Roofman

Director: Derek Cianfrance
Starring: Channing Tatum, Kirsten Dunst, LaKeith Stanfield, Juno Temple, Peter Dinklage, Ben Mendelsohn, Uzo Aduba, Emory Cohen, Melonie Diaz, Molly Price, Lily Collias, Kennedy Moyer, Alissa Marie Pearson, Tony Revolori
Running Time: 126 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)   

In Derek Cianfrance's Roofman, we get a nostalgic glimpse inside a Toys "R" Us as it existed in the early to mid 2000's, filled with aisles of DVDs, video games and stuffed animals as far as the eye can see. And it's a safe bet even younger viewers unfamiliar with the store will still be equally amazed and perplexed by this unusual setting for a film. So it only stands to reason that the idea of actually living in one for six months would fulfill the wishes of a certain generation of kids who all identified with the company's philosophy of never growing up.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work as well as an adult, especially if you're scouring the shelves for junk food, relying on a Spider-Man sleeping bag for comfort and lacking a shower or any meaningful human contact. And there's nothing like being slapped with the harsh reality that even our most beloved stores employ incompetent managers handcuffed (or zip tied) by crippling corporate policies. While it beats being homeless, a wanted fugitive can't stay in one place for long, making this extremely likable protagonist's dilemma a sort of karmic comeuppance for years' worth of irreversible mistakes.

It's 1998 and divorced U.S. Army veteran Jeffrey Manchester (Tatum) is resented by ex-wife Talana (Melonie Diaz) and struggling to provide for his three kids, seemingly hitting a dead end in life. But after extracting the wrong message from a conversation with friend and former sergeant Steve's (LaKeith Stanfield), Jeffrey utilizes his military skills to rob multiple McDonald's restaurants by breaking through the roof overnight. Unusually apologetic and polite to the morning crew of employees, he garners national media attention as the "Roofman" before eventually being caught and sentenced to 45 years.

Seamlessly escaping prison in 2004, but with a manhunt underway, Jeffrey finds refuge inside a Charlotte Toys "R" Us, disabling security cameras, ransacking shelves for candy and finding an inconspicuous spot to sleep. After noticing employee and single mom Leigh (Kirsten Dunst) having problems with inflexible store manager Mitch (Peter Dinklage), he secretly intervenes before stealing toys for her church's toy drive. Dating Leigh under the guise of New Yorker "John Zoran" he even connects with her daughters Lindsay (Lily Collias) and Dee (Kennedy Moyer). But the closer Jeffrey gets, the more likely he's caught, ending this relationship for good.      

The real kicker is how Jeffrey doesn't exactly fit the profile of your typical armed robber, even when he superficially seems to. He's failed as a husband, fears he's disappointing his kids and probably has a story similar to other incarcerated individuals who took up crime as a last resort. But the key difference lies in how acutely aware he is of his shortcomings, never losing the desire to prove he's someone his family can rely on. 

Even clad in black clothes and a ski mask, Jeffrey's guilty conscience betrays him by how well he treats his petrified McDonald's hostages. And when the police do catch up with him, all he can think about in prison is getting out, naively hanging on to the hope he can just return home and start over, despite his young daughter watching him get tackled and arrested on her birthday. And it's that motivation pushing him to orchestrate a prison break smooth enough for The Shawshank Redemption's Andy Dufresne to wonder where he went wrong. 

Some of the most entertaining scenes involve Jeffrey's tricks to avoid detection inside the Toys "R" Us, at least for a while. He even starts to have fun, until the temptation to get involved becomes too great, unconventionally affording him a second chance built on one giant lie. But his feelings for Leigh and her kids are genuine, even as he continues to put them in danger, hoping they won't get hurt when the fallout comes. 

In one of the best performances of his career, Tatum plays to his understated everyman strengths, projecting a charm and harmless sincerity that immediately puts viewers in the palm of his hand as he  juggles lightweight comedy with more emotional drama. While we understand why strangers would embrace this guy without question, Tatum's biggest feat is in getting us to empathize with Jeffrey regardless of his criminal indiscretions. We dread his eventual capture not for the consequences he'll inevitably face, but all that lost potential.

Sharing an effortless chemistry with Tatum, Dunst completely gives herself over as the trusting, feisty Leigh, who's trying to recover from her own failed marriage, if only for the sake of her two daughters, the eldest of which couldn't be moodier. For Leigh, "John" is too good to be true, mostly because she's only seen what he's shown her, however real those feelings are. As Mitch, Dinklage gives one of the more eerily accurate portrayals of a prickly retail manager, right down to his sarcastic asides and passive-aggressive criticisms. It's kind of scary just how well he nails this character, who only shows his true vulnerabilities when the going gets tough. 

Nearly every sub-plot works, whether it's Jeffrey's interactions at the church, his wild attempts to bond with Leigh's daughters or a side story involving hapless Toys "R" Us employee Otis' (Emory Cohen) inability to stand up for himself. If there's a head scratching character, it's Stanfield's Steve, who's constantly passing judgment on his friend, which would fine if he wasn't hypocritically running a criminal enterprise himself. Even worse, all his advice only leads to more trouble for Jeffrey and a coincidentally huge bill for help. 

All of this can only end one way, with Jeffrey pulling off a final heist to earn the kind of freedom he's not sure he wants or deserves. It also brings him face-to-face with some of the messier consequences his choices cause, as Cianfrance and co-writer Kirt Gunn flip this unbelievably true story on its head to mine thematic gold. But much of that can be attributed to Tatum, who has us rooting for his affable character to somehow turn things around, as increasingly unlikely as that may seem.                                       

Civil War

Director: Alex Garland
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Sonoyo Mizuno, Jefferson White, Nelson Lee, Nick Offerman
Running Time: 109 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

It seems the biggest obstacle still facing those on the fence about seeing Alex Garland's unnervingly realistic dystopian thriller Civil War is the worry it's too political. Trailers and commercials have done little to alleviate those concerns, prompting many to already file this under "the last thing we need right now." But the biggest surprise to come out of this harrowing war drama and road trip movie is just how apolitical it actually is. Instead, it's the harsh immediacy of Garland's fictitious scenario that stands out, rarely offering a breather from the emotional and psychological trauma engulfing these characters.

Clearly intended to serve as a cryptic warning, Garland knows it isn't about picking sides, but crafting a sci-fi parable where there are no easy choices. What separates us destroys us and that certain details remain vague feels fitting since audiences will just end up projecting their own beliefs and viewpoints onto it anyway. Everyone sees themselves as the hero in their own story, with the film far less interested in the cause of this polarization than its potentially dire consequences.

The United States is in the midst of a civil war and an authoritarian government led by a third-term president and accused fascist (Nick Offerman) is on the verge of surrendering to the Western Alliance, consisting of armed militias from Texas and California. With the entire nation split into various factions, jaded war photographer Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) and her Reuters colleague Joel (Wagner Moura) plan on driving to Washington D.C. to interview the embattled president. Their mentor Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) views it as a careless suicide mission, but joins in to get a ride to Charlottesville, Virginia's front line. 

Also tagging along is aspiring young photojournalist Jessie Cullen (Cailee Spaeny), who Lee encountered during a previous bombing and is none too happy about "babysitting" on this trip. Soon, all four are thrown headfirst into deadly situations few in any profession would be capable of handling. Evading sniper fire and ruthless militants, they continue their trek to D.C., unsure of the violence that awaits, providing they survive long enough to experience it.

There's no voice-over telling us who's in what faction, why certain states seceded, nor are we given an extensive recap detailing the background. Like the characters, we're just kind of dropped into this hell and given enough respect to figure things out on our own without sermonizing or judgment, making the unfolding atrocities all that much scarier. And while valuable information is frequently dispensed, most of it comes through these journalists as they struggle to objectively navigate this brutal situation. 

Texas and California's union indicates the script isn't tipping its hand in either direction, as it shouldn't since these events are presumed to be taking place in a hypothetical future. That detractors have ignored this is a credit to the film's realism, further supporting its point that a similar scenario is right around the corner if work isn't put in to prevent it. Well beyond politics, wars often begin for crazy, pointless reasons that only seem logical to those who start them, yet always remain preventable before, during and after they're already underway.    

This is far from Lee's first rodeo, mastering the art of compartmentalization because no photograph is off limits. For her, Jessie's presence is an irritant, most likely because the sensitive, inexperienced Missourian represents the younger version of herself she had to leave behind to do this. If Lee's flattered by Jessie's idolization of her, she sure won't show it, which is hardly a surprise coming from someone who admits she wouldn't hesitate photographing her newest protege being killed. And when a traumatized Jessie freezes during a scary gas station encounter, Lee's stone cold reaction only confirms it.

While unquestionably an ensemble effort, it's Dunst's movie, barely hinting what lies beneath Lee's numb outer shell as it finally starts to crack, the lines and expressions on her face telling us everything we need to know. And having recently played a naive, impressionable character thrown into a world she can't comprehend in Priscilla, Spaeny portrays another odd woman out in Jessie, who's underestimated at every turn. Wanting nothing more than to walk in the shoes of her idol, she'll get that chance, but this rite of passage won't be worth celebrating. 

If Jamie represents who Lee was, it's Sammy she fears becoming, and veteran character actor McKinley Henderson plays him with a plainspoken sincerity and wisdom that comes from experiences the rest don't yet have. A New York Times field reporter aging out of his job, he knows the score and despite his awful, sinking feeling about this trip, he's not quite ready to ride off into the sunset. Of the four, Maura's Joel is the risk-taking adventurer, but even he'll realize this is way more than any of them bargained for. None have the luxury of denying reality, unlike the residents of a quaint, unaffected rural town they'll pass through, as if it were a stop in The Twilight Zone.

The film's scariest moment comes when the four encounter a sadistic militia leader played by Jesse Plemons in a brief, terrifying turn that makes his Todd from Breaking Bad seem like a boy scout. It's also the point where Garland draws a line in the sand, forcing us separate the few details we know about this conflict from evil in its purest form. And in a film filled with jarring, unforgettable shots from cinematographer Rob Hardy, this sequence provides its queasiest, paving the way for a brilliantly shot action finale that sees Western Forces descending upon D.C. in search of a secluded president running low on options.

It's hard to believe a picture this gigantic in scope runs just under two hours, but Jake Roberts' editing ensures that the pacing never lags and there's barely a minute to come up for air, with fear and dread intruding on even the quietest of scenes. Zeroing in on the involuntary instincts that kick in when confronted by humanity's worst, these adrenaline-addicted journalists are rightly scared to death, but joined by a shared obsession to tell the story through their lens, whatever the cost. In depicting a nation fraying at the seams, Civil War recognizes the media's reckless ambition, while also acknowledging just how much of themselves get lost in the process. Everyone thinks they're ready, but it isn't until entering the belly of the beast that they'll find out.                                  

The Power of the Dog

Director: Jane Campion
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Kirsten Dunst, Jesse Plemons, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Thomasin McKenzie, Genevieve Lemon, Keith Carradine, Frances Conroy, Peter Carroll, Alison Bruce, Alice Englert
Running Time: 126 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

For much of Jane Campion's The Power of the Dog, you're wondering where it's all going. There's this uneasy feeling that never subsides throughout, even as it remains too easy to categorize the absorbing Western as merely a set-up awaiting the big payoff. While the narrative's broken into five parts and centers on four characters, the story's really focused on one. He's the antagonist, instigator and individual keeping us in constant tension as we dread his next move. From this antagonist's first appearance, we speculate what his deal really is, and that curiosity never lets up as he tightens his stranglehold on the other characters forced to reckon with his sociopathic behavior, albeit in very different ways. Spending an entire film waiting for someone to snap and anticipating the catalyst could be draining, but Campion milks that for everything it's worth. When the explosion does come, it definitely doesn't arrive how we expect, as do very few developments in this deeply layered script adapted from Thomas Savage's 1967 novel. 

Set against the backdrop of a cold, unforgiving world that suffers no fools (and an equally icy Jonny Greenwood score) the film's about monstrous behavior in search of an explanation where none could ever suffice. It's when an answer starts presenting itself that the story gets even stronger, with Campion showing incredible restraint by presenting this development as almost entirely subtext, letting viewers draw their own conclusions about this man and what shaped him. Similar to There Will Be Blood, it's about an egotistical madman running roughshod, dominating the proceedings and devouring everyone around him. And like that film, we root for his comeuppance, unaware of what those consequences could entail. 

It's 1925 Montana and wealthy, ranch owning brothers Phil (Cumberbatch) and George Burbank (Jesse Plemons) stop by the inn of widow Rose Gordon (Kirsten Dunst), whose son Peter's (Kodi Smit-McPhee) effeminate demeanor and appearance is mocked by the cruel Phil. Considerably kinder brother George consoles Rose over the incident, leading the two to become romantically involved and eventually engaged, with her moving in with him at the Burbank ranch, further angering Phil. As Rose whittles under the pressure of having to impress George's parents and Governor Edward (Keith Carradine), loose cannon Phil becomes even more of an unwelcome, threatening presence in their lives. With Peter coming back from school to stay at the ranch and George walking a difficult line in attempting to control his brother, Rose continues to mentally and physically deteriorate. But unfortunately for her, Phil seems to have found a new friend, further fragmenting an already tenuous family dynamic at the brink of implosion.

Upon first meeting the Burbank brothers, a couple of details are clear right away. Phil's an angry, bitter, damaged man who never misses an opportunity to belittle or insult anyone he comes in contact with. He shows his only shred of humanity when reminiscing and telling stories about late friend and mentor, "Bronco" Henry, who has to rank among the most important unseen characters in recent film, assuming he even exists. Residing somewhere between reality, myth, and legend, it's obvious this mystery man molded and shaped Phil into what he eventually became. Not showing him is smart, as even a brief flashback would shatter the mystique of a character audiences have already built up in their minds as being more impactful than whoever we'd see on screen.

Hints are dropped that Phil used to be somewhat of a respectable member of society with an impressive educational background. He's also touted by his brother as an engaging conversationalist, to the point that his presence is actually highly anticipated by the governor at George's disaster of a dinner party. It becomes even more of one when Phil makes a unfashionably late entrance after being insulted by his brother's suggestion that he clean up and bathe. It's one of the few times George stands up to his brother in any way and he's noticeably weak and uncommitted, walking back the suggestion almost immediately, even going so far as to apologize later for bringing it up.

Brother George definitely has a system in place for dealing with Phil. He simply doesn't, finding ways to work around his deplorable behavior, just taking it on the chin when he calls him "chubby" and even occasionally building Phil up in ways that may not even be true, further encouraging his brother's narcissism and selfishness. And yet George remains the only guardrail and protector from himself Phil has, as ineffective as he often is at the job. With his down home demeanor and outwardly pleasant disposition, Jesse Plemons is perfect in this and likely won't get the credit due to him for carrying much of the picture's fist half. With him providing such a stark contrast as the calm, steady responsible sibling, Cumberbatch's bone-chilling portrayal of Phil jumps out even more. 

Dunst's arc might be the most shocking in just how far Rose falls from how she's initially perceived. Some of this can be attributed to Phil, but red flags hint that it wouldn't have taken much to send her spiraling down a hole of alcoholism and depression. What's impressive about Dunst is how it seems as if she's playing two parts before completely letting go of one, stripping away the functional facade Rose attempted to project upon marrying George. She wrongly sees herself as a fraud and a series of challenges bring out her instability, with only son Peter seemingly in tune with its severity, even while remaining too withdrawn to act. Kodi Smit-McPhee plays Peter's cards close enough to the vest that he becomes just as intriguing a mystery as Phil. In the last act, his performance takes over in ways entirely unexpected, especially considering how unassuming his introduction was.  

Phil Burbank remains the story's big question mark until the very end. And what a finish Campion gives us, as George and Rose kind of fade into the background while Phil's motivations and history become the focus. Even as he continues his abusive, performative displays of toxic masculinity, Cumberbatch still gives Phil these fleeting self-reflective moments of vulnerability where we know there's a lot more to this guy than the show he's putting on. And the scariest part of this is that there's another character who might be just as maladjusted and complicated as he is.         

When karma does finally catch up it's a cruel irony we're too conflicted to know how to feel because Cumberbatch's performance has taken us on such a ride, adding new wrinkles and questions to Phil with each surprising plot development. An emotionally diseased man who doesn't see himself as anyone else does, the entire film undergoes a shift in perspective by revealing how he truly views himself, taking the story to another level and lifting everything around it. And then there's that final twist, so carefully and patiently executed that you may need a rewatch to truly appreciate how all the seeds were subtly planted to get there. The Power of the Dog is a slow, deliberate burn, but for good reason, keeping you on edge waiting to see how a seemingly impossible situation can be resolved when no one seems capable of taking the initiative to stop it. 

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.