...

Well alrighty then

He's not saying the scene itself doesn't make sense, its essential to the plot, but given the chracacters from past movies and their emotions, its nothing more then lazy writing to bring tension again between Peter and MJ. The first time, he was a nerd and she was too good for him; 2nd time he couldn't let her be a victim to his enemies, and him being a superhero and constantly on the go wouldnt be fair to her; in the third he kisses another girl in front of her. You do your own analysis.

Yes, in terms of Peter and his character, it makes no sense to have him do that. You don't kiss another girl right in front of the woman you're madly in love with and planning to propose to that night. If she forced it on him, maybe it would've seemed a bit less stupid. But he asked her and persuaded her to.

They shoulda made that scene a little bit longer, as the crowd was already cheering him on to do it, maybe show him be a little hesitant, or just going over the top trying to please the audience.

Raimi made it very clear that he was getting incredibly cocky at that point. So Peter at this point is on top of the world, he thinks he can do no wrong. Everyone loves Spider-man, what could he possibly do wrong? So after getting peer pressure from the people at the function he kisses Gwen. Peter is a guy and guys can do pretty stupid things like this. I as a guy will admit this. Peter does it because his arrogance has blinded him into thinking that a little kiss as Spider-man doesn't mean anything. To him he thinks that it's not Peter Parker who kissed Gwen but Spider-man who kissed Gwen. So no big deal.



Like I said one of Raimi's messeges was the kind of damage that arrogance can do to a person and the people he loves. He showed that a bunch of times throughout the movie and the kiss showed that perfectly.

If that was true, then he would've answered Mary Jane when she asked "Who kissed her? Peter Parker, or Spider-Man"

He didn't answer. You are wrong. This movie sucked.

This is an add on to my review.

I finally realized why this movie was so bad.

I watched the first 2 and found something completely different about the styles.

The first 2 were FUN. The 3rd, not.

The end.

P.S. The first 2 actually HAD villains! The 3rd had a pussy Harry, a convict that was in the movie for about 5 minutes longer than Venom, who was in the movie for 10.

GAY GAY GAY.

He didnt have peer pressure, she didnt even want to, and before most of them started to cheer he said, lay one on me, they'll love it. Yes it shows his arrogance, but it also shows lazy writing.

Oh Good God.. Who cares?? It's not lazy writing Gun, but overanalyzing the scene more than anything.. There wasn't anything wrong with that scene.. You all grasped too hard to find shi* wrong with this movie and really should've relaxed and merely enjoyed the movie if anything..

This was my favorite of the three films, so I don't see your point. I didnt bring it up, Speevy did and Shack did.

Just got back from the movie and.... that was kind of bad.

Worse than I was expecting it to be.

It was just... bad. There was no set up for anything, stuff just happened. It was way too corny, and the script was horrible.

On the bright side, Topher Grace was quite funny, and the best part of the movie.

Unfortunately the rest sucked.

*1/2

Your full of yourself and if everyone would've raved about this movie instead of dumped on it like Sam Raimi ran over their dog, you would've followed right in suit and gave it high marks.. No way was this movie worth *1/2 stars.. Your high..

I thought Shillinger was the funniest part. His bit with the anger management and Betty Brant's buzzing was one of the best parts of the movie.

Well if everyone was raving about it, it'd be a better movie, wouldn't it?

Box office wise seems to declare this, that it is excellent for as much $$$ as it's made.. How could anyone possibly deny this??? All movies drop big in their 2nd weekend to make way for DVD and Home Entertainment... People are simply taking this whole 60% drop like it's the end of the world for this movie and it's far from it..

I agree, it is a very profitable movie.

The kids in in my theater LOVED it, which is very fitting since Spider-man 3 was a juvenile attempt at a good movie.

Indeed

Ok...well...

First off. I thought Spider-man 2 was pretty poor. The story itself was fine, but the acting, dialogue, and lack of action really detracted from it, and caused for a lot of cringe moments.

Spider-man 3 is a whole different feel. They definitely throw a lot more in, and definitely get in a little bit over their heads. But it's a comic book movie! I don't know why everyone thinks SM2 was pure brilliance, and transcending its genre, because, frankly, its attempts to be serious and dramatic fell completely flat, as did its attempts at humor.

Twice I actually felt emotion in this movie, first when MJ lies to Peter about another man to save him, and when Harry dies. No attempts at drama seemed to fail in my mind, and the humor this time was spot-on. Jameson, the emo-dancing, and Campell all worked, and were welcomed comic-relief for a dark story.

The hate for MJ singing is what really gets me. WHO CARES!? She sounded fine to me, just as average as she was supposed to be to get those not-so-good reviews, and it didn't take away from any part of the movie at all. Nothing about it seemed awkward or out of place to me.

Sandman, yes, he came out of fucking nowhere. And so did that machine thing he jumped into. But whatever, it's one of those things you're not meant to dwell on in a movie like this. Much more could've been done with him, and it's a shame they just kind of thew him in this one, but Church did a fine job and he was an engaging villian.

Harry was one of the best parts of the film, IMO. The amnesia wasn't as strained as people mention here, and it isn't as if the fact that he got it changed the whole pace of the film, so I don't consider it a lazy screenwriting tool in this case. I will say his chase scene with Peter was God-awful, and I found the SFX very poor throughout. His redemption is seen far before the climax, but it was a fulfilling scene when it occurred.

Venom was actually fine to me. Looked great, and Topher did a really good job with him and Brock. My two complaints were Raimi's decision to constantly show Brock's face (there was really no reason other than SFX costs to me) and the fact that they could've done a lot more with him. Jesus, people just right away realize it wasn't Spider-man. Him posing as Spider-man and causing trouble would have been a great storyline. An aspect of the Spider-man comics that the movies have never really touched on is the general public actually viewing Spidey in a negative light, so much that the city temporarily hates him. That would make for good cinema.

The alien goo coming out of nowhere sucked too. Some parts of this film where random shit happens I can take, but there's other parts that are way too farfetched. They could have at least set up the meteor strike and was it was carrying and why it went for Peter a LITTLE more.

Which brings me to the butler. Ok, I was saying WHAT THE FUCK too. There must have been a better way to expose the truth, it did feel like a cheat.

Franco, Dunst, Maguire, and Grace all did fine jobs, although now that I think of it, I actually wasn't too fond of Church. Too one-sided. Probably more of the script's fault. The film ends a little too much on a down note for the end of a trilogy, and I agree that Raimi seemed to mock the series a little too much this time around.

The killer of Uncle Ben was pretty lazy as well. It's too bad that the script was very poor this time around. Strange almost, because I thought the dialogue improved, and FX definitely improved, but the inclusion of so many storylines and helpful cheap plot tools really brought this down.

Still, it delivered the goods action-wise, everything got wrapped decently, and the Parker-Watson scenes still can pack their punch. Less coherent than one and two, but more enjoyable than 2.

B

I somehow even manage to kill a 15 page thread.

Well, what's there left to say? The film was disappointing, and frankly, not really worth much consideration.


After all, this is not Children of Men.

well said BOx, well said

It was lame. Topher was cool the rest sucked.

I missed something like a script?

I liked Spiderman 1 and 2 but again the ****** it up with part 3. Very dissapointing


5.5/10

What's left to say?? It was AWESOME and you just didn't get it or were far too critical of it for your own good.. 90% of you should've seen the Movie with me.. You'd a walked away much happier..

Wow, that was HORRIBLE.

I so did not pay to see Emo Spidey as Velma in Chicago.




Tell it, that jazz scene actually made me cringe in embarrassment, I mean please, someone tell me what the fuck was that shit?

As I pretty much expected, the more I thought about this movie, the more I didn't like it as much.

I didn't hate it as much as some other people (my grade would hover around the B-/C+ range), but it's definitely a big step down from the first two movies.