http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo_%28slang%29

One more note (unrelated from the above) then I'm done here...

I love good movies, I am entertained by good movies. Those movies don't need fighting or explosions. If anybody says "well I was entertained because there is fighting!" just shows how much of an unevolved filmgoer you are.

That's not true. I can be entertained by extremely bad movies. Doesn't mean they are going on my top 100 list, but they can still be entertaining in a different sense.

This isn't even ROTS level which was at least coherent and I certainly was more vested in the story and plot even though we all knew what happens it was still fun and exciting to watch. SM3 takes that fun out of it all and leaves the viewer wondering why is this in here and why is that there and why why why...endless whys. They could have done so much better with this film is what is most annoying to people who were really expecting to have a fun time and be entertained but were left with a hollow feeling after the show ended.

"This isn't even ROTS level which was at least coherent"-nghtvsn

ROTS was coherent? Umm, no. ROTS was one truly awful movie that made as little sense as...well, none at all.

I though that SM3 was fine, but I'm one of those people who didn't think Spider-man and (especially) Spider-Man 2 were among the greatest movies ever. There were far, FAR too many coincidences in SM3 which wreeked of lazy writing. Overall it just felt like they threw absolutely everything they could into it and just went with it. Some stuff stuck, and some stuff did not. At all.

I, for one, liked the Peter/MJ business. I thought was the one area that the movie stuck with and followed through on. The villains varied. Eddie Brock should have been given a whole movie to descend into madness and completely embrace the Venom, not just happen to be in the same church as Peter (cause there's only the one in all of New York) and then go from self-obsessed jerk to homicidal maniac. Still, I did enjoy Topher Grace as Brock/Venom. Sandman, however, I did not like. He had no real reason to be there, and Thomas Hayden Church seemed to just look sad all the time while he gets money for his sick kid (who was BB from Kill Bill!). Also, he looked REALLY old.

I could in detail about all the pros/cons, but overall I did enjoy the movie. It was nonsensical and ludicrous a lot of the time, but I welcomed that over the melodramatic Doc Ock crap from #2.

Just got back from watching it and I gave it a B. Just a little above average, thanks to some humor and some sweet action scenes.

As someone mentioned the editing of this movie sucked. They way they cut and run and simply left some scenes alone really left me with a WTF question when it happened. Every thing really did feel rushed, from the villains intros and the character building. The only relationships that got any meat were MJ and Peter and Peter and Aunt May. Harry was no different than the second and got tiring fast. Brock apparently was forgotten from the first film when his name was clearly called out as working for the Bugle.

One plus was the amount of humor, intentional or not. Can't remember laughing so much with the first two films. The Peter has gone evil was just campy fun, a complete joke for the most part. Only when he outed Brock did it get meaningful. Others are right this should have been a one villain movie, with Venom being better developed and given more time to shine. Sandman was a waste, a mirror image of Spidey only making the wrong choices in this instance. And as I said Goby junior was just plain tiring, another waste of screen time. So much was missed with Venom, who got squeezed in as a afterthought with this film.

Another bright spot was the action scenes. Spidey has never looked better with the swinging etc, though he certainly took alot of punishment this time around. I was wondering how they were going to make skinny Topher Grace look like the muscle bound Venom, should have guessed they had to use CGI with him. He was impressive, but again just never got the time to develop.

Overall I did give it a B, for the action scenes and humor.

Cough: Bullshi* Cough..

Im not leaving this issue, its almost as if Raimi talked to Rob Lowe's character in Thank You for Smoking in making this movie.

Raimi "Im not sure how to make the Sandman"
Rob Lowe" Easy fix, a line of dialogue, thank god we created the, you know, whatever device"

As this goes, My vote for most entertaining of the series, but easily the worst of all three quality wise.

I have mixed feelings after seeing the third Spider-Man film by Sam Raimi.

The action is incredible, which is a plus in a superhero film, and the ever-complicated relationship between Peter, Mary Jane, and Harry, the characters portrayed by Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco (who, much to my surprise, delivers the film's best and most memorable performance), was resolved in an affecting, intelligent way.

However, it is extremely overplotted, racing to resolve every conflict (major and minor) and bid farewell to every character, not to mention shoehorn in a pair of new villians, Sandman and Venom, in two-and-a-half hours. The feeling isn't painful, but the fight for time on screen between the ensemble and their mini-stories does ultimately prove exhausting.

Also, the camp level is rather high, with the unintentional humor often proving more effective than the direct comic relief.

Still, the film's well-intentioned and made with impressive artistry. If this is indeed the final swing of your friendly neighborhood Spidey, at least with Sam Raimi and co. in tow, the story ends on a flawed-but-satisfying note. B-.

Yes that somes it up perfectly for me too.

As for the Sand molecularisation machine I had the same exact thoughts. It was ridiculous. But the actual scene of Sandman being created and reforming was probably my favourit in the whole film.

I was listening to talk radio last night on 97.1 FM and they were talking about this movie and the reviewer who loved the movie made mention of the negative feedback from some of the critics over the movie being "Too Crowded" or "Too stuffed" with villains and he said quote "Since when is having only 1 villain the cardinal rule when it comes to superhero movies like this in their 3rd outing"?? He went on to say quote "Do the critics and uptight fans who complain about these sort of things have low attention spans that they can't handle a movie with 3 Villains or what"?? You know?? He does raise a good point.. Having 3 Villains really was the only way to go at this point and there really is no rule as to how many a movie franchise like this should have and as a result, it does make it more exciting to have them like this.. We've already done the whole "1 Villain Scenario in the last 2 movies"

So how many villains are you attention span masters gonna need in SM4?

Yep. SM3 just had too many WTF! moments, lazy screenwriting, plot holes, cringeworthy campiness, (melo)drama that didn't really work etc. Some of that was already there in the first two (in milder forms), which is why i never fully understood the love some people have for these films (especially the 2nd), but here Raimi clearly crossed the line and went nuts.

Not even the action was particularly good. It's not just about wild camera rides, action too has to tell a "story", needs proper build-up, characters we genuinely care for etc. The effects were also a mixed bad, sometimes really good, sometimes clearly fake.

I haven't really read any of the reviews.

However, I'm curious...

Is this at least more interesting than the first two? Maybe it's flawed, but is there something complex about it that makes it worthwhile? I'll see it regardless, but could this become a classic in its own right, or is it just horribly cheesy and overdone?

For example, Matrix Reloaded isn't as tight a movie as the first Matrix, but it's 1798x more interesting...

Wow, this movie sure didn't know what to do with three villains, resorting to contrived ways on how to dispose of them or make them reappear.

Other than the entertainingly creepy sequence of Tobey Maguire walking the streets in his new attitude and then performing some dance number in the jazz club, this movie was just average. C+/B-

*CAUTION! rant imminent, if you're easily offended it's recommended you look away now*

I can't be bothered to read through this entire thread so I presume like everywhere else there's a great deal of hate and vitriol directed towards the movie. Whcih tobe honest having watched it twice now I simply don't get. Sure it has its faults but the level of hate I've seen is just ridiculous. It's nowhere near as bad as X3 for example, when it's great SM3 reaches heights X3 never did and when it's bad it's no worse then the worst moments in X3 and there were alot. I'm half expecting to hear cries of how Raimi raped peoples childhood or some other such crap.

I can understand disapointment but outright hate like I've read just smacks of typical fanboy overreaction. Anyway that's my two cents. As for the movie itself, well I think it's weighed down by the height of its own ambition. It just tried to do too much not helped by a weak foundation i.e its script. Still, overall, I enjoyed the movie.

B-

No. I can't see how anybody thinks this movie has more depth than the other two, if that's what you are getting at.

It's an instant classic that only Sam Raimi knows how to do well and why?? Caue he sticks to the source of the comics and this folks is WHY he's the best at this sort of thing

Your such a bonafide nerd if I've ever saw one.. Make your own movie if you think you could do it better and let's see what you got.. The FX in this movie were top notch and every bit as good as the technology available right now will allow us.. Get over yourself..

Blinded fanboy...

Cynical Bitch..

It was pretty good.

Contrary to most, I don't like this series all that much. SM2 was nearly unbearable when I watched it on DVD for the first time in months in summer 2005. SM1 is a lighthearted adventure that doesn't take itself seriously.

This series tries to be pure, simple entertainment. It doesn't try to be anything else, and it would probably fail anyway. SM3 is just as good as the other 2 in that regard.

I found this to be one of the most frustrating film experiences I've had in a very long time. Let me state from the outset that I don't even have a grade for this film; I can understand why someone could give it a B or C or D. I guess I'd settle for B- or C+, but I don't know if that adequately expresses my feelings. However, I find either an A or an F to be equally incomprehensible. Much depends on how willing the viewer is to actively participate in the explication of the film, and how forgiving he or she is of some severe lapses in judgement.

Spider-Man 3 is much more mature in its themes than Spider-Man 1, and more mature than Spider-Man 2. In its execution (that is, direction, writing, etc.), however, it ranks below the first film and far, far below the second one. Its major problem, as has been stated ad nauseam by now, is that there is simply too much going on. Off the top of my head, I can list the following story lines:

- Peter wants to marry Mary Jane
- Mary Jane is struggling with her career, and with Peter's success as Spider-Man
- Spider-Man's relationship with the public
- Peter/Spidey and Harry/New Goblin are in conflict over Peter's alleged murder of Harry's father
- Harry has amnesia, and is trying to recover
- Harry and Mary Jane's relationship
- Harry's relationship with his father
- Spider-Man and the Sandman
- Spider-Man and Venom
- Peter Parker and Eddie Brock competing for the same position
- Peter Parker's relationship with Gwen Stacy
- The Sandman and his relationship with his daughter
- Peter Parker's struggle with the dark substance from space; with his darker self, etc.


I cannot imagine any scenario in which these various plotlines could be reconciled within one movie, nor can I think of any reason why they should all be within the same film. The result of all these plots existing within one film is that a) each of them is rendered much vaguer, many of the details are simply assumed to be common knowledge or not indicated at all, and the viewer has to consequently do much more work than he or she should, and b) they are uncomfortably connected, often forcefully, in such a way that the film as a whole becomes uncomfortable to watch.

To give an example of the first point:

- The butler is, no matter how you spin it, a deus ex machina device in the plot. That in itself is not the problem; it's how the information is revealed to us that makes it so bad. Consider: the butler tells us that he loved Harry's father, that he tended his wounds, etc. Because we only have his word, his claim is suspect and baffling. One simple flashback, in a film in which they are employed liberally, could have done much to support his claim. Why not show the butler tending to the dying man or inspecting his dead body? Now, why would the butler not tell Harry beforehand? More difficult to say, since, if he really liked Harry, he'd have told him long ago and gotten it over with. Perhaps he wanted to get back at Spider-Man, and not telling Harry would have made that (perhaps) possible. One or two lines would have made it clear to us what his motives were in not acting beforehand. As it stands, everything I've said is purely speculation. Nothing in the film substantiates my claims, nor refutes them, and I'm forced to account for things myself. It's a terribly unjust way of dealing with a viewer.

To give an example of the second point:

- Gwen Stacy is utterly unnecessary to the film as a whole. She has three major functions in the film: 1) She is allowed to be in danger, so that Spider-Man can rescue her and we can watch another action scene; 2) She is used to break Peter and Mary Jane apart (both the kiss and the dance); 3) she, as Eddie's girlfriend whom Peter steals from him, gives Eddie one more reason to seek revenge. Well, 1) Spider-Man could have rescued a random girl. After all, what is important in that scene is Eddie taking the pictures, not the scene itself, since that introduces Eddie in the film and initiates the Eddie/Peter, Venom/Peter subplot. 2) Peter;s total disregard of Mary Jane is sufficiently damaging to their relationship as it is, and when he turns all dark, given that he hits on every woman he sees, he could have picked a random girl in the bar and danced with her. 3) Eddie does not so much as hug or kiss Gwen after her rescue, concentrating instead on getting the shots. And anyway, he's clearly much more devastated by the loss of his job, and the effective ruin of his career.

So why does Gwen Stacy exist at all? Well, there is no good reason, other than that the director wanted her in the film. But the fact that her existence is so unnecessary to the film severely undercuts her position as a connecting link between the various plotlines, the result being that it all seems so forced and irrational.

The excess of narratives and the lack of narrative space undermine practically all aspects of the film. The Sandman subplot, for example, is not given enough room to be fully coherent. More time is devoted to hearing him claim that he is not a bad person than to actually showing us that he can be decent. Is it decent of him to cease attacking Peter and Harry at the end? There's no decency involved in that; that's the least he can do, after having done all that damage.

The problem, I think, is exacerbated by the inclusion of so many unnecessary scenes. That absolutely horrific reporter and news anchor at the end single-handedly turn the entire first part of the climactic battle into a farce. To say that they are unnecessary is an understatement. Their very presence in the film is a severe insult to either to the audience's intelligence, or to their sense of humour. I'm not entirely sure if Raimi meant it as a joke, but it doesn't appear to be one to me. The American flag (AWFUL) and the cheering crowds have appeared before, and in serious contexts. But all of that could have been cut, and the finale, just based on those cuts, would have been much improved. It picks up at the end, I think, because of the gravity of Harry's death. I think even the most cynical viewer has to acknowledge that some dignity is preserved there. Even then, however, the many plots collide. We are made to completely forget about Harry and Mary Jane while Peter talks to Sandman. Only after several minutes, when Sandman is gone, do we return to Harry.

I reserve my severest criticism, however, for the way that Mary Jane and Peter Parker are treated. Everything that Peter does under the influence of that dark substance should be taken as a delirious joke. The dancing is meant to be ridiculous, of course, the hair, the clothing, everything is very clearly derisive. I couldn't help but feel that Raimi was ridiculing the inanity of the current emo culture. As for Mary Jane, I actually think Kirsten Dunst did the best with what she was given. Her performance did not strike me as inauthentic at all, and I was genuinely touched by her plight. I also found that the two songs were actually fitting. At the beginning, her voice is better, but clearly not that great (was it dubbed?). At the end, the song in the bar, is clearly worse sung, but it seems more appropriate and fitting.

I am far more troubled by what Peter does when he is not under the influence of the dark substance. First, his desire for revenge against the Sandman, while it might seem convincing on the surface, if it does come across that way, is actually out of character. Peter's relationship to his uncle has been, in the previous two films, been defined with respect to the "great power, great responsibility" line. I can't imagine Peter reneging on that so quickly. And if the police did such a miserable job over two years, something Peter loudly points out, then where's the proof that this man is the real killer?

Second, his ignorance of Mary Jane. At the beginning, he has memorized her lines, and he utters them as she is on the stage. Would someone who has gone to these lengths really remain in the dark about his girlfriend's dismissal from the play? Would he, moreover, as someone who in the previous two films was so sensitive to Mary Jane's every whim become so totally aloof all of a sudden? When he tells her that he's this big star, does he not realize that she could not, even under the best of circumstances, identify with him? She is evidently not as significant a star as he is, if one can consider her a star at all. We know he's got a tough job to do, and we saw that well developed in Spider-Man 2, but we also saw him paying attention to Mary Jane as well, even if barely so at times. The extent to which he ignores her in this film is absurd.

Much worse, however, is Peter's kiss of Gwen. It is a gross and unforgivable act of betrayal (on Raimi's part). It amounts, from my perspective, to character assassination. Had I been in a foul mood, I might as well have walked out of the theatre at that point. Peter Parker would NEVER have done that, under no circumstances. His dismissal of it as just a kiss is bafflingly stupid, and unconvincing not only to Mary Jane, but to us the viewers. Peter's love of Mary Jane is at the core of the Spider-Man franchise, the major thing that distinguishes it from all the crappy superhero films. And that kiss is THE defining symbol of that love. To fling it away like that shows a total and utter lack of understanding on Peter's (and Raimi's) part.

As for what worked: individual scenes, shots, lines, are well done. When Mary Jane tells Peter that, whenever she reads the reviews from the critics, it's as if her father is saying it, it is a very touching line that ought to resonate very strongly with everyone who has watched the first film, where we hear the father telling Mary Jane that she is worthless. There are quite a few moments like this were the throwback to the previous two films compliments the third film (but also unfortunately diminishes it by comparison; inadvertently, of course). I liked Sandman's creation. In two-three years' time, it will already seem outdated, I'm sure, and it's not going to stand the test of time, but as an indicator of what can be done right now, I found it quite neat. The effects as a whole failed to impress me. As much money as was spent on the special effects in Spider-Man 1-3, they pale in comparison to Lord of the Rings, which remains the golden standard. I do, however, admire Raimi's camera techniques. JJ Jameson and Bruce Campbell were awesome, but that's to be expected.