standoff start one would expect from a fugitive taking hostages, he settles into the role of cook, handyman, electrician, dance instructor, husband and father. For Henry he's a more than suitable replacement for the dad who walked out on him while Adele's sees as a potential lover rather than a dangerous criminal almost right from the start.

Many of the film's problems stem from Frank being such a great guy that there's basically no conflict at all, aside from some really nosy neighbors. Everyone in town is bothering this kid about his mom, and not of out concern for her mental health, but because they're annoying and invasive. A supermarket clerk cross examines him about his items. Townsfolk show up at their door unannounced, and in some cases, even walk right in. And yet, Frank's been cleaning gutters and fixing cars in broad daylight without anyone noticing. Ironically enough, the one time everyone should have known something was up was when Adele and Henry are first abducted at the store, and none too subtly either. You couldn't imagine two more obviously petrified people not wearing shirts that read "HOSTAGES." But there is one rewarding sequence involving the unexpected visit of a handicapped child that does create some genuine tension and suspense with Frank's identity threatened to be accidentally revealed in a surprising manner.

Interspersed with the present-day action are flashbacks to Frank's past and the murder that landed him in prison. These sequences work and are some of the more visually impressive, but we know from the start Frank is no coldblooded killer, so while the scenes are engaging, nothing about them feel revelatory. Winslet and Brolin are fine in their roles, with Brolin the clear standout. But you could probably name half a dozen or more of their performances that are better, if only because the material was. Gattlin Griffith is strong too, except when he's dragged down in scenes with the aforementioned girl (played by Brighid Fleming), which force him to react to the unreactable.

Everything completely collapses in the third act when a character figures out information they couldn't possibly know and what started as a fugitive on the run story recalling A Perfect World or The Fugitive deteriorates into The Notebook. James Van Der Beek appears as a cop, and maybe the only smart character. Too bad even he's wasted when we realize Reitman was more interested in settling into a weepie love story. Maynard's source material is just too stilted and reserved for a filmmaker of his type. He needs that contemporary humor and a satiric edge to really excel. Here, he's handcuffed, dishing out a traditional period piece as is, without the benefit of being able to explore. Labor Day starts as something important with accelerating tension but by the end it's almost completely neutered, fizzling out as it approaches its final lap. It's one of those movies that seem enjoyable enough while you're watching only to discover afterward just how much better it could have been.            
       

The Great Gatsby

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher, Jason Clarke, Elizabeth Debicki, Amitabh Bachchan, Jack Thompson, Adelaide Clemens
Running Time: 142 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

The pressure and expectations that accompany adapting a classic novel for the big screen can be overwhelming. Unless, of course, it was already poorly adapted. Such is the case with F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, which already spawned a 1974 version starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow lifeless enough to double as an insomnia cure. One thing you can't call Baz Luhrmann's 2013 take is "lifeless," but considering he's the director of Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge, we could have easily guessed that going in. My reasoning for including it in the runners-up section of the year's most anticipated films had less to do with the fact that I suspected it would be any good (though the potential was there) and more to do with it's potential as an entertaining train wreck with some memorable performances. He specializes in those, each resulting in varying degrees of creative success.

The big surprise is that this is far from a train wreck. It isn't crazy. It's a faithful, respectful re-telling of the original story that fulfills most of the expectations associated with our idea of the quintessential adaptation. In fact, the craziest thing about it is the title character, or rather the mesmerizing, off-kilter, over-the-top performance given by the actor playing him. And yet it feels right in this context. Not only does the movie look tremendous, but the story is absorbing and heartbreaking, working in tandem with the visuals to create a surprisingly rich and rewarding movie experience. Audiences loved it while critics were more mixed, but I'm siding with the former. There's an uncertain first hour, and a bit too much narration for my taste, but the payoff is sensational. Simply put, it's a great film that deserves a spot in the upper echelon of recent cinematic literary adaptations.

In just about the only change from the novel, Yale University grad, World War I vet and failed writer Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) pens his story in a sanatorium where he's being treated for alcoholism. It was the summer of 1922 when he moved from the Mid West to New York to take a job selling bonds and taking up residence in West Egg, Long Island. His neighbor is the elusive, enigmatic Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a mysterious millionaire who throws lavish parties at his extravagant mansion. Confused by his recent invitation to one and taken aback by Gatsby's sudden interest in him, it soon becomes clear to Nick that his true interest is really in his cousin, Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), with whom he had a love affair five years prior. He's only thrown these parties with the hope she'd one day show up. Nick reconnects them, with the only problem being that she's married to philandering, brutish polo champion Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). He's determined to unravel the mystery of Gatsby before it's too late and he loses his wife for good.

The biggest fear I had approaching this was that Luhrmann would use Fitzgerald's novel as a launching pad for a feature length music video or a rough outline for contemporizing it without having to face the backlash of actually contemporizing it. I fully expected this would primarily be a visual feast, with characters served up as appetizers to sell soundtracks. As it turns out, neither comes to pass. While the parties are a crazy visual spectacle employing elaborate use of CGI, over-the-top sets, quick cuts, and contemporary music, it's not a distraction and dovetails surprisingly well with the time period and story. If anything, it's more restrained than we were led to believe from the trailers, and while Jay-Z provides the score and Lana Del Ray an original song, nothing necessarily calls attention to that or takes us out of the period setting. Those concerns are only further squashed when we meet Gatsby, the buildup of which is given the satisfying mystery it deserves, proving that the story does really come first here. The slow, steady introduction of the mysterious Gatsby amongst rumors he's a spy and other far out rumors regarding his past, is the film's ace in the hole. And it's a credit to the script and DiCaprio's charismatic performance that those mysteries never feel fully disclosed even when they eventually are.

The film doesn't really begin until Gatby shows up and he knows how to make an entrance. DiCaprio just owns this from his very first scene, using the character's playboy persona to mask his massive insecurity. The brilliance in his portrayal comes when he subtly gives signs that he may not necessarily be in love with Daisy as much as he's obsessed with holding on to her and the past. That he's been throwing these lavish parties for years with only the hope she'll eventually show is almost proof enough. And when Gatsby eventually starts to crack, we still side with him because he remains so likable and relatable despite the extravagant lifestyle he leads. DiCaprio makes it easy for us to understand how, given his background and personality, the character would behave like this.

At first, Gatsby's using Nick to get to Daisy but the irony ends up being that the bond that forms between the two men might be the only real connection that's forged in the story. Nick's using him too, realizing his cousin is his free pass into a privileged world he may not have otherwise had access to. But because both are so honest and upfront about their intentions a true friendship is eventually formed and it's only toward the end, when all the leaches sucking off Gatsby's wealth have abandoned him, that we realize it's likely Nick was the only friend he's ever had.

Maguire makes for the perfect Nick Carraway since the actor's biggest selling qualities have always been his naivete and wide-eyed amazement at what's happening around him. He's the ideal vessel for the audience in that he's the rare reliable narrator who actually does seem reliable. We believe every word he's saying, even if one of the script's few flaws is that he's probably given too many of them, as the characters' actions are more than suitable in carrying the load. It had to help that DiCaprio and Maguire are in reality very good friends, and it's a credit to them that viewers would probably be able to guess that watching them interact on screen together.

Those expecting Carey Mulligan to make for an unforgettable Daisy should probably consider that the character has always been kind of a cipher or blank slate for Gatsby to project all of his obsessions onto. Even in the book that seemed to be her very specific function so there's really only so much an actress can do with that and Mulligan delivers exactly what's asked of her, but little more. Daisy isn't exactly a woman of agency but it's easy to imagine other rumored candidates for the role like Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson having a much rougher time with it than Mulligan, who possesses a certain type of innocence onscreen that they rarely convey.

Stealing most scenes is newcomer Elizabeth Debicki, who as golf pro and potential Nick love interest, Jordan Baker, nails the period look, manner and way of speaking to the extent that she not only draws attention to herself, but shines the spotlight on her castmates as well. Joel Edgerton gains a surprising amount of empathy for the brutish Tom Buchanan, as his third act verbal showdown with DiCaprio ends up being one of the film's strongest sequences. Rounding out the cast is Isla Fisher as Tom's mistress Myrtle and Jason Clarke as husband George, whose residence in the industrial "valley of ashes," is sensationally visualized by Luhrmann, even incorporating the novel's iconic paperback cover within the setting in an inventive touch.

We shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth as this is as good an adaptation of the source material as we're going to get, or was even possible. It's almost mind boggling that the reaction has been so divisive when Luhrmann stayed so relatively true to the original text. If anything, he could have taken more creative liberties since this is almost restrained for him. But this was the right approach. How he brings it home at the end with a surprisingly emotional wallop should be proof enough that there's a lot more going on here than the impressive production and costume design and cinematography, which will still likely figure in huge during awards time. This was hard to do but Luhrmann nailed it, proving that sometimes it isn't always best to leave well enough alone. By putting a new polish on a familiar story he's succeeded in making it more accessible, while not abandoning any of the original elements that made it work.  

Brothers

Director: Jim Sheridan
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Sam Shepard, Clifton Collins, Jr, Mare Winningham
Running Time: 105 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Over the past few years viewers have endured more than their fair share of films dealing directly or indirectly with the war in Afghanistan. With Brothers we have a first: Overseas torture mixed with soapy melodrama on the home front. But how sad it is it that I find this approach preferable to having more political propaganda pushed on me by Hollywood? The first and second hour of this film seem penned by different writers, the tone is all over the map, the casting is off and yet somehow the film comes together and works. And it works because the movie knows exactly what's it's trying to do and does it, foregoing cheap sentimentality. After a rough start where you're not exactly sure the direction things are going in, it makes a sharp left turn wherein two unbearably tense scenes and one frightening performance define the entire film. While I wouldn't be eager to partake in another viewing and it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head, the script honestly explore its ideas without deteriorating into the love triangle it was advertised as.

Just as Marine Sam Cahill (Tobey Maguire) prepares to embark on another tour of duty overseas, his "black sheep" younger brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) is released from prison after serving time for armed robbery. Sam's wife and high school sweetheart, Grace (Natalie Portman) with whom he has two daughters (played by Bailee Madison and Taylor Grace Geare), can't stand Tommy's reckless behavior, nor can his disapproving father (Sam Shepard) who constantly belittles him for not measuring up to his big brother. Then word comes that Sam's helicopter was shot down and he died. In actuality, he's taken as a POW and is being tortured in a mountain village. Back home, the bond between Grace and Tommy grows over their mutual loss, at least until they receive the shocking news that Sam is alive. But he returns a shell of his former self, psychologically destroyed by his experience and carrying a secret that's eating away at him with guilt. Now he has to learn to how re-connect with his daughters and deal with the developing relationship between Grace and his brother.

The first hour is very off putting. It starts with the familiar story of the screw-up little brother getting out of prison, complete with one of those stereotypical military dads (played here by Sam Shephard) who loves one son and hates the other. Scenes of overseas combat and torture you'd expect to see in a film like Babel or The Hurt Locker are interspersed with a family soap opera back home that at first glance seems like it belongs on the Lifetime channel. But the second half irons this problem out and it at least becomes clear why this approach had to be used, even if part of me still thinks it may have been more effective to show less of it. It's obvious from the casting and the heavy emphasis on the infidelity plot point in the trailers that the primary goal was to pack as many females into the theater as possible to clean up at the box office.

Luckily, the trailers were a complete misrepresentation and the film ends up being more interested in how war can psychologically transform someone to a point where they're no longer recognizable to even those closest to them. Despite what the teasers indicate, not much occurs romantically between Tommy and Grace, but one of the more realistic details of the film is that the returning Sam senses "something" happened while he was gone. No one even has to say anything. He just knows. Whether it's from watching a lot of movies like this or just the fact that his wife's Natalie Portman, he's able to put two and two together. That's believable.

Coming home eerily resembling a zombie and with twenty pounds missing from his already slender frame, Tobey Maguire owns every scene he's in. He's like a ticking time bomb waiting to go off at the slightest provocation, making you believe that in a sense Sam really did die in Afghanistan, only to be replaced by this empty shell of a man. He's so scarred from his experience that intimate, emotional contact with anyone is impossible. He can't communicate with his wife anymore on any level and his daughters are scared to death of him, wondering aloud what's happened to their daddy. There's a scene at the dinner table during a birthday party that's just unbearable in the amount of suspense created. The tension mounts and builds for minutes until the situation just explodes and as impressive as Maguire is in it, young Bailee Madison as his daughter is right there to match him. I really liked how she outwardly shows affection to her father but behind her eyes you can see just how terrified she is of him.

You could argue all three actors are miscast, chosen for their star power with little consideration given to whether they were even right for the parts. This continues what's starting to become a popular trend these days in movies: Casting too young. The hiring of actors who for whatever reason (whether they're not old enough or don't act or look old enough) aren't credible in the more age experienced roles they're being asked to play. Maguire and Gyllenhaal were at least the RIGHT wrong actors for this because they're talented enough to fake it until they make it and are more than capable of meeting the challenges put in front of them with this story. Portman isn't. I know everyone thinks she's this great beauty who can do no wrong but for me she just continues her long streak of mere adequacy, done no favors here in a part that's all wrong for her.

Portman just isn't believable as a mother with two children that age, nor is she any more credible as a grieving widow struggling with feelings for her brother-in-law. When Grace opens up about her high school days in an intimate U2 themed fireside chat with Tommy, Portman can't hold up her end of the deal because she just isn't skilled enough at conveying the kind of person Grace would have been. Instead, I just kept picturing her face buried in books at the school library. If they had to cast in this age range a better choice for the part would have been someone like Katie Holmes, who would be more credible as a mother and we know from past films she at least shares the necessary chemistry with Maguire. Portman fails to ignite even the slightest spark with either actor. In her defense, she does get better as the film wears on and the focus shifts, or maybe I just eventually gave up and accepted how ill fit she was for the role. Luckily, Maguire and Gyllenhaal are so good in this that they carry Portman through so that she doesn't seriously harm the picture.

Gyllenhaal is actually less miscast than stretching out of his usual comfort zone with a darker character, which he pulls off. Even though Tommy's a black sheep you don't want to make him too much of a jerk and he does a great job walking that line. While Maguire isn't very believable either as a parent it hardly matters because his performance as a raging psychotic is so riveting that it holds all the loose ends together. Those who understandably forgot while he was wasting his time and talent making the Spider-Man films can be reminded how gifted an actor he really is here. I'm relieved it only took him only one film to get right back to business.

When it all finally comes to a head in one climactic final showdown there's legitimate doubt how it will end and whether everyone in this family will survive. I was surprised how thoughtful and restrained the ending was considering all that came before, but thankfully everything wasn't too nicely tied up in a bow for us either. Director Jim Sheridan (who's no stranger to family dramas) and writer David Benioff deserve credit for tackling the issue head on and not backing down. While watching Brothers I was reminded of 2008's Stop-Loss, which also dealt with the emotional trauma of soldiers trying to reaclimate themselves to normal life, but fell victim to its own political grandstanding. This pulls some strings and pushes a few buttons, but emotional grandstanding is just what this topic needed. Too many movies dealing with the after effects of war have played it safe, cautious of offending anyone or going too far over the top. Brothers deserves credit for at least having the guts to provoke a strong reaction.

Spider-Man 3

Director: Sam Raimi
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Hayden Church, Topher Grace, Bryce Dallas Howard, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons, James Cromwell
Running Time: 139 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** (out of ****)

Okay, so sue me. I liked it. I guess it's true what they say about the third time being a charm because this was the only Spider-Man movie I actually found myself thoroughly enjoying from beginning to end. That I'm still only giving it 3 stars should give you an idea of how highly I think of this franchise. Are there too many characters and plotlines? Probably. There's enough material jammed in here to stretch over several movies, but I think this is a rare case where more is actually better.

I don't mind if a movie has a lot of characters so long as they all serve an important purpose in the story and I care about them. With the exception of maybe one here, who's just around for window dressing, I can honestly say I did. Considering how much is in here it's balanced very well and this is the first film in the series where I can say I actually cared about the relationship between the two main characters and what happens to them.

They took a risk here taking the Spider-Man/Peter Parker character in a new direction and a lot of audiences were turned off by it. I wasn't. Going in I suspected I'd hate this, but looking back I should have known there was a good chance I wouldn't. I tend to enjoy comic book films where our superheroes are tortured and going through "issues" (remember, I actually liked Hulk) and I'm a huge fan of the three actors they added to this third installment, one of whom plays the coolest villain we've had yet in the series.

I did think in the back of my mind that just the addition of those talents would prevent this third film from going sour. I was right. They also take a character from the first two films and flesh him out better, investing him with a considerably greater amount of depth and allowing the actor playing him a chance to shine. The film also contains one of the funniest scenes I've ever viewed in a superhero movie, a scene that for some reason audiences were put off by.

After disposing of Doc Ock in the second film, Spider-Man is on top of the world and more popular than ever. His alter ego Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is faring just as well, acing college and planning to propose marriage to his longtime girlfriend Mary-Jane (Kirsten Dunst), who's making her Broadway debut. Only about a couple of thousand obstacles stand in the way of potential marital bliss, chief among them the bitter grudge held by Peter's former best friend Harry Osborn (James Franco), over Peter/Spider-Man's responsibility for his father's death. He's out to exact revenge, while another evildoer, escaped convict Flint Marko (2004 Oscar nominee Thomas Hayden Church) is determined to do whatever it takes to get the medication that could help save his dying daughter.

We also find out, much to Peter's horror, that Marko could have a connection to Uncle Ben's murder. He's chased by police into a radioactive testing zone and in one of the best scenes in the film, transformed into a sand creature. Peter must also contend with a cocky new Daily Bugle photographer Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), whose girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) seems to have eyes only for Peter. If that isn't enough (and I know many think it should have been) Peter's Spidey suit is infected by a black, oily parasitic substance that causes him to act out in an irrational way unbecoming of the Spider-Man we know and love from the first two films. This said substance eventually finds another agent of evil through Eddie Brock, who as Venom tries to even the score with arch nemesis Peter.

There's a lot going on in this picture. An awful lot. You could argue way too much. But you know what? I enjoyed most, if not all of it. Could at least one of these villains been saved for another Spider-Man installment? Absolutely, but that's no reason to punish the film for executing what it has in it very well. It's a juggling act for sure but one the movie pulls off impressively considering how much is crammed into its running time. Sam Raimi, Ivan Raimi and Alvin Sargent's screenplay actually makes some interesting choices this time around and we're given more than just Spider-Man trying to save the world from a villain from a failed science experiment.

Most comic book movies would be lucky to have even one villain that's somewhat interesting. Here we have four. After being given nothing but nonsense for two straight films, James Franco's Harry Osborn is finally given some depth in the third outing and his amnesia storyline is not only compelling, but very well acted. The transformation that character undergoes during the course of the film is actually believable thanks in no small part to Franco's terrific work. He really shines here and the movie effectively closes the whole Parker/Osborn saga in the best way possible. I was also very relieved he didn't have the same cartoonishly laughable Halloween costume his father did in the first film.

The Sandman breaks the mold of previous Spidey enemies in that he actually has some kind of a purpose and backstory that's interesting. He's not out to just kill people and I like how Church plays him as a real human being who was dealt a bad hand instead of just a villain bent solely on total destruction. Too many actors would have just hammed it up, but he wisely turns the volume down and gives a very effective performance as this troubled man. I've criticized the visual effects in the Spider-Man films in the past but when Marko transforms into the Sandman it's awe-inspiring and you can't take your eyes off it. If I have one complaint, it's that this character wasn't given a stand-alone film because he's by far the best villain they've had in this franchise. Still, I can't say he's given the shaft here at all.

Topher Grace was the perfect casting choice as a foil for Peter Parker since the actor does really seem like a more sarcastic version of Maguire. While I enjoyed the newsroom feud between Parker and Brock, I'll admit the movie did probably bite off a little more than it could chew by transforming Brock into Venom during the last ten minutes of the film in a real stretch of believability, even for a movie like this. It's almost as if they were desperately running out of time and had to try to squeeze it in.

Of all the characters, Gwen Stacy is the only one that could be considered useless and there just really as a plot device. Bryce Dallas Howard is also saddled with the clunkiest dialogue in the film, particularly in the scene where she presents Spider-Man with the key to the city. It's clear Howard was cast just so we can look at her, but seriously, can I really complain about that? This film also does more with even the most minor characters like Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons), Peter's flirty next-door neighbor Ursula (Mageina Tovah) and Bruce Campbell, who has his funniest cameo yet in the series.

Many criticisms have been leveled against the scene where EMO Spider-Man struts down the street Saturday Night Fever style but what everyone seems to be missing is that IT'S INTENDED to be funny. And it is. I was laughing with it, not at it. Complaining that this, of all things, seems out of place is especially strange when you look at some of the stuff that unfolded in the first two films. Is it not "serious" enough? Raimi already proved he has no intention of taking any of this seriously before so it's pointless to expect him to now. I was actually relieved he finally embraced just how silly this whole thing truly is. Batman Begins this is not. I thought Maguire pulled off the egotistical transformation well and it was nice to see something different finally being done with the Spidey character that cast his relationship with M.J. in a new light and created an inner conflict for Peter.

It was fascinating to watch Peter's obliviousness to his own self-absorbed behavior and its effect on those around him, specifically M.J. That combined with the developments in Harry's character create an engaging moral center in the film. Fans have bashed Kirsten Dunst for her comments to the press that the Spider-Man franchise couldn't survive without her, but for the first time here I was left wondering whether she may actually be right. I thought this was her most mature, self-assured performance of the series and the first time she looked truly comfortable in the role. Watch the scene on the bridge with Peter or the one in the kitchen with Harry. She's really good. But that doesn't mean I'm not at least a little curious what would happen if Dunst and/or Maguire don't sign on for Spider-Man 4.

This has one of the better endings of any of the Spider-Man films (even if I could have done without a running reporter's commentary describing the action) and all the stories tie together at the end, a small miracle considering how many of them there are. I especially liked the decision Raimi made with the Sandman character in the finale. Some of the complaints against the film are valid, but they're not nearly enough of them for me not to recommend it. A little too much was stuffed into one film, but I don't think it in any way hurt what we're given. It seems a little crazy to criticize a film that should be built on excitement and excess for giving us too much of it. If this was a low budget emotional drama I could understand, but it's a huge event movie. The overkill almost seems appropriate.

This film's 139 minutes flies by and it isn't plagued with the minor pacing problems of this summer's other big action blockbuster, Transformers. I can't imagine how anyone could come out of this feeling short-changed or disappointed. What did you expect? It's just plain fun. I'm no fan of the franchise, but now the only reason I can find not to look forward to a fourth installment is that maybe all the villains and storylines have been used up. I wouldn't be crying if the franchise ended on this note, but at least now I'm not dreading the next film if it does come. Raimi must be doing something right. One thing can be said for sure about Spider-Man 3: There's enough in it that you won't be bored.