Well, that would be a positive one.

i agree that there were some really big problems, which is why [basically] nobody thought it was as good as the other two. But I mean, it must have done something right to get a positive RT rating, and I think people overlooked whatever good elements the film had because of the fact that there was a surprising amount of weak things about this movie.

oh okay. sweet.

i know what Rendition is, but from what I got out of the trailers for this movie [i didn't see it], it was about American rendition and all the people involved in it and its effects on them. Don't act like just 'cause you're 20-something and I'm 15 and because I liked a movie that many people didn't like that it just makes you superior to me, enough so to refer to me as a "fucktard" and tell me that I don't know anything about politics or the global situation or the differences between Krzysztof Keislowski and Sam Raimi.

oh, and on the topic of Keislowski, I've seen the Three Colors trilogy [the only thing by him i've seen, admittedly], and I'd consider it better than Spider-man 2, which I loved. So, yeah. I'd really like to stop talking about this. It's not like SM3's quality, RT grade, or people's opinions on it will change anyways. and it's not like i love the film by any means. All i wanted to do was give a possible explanation as to why its RT grade was so high, and it took me a while to come up with anything at first.

Thats Ok Billy it was nothing personal, just your reasoning on this subject pissed me off. I know it was never anything negative by any side

Remember its never personal. .....................just I felt insulted by your earlier reasoning, and forgive me but yes I know far more about film then you do

we were resolving things so nicely until you threw that little tidbit in unless you were joking, and i'm terrible at picking up sarcasm

have you gone to film school? if so, i guess it's a fair statement to make. then again, Tarantino never went to film school.

Of course it was sarcasm, again it was just a specific film arguement, lets lock horns later

Oh God...why does the poll say that I gave this abomination an A?

I hope that I never actually did that and it is instead some forum error, because I'm not sure I could ever forgive myself for voting that.

Don't worry, it says the same for me, and I'm sure as shit I never did that.

I've noticed it quite a few times in other threads, it must be some sort of glitch.

saw it again for the second time and it still sucks... i even hated even more. The whole emo crap was just ... ugh!..

C-

I guess I'm in the minority that really, really liked this one.

Yes. Yes, you are.

I thought real-world hate was way worse for this than online, but I'm wrong. In real life, people have recently told me [since I'm very curious how SM4 will fare] that it isn't a terrible film..it was just so disappointing. The people who said "This movie fucking sucked" to me back in May now say "Ehh it was okay...it was just so much worse than the first two". People on here, however, love to hate [like an online Anton Ego].

this isn't everyone, but it's a strong number of people.

I don't see what all the mega-hate is about...if you don't like the characters, you don't like the franchise [since even the first two films relied on your liking the characters], so you shouldn't have expected anything out of this. If you love the characters, the overload of their emotions may have not been satisfying, but it's far from a terrible experience, at least in my opinion. Norbit...Alvin and the Chipmunks...Ghost Rider...those are terrible experiences, where you don't care about the characters at all, the story sucks, the stabs at humor suck, and the attempts at cool action [in GR's case] just makes you laugh.

no in the first two the three main characthers were okay and tolerable...

However they did such a terribile acting job in the third film... my god...

so because the story's worse the acting's worse too? I mean, I thought Tobey was quite good in the first two whereas in the third he was nothing special, but I thought James Franco [outside his scene in the hospital] and Kirsten Dunst were just as good in this as they were in the last...same goes for the supporting cast.

What this really lacked in the acting department was a great villain. The first two had truly talented actors playing villains that took up the whole badguy side of the story...this one had three weakly developed ones [aside from Harry, I guess].

No Billybob - its not that bad - people like to make it out to be that bad but its not. Just look at how many A's and B's were given.

If anything it was dissapointing. Two many villians crammed into the film and no justice was done to any of them (especially Venom), some hokey dancing and the whole Butler thing are what hurt the film. In the end compared to alot of other popcorn fair it was ok. Compared to the previous Spidey films it doesnt fair so well.

Agreed. If the first film was of this quality, it wouldn't be getting at all as much crap as it's getting now - since there wouldn't be so much disappointment surrounding it - but the franchise would definitely not have taken off like it did back in '02.

and really, if you take out the dancing and the butler and one of the villains, you've dealt with the majority of the film's problems. The story was where things went wrong.

Hmm... I didn't use to think Spider-Man 3 was overrated, but now I'm convinced.

As awful as some of it was, and by "some" I mean "most," I didn't hate it, which surprised me, considering I rather dislike the first two films.

I don't know. I guess, simply, I was entertained.

C

I really agree with Billy, so many people on not just this site (as this site is actually pretty damn good about it for the most part) but on most internet sites in general are the realization of Anton Ego who breed a hate just for the sport of it, are overly critical, and treat it as a passion and not a truly developed emotion, and are over dramatic in their reign of hatred, which a lot of the times is to spite the popular or the "new"/unconventional.

And this is coming from a guy who gave the first Spider Man a C+ and has never bothered seeing either of the sequels.

Well-put. You probably won't love Spider-man 3, since only some of the strong fans of the series seemed to dig it, but look at Roger Ebert: He gave Spider-man 1 the equivalent of a C+ and called Spider-man 2 the best superhero film ever made...you should at least check that one out.

The weakest of the 3 by far. Venom was misused, and not exactly scary when he talked. The Sandman's ties to Uncle Ben's death was terrible writing. Has some great moments, but uneven quality.

B

A good blockbuster, but inferior to the first two films. The plot is too much with 3 villains and two love triangles, and there are some bad acting moments and too much crying. There are also some VERY lazy and incoherent plot points, like the butler explaining everything at the last minute, or just plain bad/embarassing scenes, like the whole emo dance in the street and jazz club thing. The effects are amazing though and the action is very impressive. Howard is a great addition and Sandman makes a great villain. Overall a very entertaining film, but ruined by specific moments that could've easily been cut.

B/B+

easily the worst Uber-blockbuster of all time

This, Da Vinci Code, MI2 are the worst films to ever hit 300 million.

Yeah, we'll have to wait a few more weeks for Indiana Jones to grab that title.


Do you mean films that hit $300m domestically? Of those three, only SM3 did...

Well of the 300 million grossers it is the worst and of the 200 million it is as bad as those three...