In theaters

SPIDER-MAN 3, directed by Sam Raimi, written by Raimi, Ivan Raimi and Alvin Sargent, 139 minutes, rated PG-13.

Surely no one will point a finger at the new Spider-Man movie, “Spider-Man 3,” and claim its producers returned only to cash in. More than $250 million was spent on this latest outing in the franchise, the most ever spent on a movie, so the question now is whether our pleasure has grown along with the budget.

The answer? Not even close.

After the terrific first two films, “Spider-Man 3” is the weakest of the lot, which isn’t much of a surprise given that so much of it suffers from a fatigue of familiarity. The same was true for “Superman III” and the third Batman movie, “Batman Forever,” which suggests that when it comes to getting into bed with superheroes, perhaps two films are enough to leave one satisfied and spent.

What’s missing in “Spider-Man 3” is the delight of watching Peter Parker become Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) and swing through the concrete canyons of Manhattan. We’ve seen it before and the swinging, frankly, has lost its zing. Also gone is the spark between Parker and Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), which was critical to the success of the previous two films but which now finds the duo reduced to squabbling, a separation and, near the end, an awkward rush of tears.

Director Sam Raimi returns to helm the project, but this time he works from a script he co-wrote with his brother, Ivan Raimi, and Alvin Sargent. Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist and screenwriter Michael Chabon, so instrumental to the success of “Spider-Man 2,” wasn’t involved in this film’s script, and it shows. His gift at finding the human within the superhuman is something the movie sorely lacks.

What Raimi creates is the longest “Spider-Man” yet, with its story feeling derived not from inspiration but from a sense of desperation. When you spend this kind of cash on a movie – another $250 million was spent on marketing – the urge isn’t to underplay your hand. Instead, it’s to feed the masses with overkill, which is the case here.

The good news is that some of that overkill is fun and some of the special effects are indeed impressive. After a clever title sequence that neatly recaps the first two films, we learn a few things: Peter is on the cusp of proposing marriage to his girlfriend, Mary Jane; Mary Jane has been fired from her first Broadway show and has sunk into a funk; and their friend Harry (James Franco) still has a beef with Peter for allegedly killing Harry’s father, the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), who urges Harry from the grave to avenge his death as the New Goblin.

Just that happens in an early scene that leaves Harry struck dumb with amnesia. Meanwhile, Peter has revealed himself to be a megalomaniac – he now thrives on the attention that comes from being Spider-Man, which is a departure from the previous films and which stifles his likability. Later, when a mysterious alien goo writhes into his body, he is drawn to the dark side in ways that alter his mood, his hairdo, his dance moves and his costume, which now is black.

Along the cluttered periphery, two villains take shape. First is Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), murderer of Peter’s Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson), who plummets into a particle physics lab and morphs into the towering Sandman. Second is Topher Grace’s Eddie Brock, a disgruntled photographer at The Daily Bugle who comes to loathe Peter for outing him as a plagiarist, poor thing, and who later dips into his own dark side by becoming the toothsome Venom.

Adding a necessary jolt of humor is the excellent J.K. Simmons as Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson – once again, the actor steals each of his scenes. Rounding out the cast are Peter’s Aunt May (Rosemary Harris), who has become a full-time sage, Bryce Dallas Howard as evil Peter’s pitiable love interest, and cursory appearances by James Cromwell, Theresa Russell, Dafoe, Bruce Campbell and “Spider-Man” creator himself, Stan Lee.

What was so enjoyable about the first movie is that it found its giddy lightness of tone by focusing on its nerd-cum-superhero. Peter explored his new-found superpowers with a joy that was infectious. His transformation after the spider bite wasn’t just physical as his wiry body thickened with muscle, but almost spiritual as he realized the confidence that had forever eluded him. Swinging through New York, he was like Nureyev on Ecstasy. Who didn’t want to be Spider-Man?

The second film offered a compelling shift, with Peter’s elation suffocated by the weight of responsibility that came from being Spider-Man. That movie was about personal responsibility and destiny – a complex character study of one young man’s struggle to find himself within his new self. Its tone was sober.

This time out, the tone is meant to be dark, but really, in spite of all the colorful explosions, it’s just gray. “Spider-Man 3” tries so hard to appeal to everyone, the web it casts snags exactly what the series didn’t need – an identity crisis. The question now at hand runs counter to the original film’s intent: Who wants to be Spider-Man?

Grade: C+

Visit www.weekinrewind.com, the archive of Bangor Daily News film critic Christopher Smith’s reviews, which appear Mondays and Fridays in Lifestyle and weekends in Television, as well as on bangordailynews.com. He may be reached at Christopher@weekinrewind.com.