Really, BKB? There's something called suspension of disbelief (or do I have to capitalize that to make it serious)? Thanks for the lecture, wise guy.

Perhaps you missed my point and I'll try to use small words for you. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far. You don't suspend all belief -- it has to make some logical sense. I mean come on, I obviously had no problem dealing with a radioactive spider bite turning someone into a superhero, or Doc Octopus' appendages taking him over, no problem with the experiment creating the Sandman, and other general SF and comic book staple "suspension of disbelief" things. The things I complained about here were just amazing coincidences that are just plain old lazy writing. They had nothing to do with "comic book logic". A serious drama that had those kinds of coincidences would get the same criticism from me.

Good writing is all I ask. Amazing coincidences to push the plot along is not good writing. It really has nothing to do with the general "suspension of disbelief" you're talking about.

Sorry, did I use too many big words?

No problem there. You are entitled to your opinion.

They did bother me, and that was my opinion, which I gave. Too bad some people who post in bold can't understand that their opinion is not necessarily the only one out there.

Mayhaps I am totally bonkers but I really enjoyed Spidey 3? I still think the first is the best of the lot, but for me it is much better than the second installment. Spidey is a franchise for me that is much more entertaining when it does not take itself as seriously as it did in the first sequel. Some blockbusters can pull that kind of a tonal shift off, but I don't think it was very convincing and it all came off hamfisted & forced. But as for the 3rd film...the special effects were good, the variety of villains was nice to see (Mr. Sandman did overstay his welcome to an extent, especially his lame-o send off but still), performances were generally solid - I'm sorry but I even thought Dunst was her best in this film over the other 2 - and most importantly it was fun to watch again. So thumbs up for me.

Well, after two months of dreading the worst, I didn't find it to be as overtly insulting to me as I probably would've found it had I seen it back in May. It's a mess of a film, but I was mildly entertained throughout. Still, the wasted potential and some totally "WTF?" moments (To quote Loyal, "The butler. The motherfucking butler", the newscast during the battle royale, many more) keep me from really giving it a passing grade. Right in between POTC3 and Shrek 3 for me among the threequels.

**.5/****

A very poorly treated film - as the result of expectations being so insanely high - Spider-man 3 is definitely a disappointment in terms of its incredible predecessors [and extraordinary predecessor], but it really didn't deserve all the crap it got upon initial release. I mean, we were all expecting more - especially when it came to the handling of the darkness, which was surprisingly "family-dark" instead of "cool-dark" - but compared to a lot of the garbage Hollywood calls sequels, this film really accomplishes quite a bit. Although the villains here are one too numerous and are only developed a fraction as well as the ones in the first two, they are all given fair and emotional motivations for doing what they do, whereas someone like the Silver Surfer simply comes and decides to wreak havoc for no real reason. The film's humor is just as good as in the last ones, and I'm not referring to the poorly handled emo-hair/dance scenes. The scene with the French restaurant was terrific [I love Bruce Campbell]. While it doesn't reach as strong a conclusion as the first two [and I think Harry's death deserved its own film instead of being one of the two big deaths in the course of five minutes], it definitely sends out a nice message about the power of friendship triumphing over evil.

There's no way to argue that this is as good as the first two [although I could see some liking it more than the first, depending on how you view the films], I definitely think this was a very strong film...just not a very strong Spider-man film. I preferred it to soulless films like Transformers and At World's End, which were high on entertainment value and low on character and emotion. But still, a disappointment never feels fully satisfying.

B+

still, it mostly was as disappointing as it turned out because the Raimis thought they were unconquerable, and people would love any Spider-man story they threw out there. I'm really glad to hear that Spidey 4's getting a grounded writer behind it, meaning it'll probably be a notably better film than this...i really hope the cast returns. I hate how Tobey Maguire thinks his career is really headed places outside of the SM world. He's a one-note actor, after all.

He used to be a real actor before Spider-Man...

I've seen "The Cider House Rules" and "Seabisucit." He's good in them, but he plays the same character throughout them, aka he can't play anyone besides that young-kid-growing-up role...and Spider-man [which is kinda the same, although i think by this point we can call Peter Parker grown up]

Ebert's take

It's rather amazing how a guy that can be so off the mark frequently is so very right here. I especially love his bit about Emo Peter.

I will never understand how this is fresh at RT. It's like dieticians championing Big Macs.

that's because unlike you and me and everyone else, critics don't go into movies with expectations. Honestly, if SM3 had come out after two mediocre films, it would've gotten a fine response from everyone. It was just that after getting blown away twice, [almost] everyone was left with a sour taste in their mouth. Critics, however, judged it from a POV of just a normal movie, and from that perspective, the goods outweigh the bads for the most part, and explain why it got a higher grade than mindless entertaining garbage like Transformers.

What the hell are you talking about.

Ok

1. I wasn't blown away by either Spiderman 1 or 2, and since I don't read comics and no nothing of the "lore" or "canon" I can't be pelted with a fanboy line.
2. Everyone goes in with expectations, I don't go into the latest Coen brothers film hoping for only something as good as the output of Paul WS Anderson

This film was an abject pile of shite from beginning to end and its "fresh" rating is in short a sad joke.

This is honestly the most hilariously absurd thing I've read on the site this week.

You position on this movie is your own, but your defense of it, that basically everyone who didn't like it is sufferihg a mass delusion is laughable.

Let me get it through your thick fucking skull.

MANY PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE THIS MOVIE BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS BAD. IT IS BAD TO ME. IT HAD A HORRIBLE SCRIPT AND RAIMI MADE MANY AWFUL DECISIONS. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT FINE. THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIKE THE FILM ARE NOT SUFFERING FROM DELUSIONS OR DIMINISHED EXPECTATIONS.

okay, you two very kind people, i'm sorry for wording this incorrectly. I have absolutely no problem with people hating Spider-man 3. Most of my friends do. And I can see why people hate it. So I wasn't saying that expectations diminish everything else. Not at all.

I said the reason critics liked it a lot more than most people did was because they didn't go in expecting things, at least as much as most of us were. Because from my point of view, as a film, it was fine, but as a Spider-man film, it was very, very disappointing, so my overall reaction seems to be a negative one. I mean, if Ghost Rider 2 was at the same quality level as Spider-man 3, there's no way in hell it would get the kind of response Spider-man 3 did. Don't you dare tell me that's not true. Nobody expects anything from a film like Ghost Rider. Everyone expected great things from Spider-man 3. $151 million of people. And basically everyone was disappointed. Some people [such as yourself] thought it was a flat-out horrible film, and others thought it was fine but were very disappointed. A small few actually thought it was as good as they hoped it would be.

So what I'm saying is is that the only reason why this could've gotten a 62% on RT when its real-world grade was like 20% was because critics MUST have not been excited for this, or anticipating it, or expecting it to be the most awesome film of the year, which i know many of my friends [who hated it] WERE hoping for before it came out. Because in most cases, when critics and audiences disagree on films, it's blockbusters the audiences like a lot more than critics, and OScar contending films that critics like a lot more than audiences. SM3 was a blockbuster that critics liked a lot more than audiences, and there MUST be something behind why that happened, which i just explained. So thank you for telling me that I have a "thick fucking skull" and for completely misinterpreting what I said, but I really think that this explanation makes sense. Because if critics were going into this expecting a great movie, there's no way in hell it would've gotten 62% positive ratings. I mean, why else would they do it? It wasn't like a pathetic excuse for art or anything, it was just another superhero movie, so it's not like with "Babel" or "Crash" where they feel obliged to praise it.

and, on a side note, the average grade for SM3 on this thread is a B- which would equate to a low 60s grade, so...

[i got that using the GPA technique --- A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, F = 0]

Please I beg you to stop with this insanely insulting line of reasoning. Next you'll be comparing Spiderman 2 to a Krzysztof Kieslowski film and telling me it was on some wackadoo Universe a better cinematic experience.

And how are critic's "obliged" to praise films like Crash or Babel? Where is Rendition's 90% RT rating then?

If anything the critics should've killed this movie more than the audience. I don't have a problem with people liking this as mindless entertainment, if you turn your brain off it's not a boring film or anything and the action is decent. Critics should've been the guys killing it though for the cliche and lazy writing, horrible coincidences and illogicies, bad acting, character assasination, the ridiculous Emo Peter sequence, etc. I don't hold anyone against liking this film, but I'm shocked the critical reception was good.

are you serious? Tell me what's so insane about the idea that critics didn't go in expecting as much as audiences did. I don't think there's any other way to spin its 62% rating. A superhero film isn't a movie that critics often praise when they are unworthy of praise. I use films like "Crash" and "Babel" as examples because they are similar to SM3's situation: Critics seemed to adore them, but general audiences were not so hot on them. They didn't give good grades to films like "Rendition" or "Lions for Lambs" because, as I've read in some analysis' of why these two films flopped, it seems to be the new thing among critics to not like movies about American politics. "Crash" and "Babel" were more "global topics," that being racism and communication, respectively. The difference between they and SM3 is that those films got such high grades because critics felt the topics were so important that even if the films were pretentious or cheesy, it was forgivable. Spider-man 3, on the other hand, did NOT have anything like that on its side. Any serious themes that can be related to our world? Not really. So all I'm saying is that there's no other explanation as to why it got such a good grade when people seemed to hate it so much. I'm not saying anything in favor of or against the film by this. It's just trying to figure out something that somebody asked [and that doesn't seem to make sense]. Where the fuck does Krzysztof Keislowski fit into that? This conversation's ridiculous, because you guys only seem intent on making me feel like a fucktard, and you're just a bunch of internet people, so it's not worth it.

Krzysztof Keislowski came in because of the loopy pedestal you seem to have Spiderman 2 on, to the extent you'd consider it better then that perticular directors films. He's a mirror contrast if you will to the loopy talk your going on with, which is in essence (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Spiderman 2 was so insaenly amazingly jizztastically good that everyones expections for Spiderman 3 were to high.

And yes you're being a collossal "fucktard", why do you think I felt a need to reply to your first post?

Love you're insanely simplistic take on Rendition as an "american political" issue. Look up internment sometime, you'll see its been happening for years worldwide.

I'm not gonna say anymore because it'll just sound repetitive, but really, the bad reaction to the movie was for reasons other than "high expectations". It had too many plotlines stuffed together, the writing was awful, the contrivances and coincidences were hilariously bad, the climax was lazy, etc.

If I had any explanation for SM3 getting fresh(I don't... really. It's an anamoly), I'd say that the reception was for some reason elevated from the beginning. I like SM2 but it's not a 95% film and it wasn't the best superhero movie ever. It was probably 15% too high(80% sounds legitimate) like the third. Dunno, maybe they really like Raimi.

All this bickering is obscuring the central truth of Spider-Man 3, and thus the thread:

For years, knowledgable adults and teenagers will be excusing themselves to the bathroom by saying "Pardon me, but I have to go upstairs and take a Spider-Man 3. I'll be back."

Hmm, I still haven't posted my review, eh?

Hey! You're insulting the #1 BO movie of 2007 there, dontcha know!?!?!


[Ya I know, I find it hard to believe that that many people were suckered into paying for this piece of "Spider-Man 3"...]

Nope. So...?

Don't worry Doc I respect review's positive or negative from you

meh. not worth it. Time is money.