The Critics' Reviews of Spider-Man 3 Thread

[Flappy]

This is how I feel. I can see that it may easily be as good, or a little less then '2'. This is something I'm not mad at. What is interesting is we have to look at the history...

Back when Spidey 1 was released, no one cared about it or thought it would do any good, I even remember the teasers looked meh. And everyone was more jacked for Episode II at the time. Then because no one had any expectations or much to compare it to, it succeded. Then I think people felt no way could Sam pull another good movie out of his hat. And he made one that was even better (not too hard to do after Spidey 1). Then people started to think that '3' would raise the bar like '2' did. And like I've said before, I never really expected it to. And that is why so many critics are bashing it. If your not first your last is almost their mentality. If it is not the greatest super hero movie every it his horrible. People that take this as a movie, and not an expectation they seem to really truly enjoy the movie. And thats what I'm going to do tommorow.

Maybe this is the cruse of the trilogy. Maybe it's not really the movie it self but more so the expectation that so many have to such a ridicoulous level.

The budget of the film seems to also have set REALLY high expectations. I'm just going to go in and see it as a continuation of "Spider-Man 2" rather than a whole new movie.

 

[Raiden]

I don't think SP3 will be as bad as some of those critics made it out to be. It might not be as good as SP2 but it will still be good, despite the kitchen sink approach in this last installment. And traditionally, part 3s have always been a bit underwhelming, like these examples:

Superman 3
Batman Forever
X-Men 3
Alien 3
Die Hard 3

Of course, there are a few exceptions, like ROTK, but part 3 usually have more misses than hits. I'd say check it out and judge it for yourself; I already brought tickets for me, my wife, my bro, and my wife's sister. We will see it this Saturday and I'm sure I'll have a great time with the movie, esp. in a packed theatre.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Oh man 68%% now
I’m too much into spider-man and comics not to like this movie

That too me sums it up. If you are a fan you can overlook some things the critics are being well... critical of.

 

[chaseter]

^Which is what it should be as a trilogy. A continuation. Look at SM1...it set us up and resolved GG but started Harry. SM2 deepened Peter's and MJ's relationship and resolved a conflict with Ock but deepened Harry's. SM3 is the end...the caboose to the trilogy. The final film of the trilogy should have more action and it does. It also wraps up Harry's arc and resolved the other two villians that enter. It caps off a great series.

 

[TheVileOne]

Well we don't know.

Maybe it . . . doesn't .

Mwahaha.

 

[WorthyStevens]

I still can't get over that Victoria woman. After reading a few more of her reviews, I'm pretty sure she's homophobic. Normally, I wouldn't go on about a reviewer, but wow. Here's some snippets of some of her former reviews:

"”V” is a gay Shakespeare-soliloquy spurting blowhard with a creepy, but well-groomed, hairdo. He’s also a dancing knife-wielding karate killer. " - V for Vendetta

"Finally, the out-of-the-closet Starsky and Hutch!" - Starsky and Hutch

"A disappointing war movie with not one shot fired, no visible enemy, and soldiers standing around in the desert. More gay than “Capote.” - Jarhead

"Harry Osborn (James Franco) is still struggling with his feelings for Peter (who keeps slipping in the homoerotic touches?)" - Spider-Man 3

 

[TheVileOne]

edit, dp.

 

[TheVileOne]

I wonder what her thoughts were on the very gay movie, Alexander.

She probably hated the intentional homo-erotic element of the relationship between Frost and Pegg in Hot Fuzz.

"Deep down all of us are a little gay."
-Jimbo from South Park.

 

[ghost_x]

Ya reckon she liked Brokeback?

 

[tehkao]

What exactly do people expect from "superhero movies"? That's what I am wondering.

I go into these movies expecting a good, original interpretation/translation of plots/themes/characters from the comic book into a film. I want to be entertained the same way I am entertained when I READ a great issue of Spiderman or X-men...ie I expect an intelligent story, good dialogue, and good action. But it seems like for some others, all they really want is to see these superheroes come to life and beat the snot out of each other in CG glory on a big screen. If that is the case, why even bother making a whole coherent movie? Why not just play a Spiderman or X-men video game?

BTW, the first Spiderman wasn't just a good superhero movie, it was a great movie, period. It entertained even non-Spiderman fans. It had a clever script. It had witty dialogue. It made us laugh. It introduced an interesting, original take on a classic Spidey storyline that wasn't seen before. I can't say any of those good things about Spiderman 3.

 

[ghost_x]

Not sure if this is posted, but heres a Joblo review, 8/10 very good, JoBlo's reviews are always spot on as well.

http://www.joblo.com/review-spider-man-3

Well...let’s just say we have another Blockbuster on our hands. This film has great character development, awesome special effects and excellent action sequences. They're idiots if they decide to stop making these movies after this one. They're great fun and the length didn't bother me at all (it was long) since I was never bored. I can honestly say that I was glued to the screen the whole time. Aside from a few plot points that could have been handled better, the movie flowed nicely, giving us what we really came for: a great comic-to-movie experience!

Tobey Maguire returns as our friendly neighborhood webslinger and once again shows us that nerdy is cool. I totally dug the direction he went with the character this time around. After the alien goop attaches itself to Parker, we get to see an interesting transition from his typical character to this extroverted aggressive guy, which was hilariously cool to watch (Parker dancing in the street...classic)!

Let's talk about all the villains now. Where do I begin? Let’s go with "Sandman for 200", Alex! Flint Marko/Sandman, played by Thomas Hayden Church, is probably the best casting for a villain yet. He played it perfectly. The effects that went with him were amazing. However, I'm not sure if I agree with the way he traveled through the city like a huge sand storm tunnel and the fact that he can become three stories high...yes, it was fun to watch and made good entertainment, but I'm a "less is more" kinda guy. I also liked the character's motivation, but I just found it a bit conflicting in the end or least his interactions with Spider-Man were. One minute he's one way, the next he's something else.

Harry Osborn -- or should I say Green Goblin -- is back and well played by James Dean's reincarnation, James Franco. He was good, but I think I would have preferred him in a cooler looking suit and mask. As it was, he almost looked like a Power Ranger. Eddie Brock or should I say...wait for it....VENOM was played by Topher Grace. Grace gave us an interesting take on Eddie Brock adding some charming wit and wickedness once he became Venom. I think most fans will appreciate the treatment they gave Venom in this filme and I for one, was quite satisfied with the overall look and dynamic of the character. I just wish there had been more scenes with him.

As for the rest of the characters, Bruce Campbell is always a pleasure to watch on screen and his scenes were hilarious! Bryce Dallas Howard was hot as Gwen Stacey, but she was nothing more than eye candy. Kirsten Dunst returns as Mary Jane and...meh! She was alright, but I didn't like the way the love triangle was handled between the main characters. It just didn't flow right.

Also, Sam is the man! Sam Raimi, that is. Where does this guy go from here? THE QUICK AND THE DEAD II? Whatever it is, I'll be the first in line. He created such a memorable franchise here , that it's sure to be a classic. This time around he went deeper into all of the characters and it felt more than just a superhero flick. Of course, the action and special effects were grander, but when the action wasn't happening, the main storyline was just as much fun and interesting.

This is a great start to the summer flicks! I enjoyed it very much and most will too! I would love to see a part 4 in the future with -- or even without -- the main actors. I personally found that the actors, as good as they were, didn't make the movie. It was the whole idea of Spider-Man and the amazing directing, that did it for me. Go see it!

 

[The Chris]

Makes me wonder what regular audiences will think. Maybe bigger will be better for them, since everytime I went to see Spidey 2 I had to hear the stupid soap opera comparison/complaint.

 

[tehkao]

I personally can't stand the first Spidey film. UGHH it feels cheap to me, it just feels like it throws up past superhero efforts and piles it into one load.

HOWEVER I love the 2nd Spidey movie. I have watched it on DVD like 10 times min. If it leans towards being more like the 2nd in its pace and how it builds the action I will be happy with it.

The first Spidey was great because it had wonder and amazement. We felt the same excitement that Peter did when he first started discovering his powers. As far as Superhero "origin" movies go, Spiderman 1 was by far the best.

The 2nd was good because of the excellent script and story(which was taken from an actual comic book storyline "Spiderman No More?"), well developed characters and it had the best villain. It also (still) has the best action sequence of the trilogy (the train scene).

On the other hand, I really don't know what positive thing to say about Spiderman 3. Except for the fact that it tries really hard to please the fanboys who just want to see the black suit, Venom, and cool fights.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

What exactly do people expect from "superhero movies"? That's what I am wondering.

I go into these movies expecting a good, original interpretation/translation of plots/themes/characters from the comic book into a film. I want to be entertained the same way I am entertained when I READ a great issue of Spiderman or X-men...ie I expect an intelligent story, good dialogue, and good action. But it seems like for some others, all they really want is to see these superheroes come to life and beat the snot out of each other in CG glory on a big screen. If that is the case, why even bother making a whole coherent movie? Why not just play a Spiderman or X-men video game?

BTW, the first Spiderman wasn't just a good superhero movie, it was a great movie, period. It entertained even non-Spiderman fans. It had a clever script. It had witty dialogue. It made us laugh. It introduced an interesting, original take on a classic Spidey storyline that wasn't seen before. I can't say any of those good things about Spiderman 3.

I disagree. Love Spidey 2 but found Spidey 1 to be kind of a rehash of moments from past superhero movies. I didn't like how they establish him discovering his powers either. He sees he is bit by a spider, doesn't seek medical attention... sweats to death, gets sick as hell... still no idea to go to the Dr. Then the stupid cafeteria and school fight... The flipping... the students cheering then saying he is a freak after. OK... whatever.

 

[ghost_x]

Makes me wonder what regular audiences will think. Maybe bigger will be better for them, since everytime I went to see Spidey 2 I had to hear the stupid soap opera comparison/complaint.

The thing about Spiderman is that audiences go in there expecting a no brain summer blockbuster, and when they see that the movie actually has real moments of tenderness and character development they immedietly become disarmed, not knowning whether to like it or complain about there being a lack of explosions.

 

[The Chris]

Good point. There are some who complain and say where's the action and others like me who were impressed with the character in Spidey 1 and 2.

 

[boywonder13]

to me Spider-Man 3 felt lke a different "flow" than the other 2 movies. Alot happens in it. and it just felt different. instead of leading up to one or two thigns needing to be resolved at the end. it had several more, which may not be a bad thing, it depends on opinion.

 

[DSET]

I think this review is fair and honest
And He states more reasons for his opinions
IMO this is what most people should expect from this movie
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=11021
I think us comic fans will get a little more out of it and the ones who are expecting the world out of this movie will get less

and also just clicking on a few movies on RT
Gladiator is @ 78%
GLLLLAAADIATOR
come on people!! lets be honest
gladiator is on 8/10 peoples top ten list,

 

[OverMyHead]

That ‘something’ was, pure and simple, the decision to go with both Sandman and Venom as Spider-menaces. Apparently included because he’s a favourite of both Maguire and Raimi, Sandman is given a back-story that ties him to events in the first Spider-Man movie, but it’s an unnecessary complication. Fine actor though he is, even Thomas Haden Church struggles with the flimsy material he’s given. That’s when he’s actually on screen — most of the time it’s his enlarged, motion-captured CG self, bellowing in rage in sequences all too reminiscent of the sand FX in the Mummy movies.

Venom, meanwhile, is a mixed bag. Raimi has never been a fan of the alien symbiote, created when Spidey ditches the black substance and it latches onto a murderous Eddie Brock, and by his own admission had to be persuaded to include the character. Still, given the ‘dark Spidey’ storyline, Venom makes sense thematically and structurally: Eddie is what Peter might have been if the coin had landed tails. But because Brock’s screen time is so negligible (he’s introduced about 30 minutes in, almost as an afterthought), his murderous motivations seem forced. When Venom is finally created, in the third act, the drooling monster may be impressive visually, but lacks personality and, crucially for a creature that possesses the enhanced powers of Spider-Man, true menace. It’s almost as if Raimi was unable to withhold his disdain for the character.

Sadly, the gruesome twosome take some of the shine off Harry Osborn, as his vengeful New Goblin targets Peter physically and emotionally. James Franco’s complex and charismatic turn makes Harry into Spidey’s most interesting villain to date. With the benefit of an extended back-story, the two confrontations between Peter and Harry have an emotional undercurrent lacking from the battles with Sandman and Venom, and are easily the best of the movie’s many extended action sequences. There’s nothing, however, that even comes close to the Doc Ock-Spidey train battle in Spider-Man 2...

NoooOOOOO. This movie's gonna suck major balls. DSET just proved it.

 

[Slimy Wall Crawler]

This is how I feel. I can see that it may easily be as good, or a little less then '2'. This is something I'm not mad at. What is interesting is we have to look at the history...

Back when Spidey 1 was released, no one cared about it or thought it would do any good, I even remember the teasers looked meh. And everyone was more jacked for Episode II at the time. Then because no one had any expectations or much to compare it to, it succeded. Then I think people felt no way could Sam pull another good movie out of his hat. And he made one that was even better (not too hard to do after Spidey 1). Then people started to think that '3' would raise the bar like '2' did. And like I've said before, I never really expected it to. And that is why so many critics are bashing it. If your not first your last is almost their mentality. If it is not the greatest super hero movie every it his horrible. People that take this as a movie, and not an expectation they seem to really truly enjoy the movie. And thats what I'm going to do tommorow.

Maybe this is the cruse of the trilogy. Maybe it's not really the movie it self but more so the expectation that so many have to such a ridicoulous level.

This is somewhat similar to my own thoughts. The first Spider-Man back in 2002 was a cute little movie, it had the comic's great origin story to fall back on. I think people were just more relieved to find out that while it may not have been great, that it didn't totally suck. We were all so happy to find out that the organic webbing didn't detract from the story (remember the organic vs. mechanical web shooting debates that started way back in 2000). Overall Spidey 1 was solid enough, b/c it was approached with a "please don't suck!" attitude. Plus Tobey and Kirsten's love story was far more interesting and believable then Anakin and Padme's pathetic stuff.

I don't think anyone really expected Spider-Man 2 to be really that good, but probably just OK. Then it blew everyone away with how great it was. I remember being here back in '04, and we were hard pressed to find a bad review for that film. But Spider-Man 3 is getting plenty of bad reviews, it is getting good ones too, but the consensus about this film is mixed. Which I thought may happen since so many villains are crammed in here. Harry as Goblin 2, Sandman, and "kewl" Venom.

I am a little annoyed that Peter and MJ's drama continues to play out in this film, and that Peter still rides that dorky scooter deal. What was cute and engaging at first (Peter/MJ, Peter as mega-nerd), may start to become down right f'ing annoying the third time around. But I will give my complete thoughts when I see the film.

 

[boywonder13]

This is somewhat similar to my own thoughts. The first Spider-Man back in 2002 was a cute little movie, it had the comic's great origin story to fall back on. I think people were just more relieved to find out that while it may not have been great, that it didn't totally suck. We were all so happy to find out that the organic webbing didn't detract from the story (remember the organic vs. mechanical web shooting debates that started way back in 2000). Overall Spidey 1 was solid enough, b/c it was approached with a "please don't suck!" attitude. Plus Tobey and Kirsten's love story was far more interesting and believable then Anakin and Padme's pathetic stuff.

I don't think anyone really expected Spider-Man 2 to be really that good, but probably just OK. Then it blew everyone away with how great it was. I remember being here back in '04, and we were hard pressed to find a bad review for that film. But Spider-Man 3 is getting plenty of bad reviews, it is getting good ones too, but the consensus about this film is mixed. Which I thought may happen since so many villains are crammed in here. Harry as Goblin 2, Sandman, and "kewl" Venom.

i've seen the movie. If u expect this movie to be perfect than sorry, if u expect to be crappy sorry, its somewhere inbetwen 7ish.

Venom deserves a whole movie, the spider-man symbiote suite alse needed a movie, to much was crammed in. they should have gone with the original plan and done 3/4back to back with Venom in the fourth, but thats to late.

right now in focusing on Spider-MAn 4, and the lizard!

 

[OverMyHead]

F**k lizard.

I want Carnage, and Venom (back).

 

[Mr Jide]

What exactly do people expect from "superhero movies"? That's what I am wondering.

I expect to see a movie for what it is, a superhero movie not a pretend superhero movie where the film makers have to apologise for certain, essential character traits just because they think the audience wont buy it ....(and yes, I'm talking about Pete's genius and his ability to make mechs)

I go into these movies expecting a good, original interpretation/translation of plots/themes/characters from the comic book into a film. I want to be entertained the same way I am entertained when I READ a great issue of Spiderman or X-men...ie I expect an intelligent story, good dialogue, and good action. But it seems like for some others, all they really want is to see these superheroes come to life and beat the snot out of each other in CG glory on a big screen. If that is the case, why even bother making a whole coherent movie? Why not just play a Spiderman or X-men video game?

I want exactly what you want BUT an intelligent story, good dialogue, and sufficient, creative action in regrads to sm1 and 2 (1 especially) is lacking big time, thus I see no cause for celebrating these movies.

BTW, the first Spiderman wasn't just a good superhero movie, it was a great movie, period. It entertained even non-Spiderman fans.

sm1 was mediocre at best. Just as it entertained others, many others thought it sucked.

It had a clever script. It had witty dialogue.

Are we talking about the same movie because I have seen no evidence of this at all.

It made us laugh.

Maybe on the outside and thats because of the absurdity of the movie, trying to call itself a legit spidey movie but on the inside, many of us were crying.

It introduced an interesting, original take on a classic Spidey storyline that wasn't seen before.

When a spider-man movie is narrated as being a story about a girl, Interesting isn't the word I'd use to describe this movie.

 

[J.Howlett]

7000,

I'm with you on the first film...mediocre at best is absolutely right.

 

[kbrooksgohan]

Is it me? Or do you Mr. 7000 like to here bad or negative reviews...Cause it seems like when someone says oh this was bad...you go off into your oh this was medicore....and tons of others things that some people "me" don't agree with. Not bashing on you but, why are you here? And also what do you think you could do that Raimi and crew hasn't tried because you seem to have all the answers...