In Print: Spiderman III

That's right... In Print. I am a huge fan and knew I wouldn't be able to see the latest Web-Head flick until after we got back from vacation, so I grabbed the book for some light entertainment.

I don't think there's much more that I can possibly say that hasn't already been said in the droves of movie reviews. There were some coincidences that seemed just too huge to swallow. However, if you are open minded enough to accept the concept that a man can get super powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider, than the events of Spiderman 3 shouldn't be so over the top. I'll give my feelings about what others find wrong with the movie without messing it up for anyone who HASN'T seen it yet.

In other reviews, the #1 gripe was: The Sandman killed Uncle Ben. Okay, this one came from out of left field. But (at least in the book) this served a much greater purpose. I can allow this the same way I was able to allow that Peter Parker created his own webs from his wrists as opposed to those retarded web shooters from the comics.

Then the next biggest gripe was Harry's butler letting him know that the father's wounds could not have been inflicted by Spiderman. Sometimes it takes people a while to tell the ugly truth. I find it acceptable.

That 70's kid as Venom. Hey, MJ was supposed to be super hot, and they cast Kirsten Dunst in that role. Let them continue to to disappoint with Topher as Eddie Brock. No biggie. It's all in the black suit anyway. No biggie at all.

So, I read the book, and felt it made sense and enjoyed it. It reminds me of the days of Star Trek movies when they would say, "If you didn't see it on our film, it's not written in stone." So I feel the same applies to Spidey. As long as it doesn't take the road of crap like Batman did during the 1990's, I'm fine with this latest installment in the Webhead franchise. The book is worth a read, and if the movie is the same (as a novelization should be) it looks like a fun movie to watch.