The Critics' Reviews of Spider-Man 3 Thread

[Bandyt]

Hmmm...I would have enjoyed the movie more if the person I saw it with stopped cringing at all the embarrassing stuff Peter Parker did. Apparently the Suit turns you into a John Travolta-style Jacka$$....

 

[War Party]

Hmmm...I would have enjoyed the movie more if the person I saw it with stopped cringing at all the embarrassing stuff Peter Parker did. Apparently the Suit turns you into a John Travolta-style Jacka$$....

Sweet!

 

[Mephistopheles]

Rolling Stone: 3/4

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/9387668/review/14362908/spiderman_3

 

[ghost_x]

I hate friends who manage to **** up the experience because they moan all the way through

 

[Karea07]

new review, good: http://enewsi.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=137&limit=recent

 

[Mephistopheles]

Miami Herald: 3.5/4

http://www.miamiherald.com/231/story/95047.html

 

[Karea07]

100's of reviews are not on rottentomatos.com yet... i'd like to see the meter rise when they are added.

 

[ghost_x]

They won't be adding all the reviews posted though, they only add a select few, so don't expect it to rise too much

 

[FlawlessVictory]

They won't be adding all the reviews posted though, they only add a select few, so don't expect it to rise too much

Yea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they only factor in the reviews from the "higher profile" critics? They won't be adding in every Joe Schmoe critic across the US just because they call themselves a critic.

 

[Bandyt]

I'm getting kinda sick of them giving the Villains sob-stories though, I just want a Pure-evil spidey villain that wants to Obliterate him and cause pure mayhem, not some torn thief who's trying to save his daughter or some scientist who gets taken over by AI that oddly reminds me of Raptors from Jurassic Park. I hope in the next three they will have a purely Evil bad guy, and I'm honestly looking in the direction of Carnage.

 

[ghost_x]

Yea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they only factor in the reviews from the "higher profile" critics? They won't be adding in every Joe Schmoe critic across the US just because they call themselves a critic.

It's pretty much the established critics. I can assure everyone you won't be seeing reviews posted by 'spiderman fan central' on there.

 

[kaijunexus]

...I just want a Pure-evil spidey villain that wants to Obliterate him and cause pure mayhem...

uh...Venom?

 

[Tempest19]

Rolling Stones and Boston Herald- oh hell, yeah- if they drop those I'm going to abandon RT forever.... cause' if they don't add those, they're owned by Disney or something.

 

[ghost_x]

uh...Venom?

Who?

 

[Karea07]

so did they do it differently back then? cause both spider-man 1 and 2 were reviewed by 150 plus on that site....

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Rolling Stones and Boston Herald- oh hell, yeah- if they drop those I'm going to abandon RT forever.... cause' if they don't add those, they're owned by Disney or something.

Those will definitely be factored in.

so did they do it differently back then? cause both spider-man 1 and 2 were reviewed by 150 plus on that site....

It'll still reach that number. I was just referring more to the obscure movie reviews, both good and bad.

 

[ultimatefan]

7000,

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

There´s no such thing as absolutely right or absolutely wrong when in comes to liking or disliking movies. It´s an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ghost_x]

There´s no such thing as absolutely right or absolutely wrong when in comes to liking or disliking movies. It´s an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Well he was agreeing with another person with the same opinion, so to them they are absolutely right

 

[ghost_x]

so did they do it differently back then? cause both spider-man 1 and 2 were reviewed by 150 plus on that site....

By the release of the movie, they will have similar figures.

 

[Paradoxium]

Good God. the Newsweek and Times comments were bad because of ignorance and likely subsequent judgment from that ignorance, but the Variety comment makes me sick. The "dark knight" being light and funny; the campy 60's show was what it was, but it sure wasn't meant to be a movie.

Thanks for showing these examples of how baseless comments from critics can be over this genre, and how much they don't know - I think it puts things in perspective. And Batman Begins only got an 84% total? That's still pretty damn good on RT, but looking at the quality of that movie I would've expected higher.

As for Spidey, the only thing that makes me nervous from these reviews is that the "twist" scene, or dancing scenes will be groanworthy, or that the film will be jumbled, not enough screentime for characters/ paced poorly. But the pacing was great in the last two films generally, and I've gotten over some things like "go spidey go!" that I groaned about when I first saw the films, so I'm confident I will enjoy this film. (And having my expectations lowered a bit going into the film might help me enjoy it more when it turns out to be awesome too ).

Well to be fair, Batman Begins might have a 84% on RT but it has the second highest average rating of all the major superhero films at 7.7/10 (trumped by Spidey 2 at 8.3/10). To put it in perspective, Casino Royale has 94% on RT, that is a full 10% higher than Batman Begins, but it only managed a 7.8/10 average rating.

Most of the mainstream critics were getting ready to hate it, they all thought Burton's take is the "only real" take of Batman. However, less mainstream critics were more open minded. Even the negative reviews from the less mainstream were much more constructive than the BS from the mainstream. So effectively, the smaller critics pulled the score back up.

 

[Buford The Sly]

Rolling Stones and Boston Herald- oh hell, yeah- if they drop those I'm going to abandon RT forever.... cause' if they don't add those, they're owned by Disney or something.

The Dallas Morning News guy gave it a B and it's not counted either on RT http://www.guidelive.com/portal/page?_pageid=33,97283&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&item_id=54785
I think it just takes them a while to get them all counted.
Some of those reviews on RT are from some very suspect sources but they all count the same. Therein lies the folly of that site. I mean 300 was rated at 61%, I think, but I mostly heard nothing but good reviews for that.

 

[godovfury]

Back up to 68.

i dont know about you guys but those rating isn't the real deal plus its NOT A BIG DEAL. as long as the general public loves the movie the Spiderman franchise WILL LIVE ON.

 

[ultimatefan]

Well he was agreeing with another person with the same opinion, so to them they are absolutely right

Yeah, but the term "absolutely right" makes it sound like an undeniable fact, which it isn´t. Matter of choice of words.

 

[The Chris]

Well I'm going in tomorrow thinking that every single one of the key critics that I agree with,for the exception of Roeper, liked it (IGN, cinemablend, entertainment weekly, rolling stone mag, NY Daily news, NY post, chud) So I'm still as excited as I was when I saw the teaser trailer with Superman Returns. Rolling Stone has me thinking though. Are the critics trying to bring Spidey down a notch with this one because of the budget and profit?

 

[Mephistopheles]

The "Unofficial" Tomatometer has more than 100 reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/?sortby=date&critic=1