Maybe he's just like me..

trying to point out why it's just B, instead of the should-have-been A..

I saw it again today with a friend. I hated it even more. The first half which I tolerated yesterday actually wasn't as good as I remember it being. And the Bruce Campbell scene wasn't funny. It's replay value won't be very good.

C-

You saw it again today after you hated it the 1st time.. Where's the logic in that?? If you didn't like the movie at all the 1st time, what would compel you to shell out $$$ to see it again, even with a friend??? Could it be that maybe you really did enjoy the movie more than your willing to admit??? That settles it folks: There's too much overexagerration in hate for this movie, even the reactions some of you post over the movie and people hating is overexagerrated so hang it up....

The grades are all over the place for this. Shame for a trilogy with the first two films being well liked to come to an end with a mixed reviewed film. I guess its the Superhero film curse.

Or it could be that online fans simply overdissected the hell out of the movie setting themselves up for disappointment cause there too stupid to pick up a SPIDERMAN comic and realize that Sam Raimi has taken 3 movies from the source material of the comic which is why all 3 of them were Great with #3 being the BEST and are too blind to see this..

I'm actually curious to see what you have to think about this, since you do seem to like anything that's halfway entertaining. The film is entertaining; that's not its problem. Still, I can't imagine enjoying watching this a second time.

What exactly is the logic in watching a movie that you give a C- to twice?

I've seen it twice now and loved every moment of it.. Best movie in the trilogy and if I'm not tired after I get off work tonight at 10:00 PM, I might go see it again for a 3rd time...

I'd call you a geek, but thanks to family and friends, I've been dragged to SM3 three times already.

So your as big a geek as I am about it, huh??? See?? 3 times and it was great all 3 times now wasn't it or at least, not as bad as everyone here is making it out to be if you saw it 3 times and could've said "No"???

Friends don't let friends do SM3 -- just say NO!

My point was that I could understand the grades ranging from A all the way to F and that it was valid to grade it an F. My grade however was a B. Certainly not an F from my point of view since I actually like the series of films but SM3 was clearly the worst of the bunch and the least interesting and least entertaining.

That's bullshi* right there andaroo.temp.. Here's the breakdown of the grades from the posters at RT for this movie:


**** [ 33 ] 29.46%
***1/2 [ 18 ] 16.07%
*** [ 20 ] 17.86%
**1/2 [ 17 ] 15.18%
** [ 12 ] 10.71%
*1/2 [ 4 ] 3.57%
* [ 5 ] 4.46%
1/2 * [ 0 ] 0%
Can "That 70's Show" stop producing actors? Please? [ 3 ] 2.68%


I'd say the grade scale indicates more people loved this movie than didn't which in comparison to our grade scale, KJ really was overly harsh toward this movie than they should've been...

It's hardly a trainwreck. I've seen some people compare it to Batman & Robin and that's just laughable. My biggest beef is that they merged what should be two great movies (Sandman for one, Venom for the other) into one above average flick.

I still liked it better than the first Spider-Man.

Have you actually gone and READ the forums?

i've seen movies more than once that i disliked many times. Movies to me are a social thing so if i've seen it once and a couple of my friends who havnt seen it give me a call and ask if i want to go, i'll see it again or if my dad wants to see it i'll go see it with him. Hell i saw Bad News Bears more than once in theaters. I remember having to sit through The New Guy i think 4 times in theaters.

I've seen a number of films I didn't like more than once(mostly on T.V., though).

I just saw it a second time, and I think it slightly improved upon second glance. Not as good as the first two, but I can watch it with them with ease. My grade remains a B.

Seems like an awful waste of money to see a movie you don't like multiple ways don't you think?

It's decent, but not as good as the other two movies. It's a bit of a clusterfuck at times with too much going on. Church seemed disinterested with his role, Dunst is horrible, and Howard is misused. The fight scenes were alright and Tobey, Grace, Franco, and Simmons all put on great performances. Venom was amazing, but was in the movie for what...15 minutes tops? It's disappointing, but if you judge it without thinking about the first two it is still a decent movie. And the comedy didn't seemed forced at all, my theatre was in an uproar at all the right times.

-B

Well, it's a step down from the first two movies, but I still thought it was good. There's too much going on, which is the movie's main problem. However, the action sequences are as much fun as they've been and there's some nice scenes of emotional poignancy. Tobey is good, and James Franco has improved a lot since the first two films. On the other hand, Kirsten Dunst and Thomas Haden Church sleepwalk their way through the movie, and Topher Grace and Bryce Dallas Howard have nothing at all to do. Lots of the comedy bits work well. Anyway, good start to the summer. B

I lowered my expectations a bit after all the bad reactions here and from some hardcore fans I know, and while I was right in the assumption that it was over-exaggerated, I still consider this film a step down from both of the prior films. The film is still as entertaining as the other films, the general feel is about the same, but this film is just jam-packed with stories and characters that seriously caused a headache. And, originally, I loved the idea of having three villians, but the actual film was just all over the place. But the major problem I had was the quarter of the film with Peter, his emo look, and the love quadrilateral. It just seemed so unnecessary and, at points, absolutely laughable (I was cracking up when he started dancing on the sidewalk). But the rest of the film was the same great stuff that I like about the Spider-Man films, from the awesome fight scenes (including the terrific final battle), the comedy, etc. Without that quarter of the film that sucked and the cluster of things happening, this would have been awesome. Instead, it's just really, really good summer entertainment (yeah, I know, I'm predictable). B+

Fascinating. Even with the shift towards "It's not THAT bad" here I shall keep my expectations as low as possible. Cheesy and overstuffed - got it.

It really wasn't that bad, I don't think.

I didn't find it nearly as disappointing as Pirates 2. But that's just me.

Pirates 2 is a much better movie than Spider-Man 3.

Also, did anyone else think the movie was too long? I usually don't have problems sitting in long films, especially entertaining ones like Spider-Man 3, but I just felt exhausted afterwards.