Did Spider-Man III break the 3rd movie curse!?

[Kung Fu master]

This movie was just as good as the second one, and brought more to the table I think.

SM3 shoved it's foot up the threequel curse's @$$.

 

[Kent]

Yes. Yes it did.

 

[Dangerous]

One of the worst Superhero films I have ever seen.

 

[Sebastos]

Really? Wow, looking at the polls, it's pretty close. I still haven't seen SM3 yet.

 

[Shmoil]

It had it's share of flaws (the dancing, the emo hair and outfit, some of the music), but its serious aspects and drama greatly outnumbered them. In my opinion, this movie was a great continuation of the first 2. And don't even start with complaining about campy-ness. Remember the Doc Ock hospital scene?

 

[Timstuff]

IMO there isn't really a "Third movie curse." It's more of a "weak link" curse that seems to affect a lot of trilogies, and in many cases it is the third movie. In a case like the Matrix, we saw it go from awesome, pretty good, and then crap. However, while the third movie is often the weak link, there are plenty of examples where it's not, or at least not enough to be a major detraction to the franchise.

With Terminator 3, it was an okay movie, but it just wasn't in the same league as the first two. I wasn't dissapointed because I knew not to go into it with high expectations, but it's still one of the lesser examples of movies effected by the so called "curse". Jurassic Park 3, and to a lesser extent, Star Trek 3 would fall into this category as well.

Return of the Jedi was a great conclusion to the Star Wars trilogy, but it wasn't as good as Empire Strikes Back, even though in some aspects it was better than A New Hope. I put X-Men 3 in this category as well... It wasn't as good as the second one, but it still outdid the first in many ways (although it loses some cred for not being tasked with establishing the franchise).

Then, there's trilogies where one of the first two is kind of the oddball, but then with 3 they returned to full glory. Examples of this would be the Star Wars prequels, Indiana Jones, and Back to the Future. Episode I just plain wasn't that hot, but Episode II was a lot better, and with Episode III, they'd finally just about gone back to he bar set with Empire Strikes Back. With BTTF and IJ, the first was great, the second was pretty good but kind of strange, and then the third was great again.

Finally, there's the most prestigious category-- Return of the King. Return of the King actually managed to surpass both of it's predicessors. Return of the King truly is the best movie in the trilogy IMO, and that's rare. Unlike Revenge of the Sith, it wasn't just reclaiming glory that was lost by a previous weak link-- it was building on what was already the makings of an excellent series. I can't think of another trilogy that pulled off it's #3 as well as LOTR did.

So that leaves the question-- where does Spidey 3 land? Personally, I'd put it in the "Return of the Jedi" category, although I'd say it definately ranks at the top of it. I'd put it like this:

1. Spider-Man 3
2. Return of the Jedi
3. X-Men: The Last Stand

Spider-Man 3 was an excellent sendoff for Raimi's trilogy, and while it wasn't as good as the second one, it's still on par with the series expectations for the most part, and it's definately a solid bookend to a great series.

 

[DACrowe]

I just saw it for a second time.

Upon viewing it again (with oddly a worse crowd), I had a better experience. It is still inferior to the first two and the initial disappointment is still there and the flaws are quite present (not enough time on Sandman and Venom, the pacing was too fast, the climax was rushed into action, particularly the news casting and "loyal Bernard" helping Harry)....but it is a good movie.

It is a fun entertaining popcorn flick that does delve further into Peter Parker, but unfortunately not as deeply as it delved into other aspects of him in the first two, Harry and MJ became great characters, the Harry arc was memorable, what Church and Grace had to work with they flew off with flying colors hinting that there is more than what the scenes show by scraping the surface and the action sequences are good.

It just doesn't have the wow factor of the first one upon first viewing and sense of wonder, nor the grandeur and level of excellence and perfectly crafted storytelling of the second (not too mention more narrow and focused plots). But fans wanted their Spidey "epic," here it is.

It is still a decent movie that continued the first two and had a satisfactory conclusion to its numerous storylines and to the Harry arc as well as taking MJ and Peter to the level of adulthood in the last scene (with no dialogue, which I LOVED).

Is it inferior to the first? Yes. Is it vastly inferior to the second? Yep. Is it a bad movie? No. In fact, it is a good movie that continued the storyline of the first two movies and in the end is a fun movie with some depth (unlike most comic book movies including recent efforts in Fantastic Four, X3, Ghost Rider and Blade Trinity in between Spidey 2 and 3)....it will be seen as the worst of the three...but in time I think it will be accepted as a fair addition to the storyline.

 

[chaseter]

Spider-Man was not a dissapointment...it did deliver on some good stuff. But it was not as good as 2 or 1. So it fell to the trilogy curse along with the likes of X-Men, Blade, Matrix, Star Wars..etc.. etc... I think this movie could have easily been one of the best movies ever. But Avi and Sony wanting more action along with Raimi forcing his kids to act kind of ruint the movie. I will reserve my final judgement on this film with either the dvd comes out or the extended edition of 3.1.

 

[bullets]

this one was far better than the other three s
maybe im crazy but i think it was a good movie

 

[amazingdm]

No, no they didn't. In the original Pheonix saga, Wolverine tried to kill Jean but couldn't. Jean ended up putting herself in a position to be killed by an ailen lazer gun of sorts.

what's your point? this wasn't the original phoenix saga, and I wasn't referring to the original phoenix saga

but they DID take that straight out of the comics.. It happened just in the last 5 years.

 

[dodus]

The more I think about it, the more I consider it a worthy successor to 2. For me, 1 wasn't that great, but it had its moments. The same goes for this one, except when it had it's moments, they were better than any in 2's. Harry and Peter in the cafe, for example, brought the gravitas like nothing that had come before it. The campiness of emo Parker, if you're into that kind of thing, out-camped anything in 2 or 1. So, while I regard it as a bit of a disappointment considering how much better it could have been, I still think it rounds out a good trilogy.

 

[Batman2008]

I voted no. It was not better than SM2. Therefore, it didn't break the curse.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Sadly, no. This movie was disappointing. The curse is alive and well.

 

[Sloth7d]

Don't forget Angel showing up in the entire movie for about 5 seconds.

And Colossus having only one line even though he's in more scene than Angel.

 

[co2]

SPIDER-MAN 3 was a lot better than the other third installments and probably the best, but in terms of its place in the Spidey trilogy, I'd say it was actually the weakest installment.

Agreed. I wouldn't put it at the depths of a Superman III or even X3, but it was definitely a disapointment compared to the quality of the first two.

 

[demitri_vampiro]

sm3 was one of the worst 3rd movie i've seen.

 

[shigsy2003]

Yup definitely. It was the best one in my opinion and far better than all of the other three's in movie comic terms.