The Greatest Trick

About halfway through Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, someone comments that Captain Jack Sparrow is making it up as he goes along. That is exactly what the filmmakers did, since director Gore Verbinski rolled the cameras on this movie before the screenplay was even finished.

And boy does it show. As far as I’m concerned, the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have taken over from the Matrix sequels as the most ludicrously overrated summer blockbuster franchise in recent memory. To be fair, the original picture was an enjoyable adventure romp with a plot that didn’t bear close scrutiny. Actually it didn’t bear any scrutiny, but its trump card was the character of Jack Sparrow and his highly amusing Keith Richards impersonation. Even though the joke wore thin in its overlong running time, it was sufficiently engaging to be remembered as an above average silly season flick.

But when its first sequel, Dead Man’s Chest, took a woefully misguided “Empire Strikes Back” approach, things got very bad very quickly, culminating in this truly dire third instalment. Picking up from the ludicrous events of its predecessor (Bambosa’s resurrection is just one of many story threads which have deeply unsatisfying explanations) the nonsensical plot doesn’t really have a chance. Maddening and unnecessarily complicated to the point of insanity, one gives up following it almost immediately. There’s a map that leads to the land of the dead where Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann et al try to rescue Jack. Then there’s some gobbledegook about the pirates captains of the world uniting against the East India Trading Company led by Lord Beckett, who now has that Davy Jones bloke with the tentacles working for him. Oh, and something about a weirdo voodoo priestess who turns out to be a sea god. These plot threads all culminate in a big sea battle where loads of ships face off against one another but only two actually fight.

Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightly, Geoffrey Rush and Johnny Depp all reprise their roles to competent if pointless effect. New characters come and go without much rhyme or reason (a wasted Chow Yun Fat as Captain Sao Feng for instance), and the old characters are too busy disentangling themselves from endless double, triple and quadruple crosses to engage the audience. It obviously goes without saying that the special effects are spectacular, and in fairness, Verbinski stages the set pieces with a modicum of flair, especially in the final battle. But such positives dwindle into insignificance in the face of a deeply and profoundly rubbish script. When I consider that this bloated, overblown monstrosity of a film probably cost the same as the national debt of a small Latin American country, something is definitely wrong if the best thing in it is a brief gag involving a telescope. The studio executives who green-lit this picture without a finished screenplay should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

I had hoped the third instalment of this monumentally tedious franchise would be the last, but it is my sad duty to report that after three hours of interminable drivel, things are left very much open for additional sequels (especially in a post credits sequence, if you can be bothered to sit through them). However, since the great unwashed continue to flock in droves to see Jack Sparrow et al, such ongoing sequels are, alas, inevitable.

Simon Dillon, May 2007.

Zodiac is an intriguingly different entry in the serial killer genre. It is based on a true story about a murderer who called himself Zodiac and taunted San Francisco police and journalists with letters and cryptic messages throughout the 1970s. The film focuses on the impact the investigations had on their families, careers, and how in some cases the drive to catch the killer became an obsession. Ultimately, Zodiac was never definitively identified and became renowned as a kind of US Jack the Ripper.

Based on Robert Graysmith’s book, the film follows cartoonist Graysmith’s interactions with police inspector David Toschi, and journalist Paul Avery as they attempt to unravel the mystery. Early scenes which depict the killings Zodiac actually committed, as opposed to those he merely claimed responsibility for to show off, set an awkwardly disturbing tone, which then gives way to an All the Presidents Men type investigative drama. Director David Fincher provides a fascinating period piece thriller which proves an interesting reminder of how awkward it was for police to co-ordinate their efforts in a pre-mobile phone and email era.

Performances are good on the whole. Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo are both excellent as Graysmith and Toschi respectively (even if Toschi does resemble Columbo). Robert Downey Jr is more or less on autopilot, and even Anthony Edwards (Goose in Top Gun) has a good supporting role.

Unfortunately, the film comes somewhat unstuck with its overlong running time, and as a study of obsession, it doesn’t entirely convince. Instead, it descends into cliché with Graysmith’s obligatory nagging wife (a wasted Chloe Sevigny). Although attempts to generate sympathy for her are understandable, the simple fact remains that the audience want Graysmith to complete his investigations and don’t care how much time he spends with his family. If these elements had been cut, the film could have been a tighter, more focused, fact-based thriller.

Ultimately, this does not scale the heights of Fincher’s best work. Se7en and Fight Club remain his masterpieces, but Zodiac is certainly better than Panic Room (his most commercial and least interesting picture to date). It will become an interesting cinematic footnote, if purely for its breaking of cinematic convention in serial killer films by not revealing the killer. Yet even this is not entirely without precedent. Fact based Reversal of Fortune and fictional The Pledge both pulled similar tricks, and for my money, both films are better.

Simon Dillon, May 2007.

John Carpenter was approaching greatness when he made this solid B-movie in 1976; having just delivered an impressive piece of sci-fi comedy with Dark Star, and with the masterfully directed horror hat-trick of Halloween, The Fog and The Thing to come, he was about to really hit his stride. This isn’t quite Carpenter at his best, but it gives a good foretaste of what was to come.

A police lieutenant is given a dead-end job for the night - looking after a station (in a part of town renowned for its gang violence) that’s closing down for good the following day - when a terrified, speechless man runs in seeking shelter. Minutes later, all hell breaks loose as the well-armed gang on the man’s tail arrives at the police station intent on seeking revenge for the murder he has just committed (I won’t spoil one of the movie’s most shocking moments by saying why he kills a gang member). The skeleton staff of the abandoned precinct must defend themselves at all costs, while at the same time dealing with a group of criminals being transported from prison to death row who have been forced to make an emergency stop at the station…

Nearly 30 years later, re-directed by Jean-François Richet, the story has been given a minor overhaul and updated with various elements designed to make it work better for today’s cinemagoer. The assault, for example, is the work of a corrupt cop rather than a local gang, the plot takes one or two more twists and turns before working itself out, and the characters are given extra ‘depth’. I have to say I don’t think these changes make a vast improvement, and the things that let the original film down are either still there or have been replaced by other disappointing elements. Like Ethan Hawke.

What I really loved about the original version was the relentless and faceless nature of the enemy. The only gang members you see are featured right at the start of the film, and while it is safe to assume that these are the ones orchestrating the attack on the police station, you never see them. In fact, you don’t really see any of the attackers’ faces, which helps to bring a sense of terror to the proceedings. Of course, it also means that when they are killed you don’t care about it at all, which always sits uneasily with me; in fact, it makes it feel very much like a zombie movie, just with the monsters moving that bit more quickly, and the 2005 version doesn’t have this feel about it at all. I also liked the way that those being attacked really had no clue as to why, except that they were in a violent part of town. Only the audience knows about the killings at the start which kick the whole thing off, and this provides a sense of helplessness which the characters must also be feeling.

The look and sound of the 1976 movie have been sensibly updated in the 2005 version, if only by virtue of using new film stock and not lighting everything as dingily as Carpenter likes to do. It’s been a while since I watched the three films I mentioned at the start of the review, but I seem to remember them being very dark and muted in terms of the colour palette, and this is the same. I’m sure this wouldn’t be such a problem in the cinema, but at home it makes it harder to watch (especially as I get more and more prone to falling asleep whenever I sit on the sofa for more than 5 minutes). John Carpenter also composed the music for the film, and I don’t think this is one of his best, to be honest, and at some points distracts from the events on screen.

While the 2005 version of the story looks and sounds up-to-date (as it should!), the fact that the writers and film-makers feel the need for it to conform to current filmic tastes and Hollywood conventions lessen its impact for me. Like I said, the characters and plot of the first film have precious little exposition or scenes establishing their motivations, while here we get a whole prologue explaining why Ethan Hawke’s character is so troubled, for example. Hawke (and, to a lesser extent, Laurence Fishburne, who plays the mafia boss being transported past the station when a blizzard forces them to stop) has never been an actor I have particularly rated, as to me he looks like he might just burst into tears at the slightest provocation. Fishburne is just quite hammy in most things I’ve seen of his (although he couldn’t ruin The Matrix), and his performance here hasn’t changed my opinion. Both films are clearly violent, and the first one is probably less restrained with this; having said that, the remake contains a lot more swearing.

So neither film is perfect, but both are worth watching. Whether a remake was necessary is a different question, but at least this time the remake is not merely a shoddy reflection of a brilliant piece of work, as they often are (see Les Diaboliques & Diabolique for a perfect example of this).

28 Weeks Later, the sequel to Danny Boyle’s 2002 zombie movie 28 Days Later, is very much what Aliens was to Alien; bigger, louder, with far more action. A triumph for director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, this is a real treat for sci-fi horror fans, and everything one could possibly want from such a film – fast, brutal, relentless and terrifying. For my money, it’s better than the original, and like Aliens, audiences will come out of the cinema feeling as though they haven’t breathed for two hours.

In the original picture, animal rights activists stupidly created the rage virus which turned the whole population of Great Britain into deranged blood-craving zombies. 28 weeks later, the zombies have all died from starvation. The US military have entered Britain to try and make it safe for citizens who were outside the country at the time of the original outbreak to return.

Amongst these are Andy and Tammy, who are reunited with their father Don, one of the few survivors of the initial outbreak. However, it a prologue it is revealed that Don only survived by abandoning his wife Alice when zombies attacked them. When Alice turns up alive and well, she is found to be carrying the virus, but for some reason it has not affected her. US military scientist Karen realises her blood might carry the clues to creating a cure, but before she has a chance to do anything about it, things go pear-shaped as another inevitable outbreak takes place. Because the outbreak takes place at night, the screaming populace become indistinguishable from the zombies, so the US troops are ordered to contain the outbreak by exterminating everyone, human and zombie alike. However, Doyle, one of snipers, disregards this instruction, and tries to take Andy and Tammy to safety, where their blood can perhaps be used to find the cure Karen is hoping for.

Performances are all better than what is normally expected in this type of film. The always watchable Robert Carlyle has an interesting role as Don, a man dealing with the guilt of his self-preservation instincts. But it is his children, Tammy and Andy (Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton respectively), that really stand out. Elsewhere fine sympathetic roles are provided by Emily Beecham (Karen) and Jeremy Renner (Doyle). Oh, and that bloke who plays Michael in Lost (Harold Perrineau) co-stars as Flynn, a helicopter pilot.

Although it could be argued that it lacks the freshness of the original, the gritty, edgy feel is maintained by Enrique Chediak’s splendid cinematography, in spite of the obviously bigger budget. The make-up and special effects are very well done, and the big action set-pieces are superbly staged – particularly in one audacious and spectacularly gruesome sequence involving helicopter blades and a large group of zombies.

Most zombie movies are political. Night of the Living Dead was about civil rights, Invasion of the Body Snatchers dealt with McCarthyism, and it doesn’t take a genius to work out that 28 Weeks Later is an allegory of what has happened in Iraq. Like Aliens, 28 Days Later contains an implicit condemnation of US militarism, but such political undertones are merely the icing on a deliciously grim and immensely frightening full-on blood drenched scare-fest. Those with sensitive stomachs had best avoid this for obvious reasons (strong swearing as well as violence), but for fans of the genre, this is a must-see.

Simon Dillon, May 2007.

Many of the films we’ve watched recently have been commented on via Simon’s reviews (e.g. Caché, Night Watch, The Constant Gardener, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, Capote, Hotel Rwanda, Walk the Line, Crash, United 93, Children of Men) and lots of them have been fantastic. We went through a nice run of last year’s Oscar contenders, which was interesting. But we have continued watching some older movies alongside these, and feel they need fair treatment!

The Poseidon Adventure (1972, drama, 4 stars) - the original and (I suspect) superior version of the story of a luxury liner overturned by a freak wave, forcing a group of terrified passengers to climb up to the bottom of the boat using only faith, the encouragement of a rogue preacher and the fear of death to spur them on. I loved it, and you might think it strange that I haven’t seen it until now, because it’s one of those bank holiday disaster movies, like The Towering Inferno, but it’s always passed under my radar until now. The ensemble cast of survivors is fantastic, and these are real characters, built up in the first 1/2 hour of the film and then torn apart through the events they have to live through. Deaths are affecting, and you find yourself willing these people to their eventual destination, no matter how many of them make it. The one spiritual caveat I would place on recommending this film is that the hero Reverend Scott, as played by Gene Hackman, spouts a totally ungodly sermon at the start of the movie.

Dracula (1931, horror, 3 stars) - any cinema historian / horror fan must surely baulk at the star rating there for this classic (the Bela Lugosi, Tod Browning-directed version), but that’s my opinion. Stagey and theatrical, both in its construction and acting style (it was based on a theatrical version of the blood-sucker’s story, so this is logical), this did far less for me (or Heidi) than Nosferatu, made a few years earlier and far more scary due to its more judicious use of light and dark. There are effective moments, but too many laughable, extended shots on Lugosi’s strange facial expressions. Having said that, if you have perhaps never exposed yourself to a movie version of Dracula and don’t particularly enjoy blood-letting, you could go for this as it is basically clean in terms of presentation (unlike Francis Ford Coppola’s crazy gory garish cartoon vamp of a movie, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”).

No, not the title of an obscure American indie feature (although perhaps it should be), but an indicator that we haven’t reviewed anything fully for some months and have gotten behind. So the following will also not be full reviews, but snapshots which we really want comments and questions on.

Knife in the Water (1962, drama/thriller, 3 stars) - The first feature film directed by Roman Polanski, his only Polish-language production and a pre-cursor to several more modern thrillers by other film-makers, and I’m thinking most readily here of Dead Calm and The Talented Mr Ripley in its plot and themes. A middle-class married couple, he middle-aged and she a fair amount younger, nearly run over a young hitch-hiker carrying a hunting knife and an attitude. Instead of just giving him a lift to his destination, they invite him to spend a day with him on their small yacht, for no discernible reason other than to patronize him. The young man takes all he can get from them, however, in more ways than one, and when competition between old and young men turns more serious, the tension racks up and the stakes are distinctly raised. Despite the wide-open vistas of the lake and surrounding land, it is claustrophobia that one feels more than anything, and that boat looks like the smallest living space ever when there is just one sailor too many.

Alien Autopsy (2006, comedy, 3 stars) - Ant and Dec star in a film documenting the facts behind the alien autopsy hoax revealed in 1995 regarding the dissection of an alien body found in the Roswell crash of 1947 (but it’s not a documentary, clearly). They are the 2 hoaxers, who just happen to come into possession of some sensitive film and see an opportunity to use it. It’s a good laugh, won’t challenge anyone but is most suitable for a Friday night’s viewing with some popcorn. Ant & Dec aren’t really actors any more, even though they started that way in their teens; they just play their charming selves and that’s enough for this story.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005, war/”historical”, 1 star) - Alien. Blade Runner. Thelma and Louise. Gladiator. Ridley Scott directed all these films, and each one is VERY highly thought of in filmic circles, even if they might not be to your tastes. I love all of them except T&L, which I’ve only seen the once. What I refuse to believe is that he also “directed” this unbelievably stinking messy pile of a movie, AND gave it a spiritual-sounding name!! I don’t think I have ever seen a bigger waste of resources thrown together to make a movie that clearly cost a lot of money to end up with such a shoddy result. Problems - there is no plot (need I go further)? No, seriously, until 3/4 of the way through I had no idea what the characters’ major objective was, or their main obstacle either. It was just a film where stuff happened. Orlando Bloom (or, as Mark Kermode regularly refers to him, Orloondo Bland) will never be as interesting and promising as he was in Lord of the Rings, and he couldn’t do anything with the lack of character given to him by the script here. A perfect marriage of crap material and uninspiring actor. I had half an idea that the battle scenes might be worth watching from such a visual master as Scott - I fell asleep during them. UNBELIEVABLE! Watch Gladiator for evidence that Scott can do this brilliantly - what the hell happened? My time is precious to me these days, especially leisure time, and I actually feel angry with Ridley Scott for stealing an evening from me with this indescribable pap.

More mini-reviews to follow soon…

First, a note to parents: if your children are expressing an interest in seeing this film, I would strongly recommend checking it out yourself first. Bridge to Terabithia is suitable for family audiences, but there are two reasons it would be good to be prepared. First, the marketing is misleading. Although this film appears to be another children’s fantasy, in fact it is something quite different. Secondly, and more importantly, an unexpected turn in the latter stages of the film may prove too much for the certain temperaments and cause parents to have to answer some awkward questions (as I left the cinema I saw at least one rather traumatised child in the audience whose parents had obviously been expecting something like The Never Ending Story).

Bridge to Terabithia is an adaptation of the popular US children’s book by Katherine Paterson from the 1970’s. I haven’t read it, but although this film version has been updated to the present day, it still feels as though its set in a pre-iPod age – a bygone era (which some of us still remember) when children were allowed to play outside and climb trees because parents weren’t paranoid about health and safety or paedophiles.

Eleven year old Jesse Aarons is the middle child in a family of six. Their parents are struggling to make ends meet, and he feels estranged from his world-weary father. At school he is good at art, but has to deal with bullies and a crush on his music teacher. Most humiliatingly of all, he wants to be a runner, but Leslie, the new girl in his class, beats him in a race.

However, Leslie is a free-spirited and highly imaginative girl who soon befriends Jesse and inspires him to stand up to the bullies. She also encourages him to pursue his artwork and during their games in the woods, they imagine the world of Terabithia – an enchanted kingdom filled with giants, armies mounted on dragonflies, armoured squirrels and a Dark Master, who has stolen the crown from the rightful rulers.

The various events in Terabithia are (presumably) intended to be allegorical of what is happening in Jesse’s life, and for the most part, the film succeeds in being a delightful children’s fantasy. The characters are engaging, and the performances are all very good. Josh Hutcherson and especially AnnaSophia Robb are excellent as Jesse and Leslie respectively. Solid support is provided by Robert Patrick (the T-1000 from Terminator 2) playing Jesse’s father, and as Jesse’s little sister May, Bailee Madison reminded me of the young Drew Barrymore in ET (I can’t think of a higher compliment).

However, just before the end, events take a sudden and tragic turn, and at this point, I suggest that if you intend to see the film, to do so then return to this review, as I cannot discuss the story any further without spoiling the end to some degree.

The death of a major character causes the film to have a somewhat uneven feel, and frankly, I wasn’t sure whether Bridge to Terabithia had earned the right to tackle such a difficult issue. I understand the novel was originally conceived as a fable to help children overcome the death of a loved one, but although director Gabor Csupo has crafted an atmospheric and likable picture, it didn’t feel as though enough momentum had been built for such a hefty dramatic turn. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for tackling difficult subjects in children’s stories, but death has been dealt with far more effectively in other works – Bambi, A Series of Unfortunate Events, and the Harry Potter series for instance.

On the plus side, there are many positive references to Christianity, including to God and Jesus. And whilst a theological debate on whether or not God “damns people to hell” might prove a thorny knot to unpick with one’s children, it is refreshing to see child characters who say things like “the whole Jesus thing is so cool” with such conviction. And there are many other redemptive elements. Eventually, Jesse’s father is the one who is able to comfort Jesse and reassure him that the dead character is safe in God’s hands.

In short, this is a surprisingly brave and worthwhile children’s film, but one that ultimately bites off more than it can chew. It’s well worth a look, but don’t expect the masterpiece many critics are claiming it to be.

Simon Dillon, May 2007.

Is it possible to have too much of a good thing? In the case of Spider-Man 3, the answer is emphatically yes. There are not one but three potentially excellent films all vying for attention here, and given the number of plotlines, at times I wondered if it was Robert Altman, not Sam Raimi, who directed this instalment of the arachnophile franchise. That said Spider-Man 3 is not a disaster. As a comic book “threequel” it’s nowhere near as bad as – say – Batman Forever, and it’s certainly worth seeing if you’re a fan of the first two movies.

The reason this feels like three films in one is because it has three villains. Contrary to what some critics think, the three villains thing can sometimes work in comic book films (Superman II for instance), but only where their motivations are unified. Here, the Sandman, Venom and the new Green Goblin each have radically different back-stories, each of which are explored as much as the overlong running time will allow. And that is the problem – each of them ought to have had separate films.

The film opens with Peter Parker feeling on top of the world. His studies are going well. Spider-Man is more popular than ever. His relationship with Mary Jane is blossoming, and he is planning to propose. However, this idyll is soon shattered by the escape of convict Marko Flint who it transpires was responsible for the shooting of Peter’s Uncle Ben. Flint is desperate to steal money that will help his sick daughter, but whilst on the run from police ends up trapped on a test site for some unexplained barmy scientific experiment (don’t you just hate it what that happens?). The resultant exposure causes Flint to mutate into the Sandman.

At the same time, Harry Osborn decides to take his revenge on Peter for the death of his father, and becomes the new Green Goblin. He attacks Peter, but after their fight, he sustains an amnesia inducing injury that makes him forget his feud with Spider-Man. This conveniently sidelines Harry’s character until an appropriately convenient lull in the plot is contrived for him to suddenly remember everything.

Whilst all this is happening, Mary Jane’s career as an actress takes a downward turn, as she receives bad reviews for her play. Because Peter is too busy enjoying the popularity of Spider-Man, he is unable to properly understand her feelings and be there for her, which causes their relationship to take a downward spiral. This comes to a head when Peter shows an interest in his class-mate Gwen, and jealousy rears its ugly head. Incidentally, Gwen is going out with Eddie Brock, Peter’s rival photographer at the Daily Bugle. Through events too convoluted to go into in this review, their competition soon escalates into all out enmity.

Oh, and a meteor crashes, bringing with it a sticky black alien symbiote that attaches itself like a cancer to Peter, forming a new, black Spider-Man outfit that enhances his powers, but also brings out his darker side. I hope you’re following this because as you can see, it’s very densely plotted, and I said earlier, too densely. Spider-Man 3 has so much story to tell, and so many loose ends that it feels it must tie up that one longs for the beautiful simplicity of the first film (or even the second, which was almost as good). Here however, the law of diminishing returns has well and truly taken effect.

As Spider-Man, Toby Maguire is as brilliant as ever, and it is now very hard to imagine anyone else in the role. Kirsten Dunst doesn’t seem quite as radiant as she was in previous films, but that is primarily due to the complicated nature of the story. As far as the major villains go, Topher Grace is effective as Brock, though is not given enough screen time to be truly memorable. Thomas Haden Church’s Sandman fares better, but again, we don’t see enough of him. For my money, the most interesting baddie is the new Green Goblin (the excellent James Franco), but because the film keeps cutting away to the other stories, his tragic character arc fails to gain the momentum it needs.

Elsewhere, JK Simmons makes Peter’s boss JJ as amusingly belligerent as ever. Dylan Baker lurks in the background as Dr Curt Conners (it’s surely now only a matter of time before we see a Spider-Man film with Conners becoming the Lizard Man). Bryce Howard Dallas is good but unremarkable as Gwen. Rosemary Harris provides the requisite moral/spiritual guidance as Aunt May, and the excellent James Cromwell has an utterly throwaway role as police Captain Stacy, Gwen’s father. There are also amusing cameos from Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell (who starred in Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy).

The big action set-pieces vary in quality from a hard-to-follow opening duel between Peter and Harry, to an absolutely superb must-see-on-the-big-screen malfunctioning crane rescue sequence that is worth the price of admission alone. Special effects are very good, as are the (very loud) sound effects. Danny Elfman’s now familiar music score is as effective as ever, and Sam Raimi’s directorial flair keeps the camera hurtling from one object to another at breakneck speed.

From a Christian perspective, there is a veritable feast of spiritual food for thought. For a start, the Venom symbiote is not only a superb picture of the corrupting power of sin, but more interestingly takes on different forms of sin depending on who it is bonded to. This is a particularly fascinating allegory, since all people are tempted by one form of sin or another. In Peter Parker’s case, early in the film it is evident the adulation Spider-Man is getting has overwhelmed him to the point where he is letting it go to his head. For instance in one scene he allows Gwen to kiss him in front of Mary Jane after he has rescued her. These hints at an inflated ego are brought to the fore by the symbiote, and he is transformed into a swaggering, vain character who mooches absurdly along the street like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. More seriously, his drive for revenge is enhanced, and he actually wants to kill Marcus Flint instead of simply bringing him to justice.

However, when the symbiote attaches itself to Eddie Brock, Brock’s dishonesty and subsequent desire to kill Peter Parker take over, and the temptations and sin that he succumbs to turn him into a full blown villain; Venom. It is made perfectly clear that both Peter Parker and Eddie Brock have a choice. They both find the symbiote powers exhilarating, and, as Brock puts it, “being the bad guy is fun”. However, the longer they remain bonded to the symbiote, the harder it is to escape from its corrupting power. It’s hardly a spoiler to say that eventually Peter tries to break free, but it is Brock’s deliberate decision not to, and it is this choice to overcome temptation that provides the moral heart of Spider-Man 3.

In addition, the films condemnation of revenge and belief in the power of forgiveness is explicitly Christian, and Peter’s journey to maturity in this respect is believable and compelling. It’s just a shame that there wasn’t more time for the individual plots to breathe, and as such the exemplary moral/spiritual messages are packaged in a deeply flawed, if enjoyable summer blockbuster.

Simon Dillon, May 2007.