Spider-Man 3 - Review

Comment on “Spider-Man 3”

1. Dindi Says:
   May 3rd, 2007 at 18:02

   "Spider-Man 2 is easily the best superhero movie ever made"....there you go again making sweeping statements...have you even seen Howard the Duck?

1. concealed Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 01:08

   Watched it twice today at work. It was good; but I have to agree with you. A lot of characters seemed like they were left to the side for a movie that tried to pack to much at once. I imagine Raimi did go head to head with Avi Arad more than once. With Spiderman 2 so successful in both a financial and critical standpoint....you'd think Avi and the rest of Marvel would leave Raimi be.

1. David Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 01:32

   I want action, no more storytelling, I wanna see the fights. Throw in more villians. I don't care about relationship building between Peter and MJ, Kirsten Dunst has been the weak spot for me the entire series, I hope she does leave, she is delusional if she thinks the franchise would suffer if she left. The only person leaving that would affect the series would be Raimi. Maguire is adequate but not indispensable.
   Spiderman had the origin story, Spiderman 2 had some storytelling with more action, now I just wanna see action (did I mention that already). Enough of the critics who want character development. What do these bloated, self important, I think my job is important but it's not, individuals know?

1. Stuart Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 12:11

   More than you clearly. I know enough to know that the movies that stick in my memory are the ones that balance plot, character and action. I know enough to know the ones I forget about within a couple of weeks are the ones that are nothing but hollow action scenes with a plot designed solely to get from excuse for action scene A to excuse for action scene B.
   
   There is nothing remotely satisfying about action without plot. It can become a guilty pleasure, nothing more.
   
   I love Commando, but as a movie it's a piece of shit. An entertaining side-note.
   
   If you want "action" without a plot, go support WWE.
   
   Christ even the best selling VIDEO GAMES which are designed for 99% action have plot and character of some kind.
   
   People like you are the poison that's destroying decent blockbuster filmmaking. Let's cater to the idiots who just wanna see stuff blow up and hear cool one-liners.
   
   You make me sick David.
   
   What's even more pathetic is your sign off about critics. If you don't think critic opinion is worth a shit, why did you even read the review in the first place you hypocrite? People with opinions like yours usually base their movie-going solely on how cool the trailer looked, so why waste time reading reviews by people you clearly hate.
   
   Denyers guilt most likely.

1. Nick Says:
   May 4th, 2007 at 12:12

   well, action is great, but you need some storytelling in any movie. Don't get me wrong, i fast forward to the action scenes in repeated viewings of movies all the time. but if the overall film doesn't have any plot elements, the movie turns into a mindless action fest. Again, not that this is bad, but for a franchise with such an expansive history, you need story.

1. aba Says:
   May 5th, 2007 at 02:24

   
   OMFG SPIDER MAN GOES SOOOO EMO! AHAH I REALLY HTOUGHT NO ONE ELSE NOTICED THAT- he got the haircut the head shaking attitude- the tight clothes- the black eyeliner....OMFG I SAW THAT I JUST NEW...

1. David Says:
   May 5th, 2007 at 02:26

   Just because I read their opinions don't mean I base my movie viewing on them. All movies can't be the same, that would be boring, sometimes you want different things from different movies. I don't want my superhero movies to play out like 'Out of Africa' Spice is the variety of life. Just saw Spiderman 3 and there was plenty of action and plot, so I don't know what the problem was. It had just as much as a story as Spiderman 2. Spiderman 2 had plot holes as well but everyone has no problem overlooking them. Stuart, you contradict yourself, movies with romance and deep plot are usually not refered to as a blockbuster, the word itself infer things blowing up with cool one liners ( the original blockbuster 'Jaws' had shark attacks and the shark itself being blown up with cool one liners, "Where going to need a bigger boat").

1. Nuno Says:
   May 6th, 2007 at 13:36

   I saw this film on Friday and I have to say that I had read some of the reviews and I didn´t expect much . Surprised was I to see that , and even though the film could have been better , it is a nice addition to the Spider-Man saga. I think that three actors that form the so called love triangle were great , and even though we could and should have seen more of Kirsten Dunt´s character , she shines everytime she´s on screen, serving as a sort of Greek choir. I really James Franco´s performance and Tobey Maguire was great as well. The villains were quite interesting , especially Sandman , whose story was quite interesting , helped by Thomas Haden Church´s sober performance. But what really amuzed me were the great special effects . Yes , some scenes look too digital but overall I think that the special effects are close to perfection , especially during Spidey´s last battle . But even though I loved this film and I am a huge Spider-Man fan , I have to say that I would like if they just didn´t make any Spider-Man movies anymore - it´s fine as it is - a great trilogy.

1. jake Says:
   May 6th, 2007 at 13:38

   David, do you read comics? If so, do all those words in the bubbles coming out of the characters mouths annoy you?

1. Alberto Says:
   May 6th, 2007 at 13:39

   This movie made me think what Joel Schumacher did so wrong with Batman. And what Jonathan Mostow did whit the Terminator.
   
   I hopped for the best superhero movie evermade, and got something els, pore storytelling, and desperately telling something that Sam Raimi couldnt handel.
   
   Why Why Why Why Why Why Why!!! Why didnt you just focus on one thing did you have to put so much in to the movie!! The promotion of the movie was that it was supose to be dark, what was so dark about it!!
   

1. jon Says:
   May 6th, 2007 at 13:40

   I feel as if my childhood has been raped. this movie represents everything that is wrong with movies these days. All i ask for in a spiderman movie is some good bad guys and for spider man to stop them. this movie did have some good scenes but all i want is in a spiderman movie is for the bad guys to be evil. i don't want to sit threw a 2 and a half hour movie were the bad guys are all forgiven and say sorry. they did it in the first and the second i was hoping for something new in the 3 i was wrong. this movie should have been two movies then they could have introduced the characters in the time they deserve. I would give this a three out of five. if your a spider man fan see this film. but this film brings nothing to the first time viewer.

1. David Says:
   May 7th, 2007 at 09:00

   Jake, I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this movie perfect? No. Is the series perfect? No. At least in 3 the didn't have Spiderman/Peter running into another burning building. Does Spiderman ever leave his mask on for more than two minutes in any of these movies? I know you don't wanna hide the star's face for too long, but come on....I agree, I would have liked to see more of a character development of Venom and the villians have been kind of wishy washy. I wish MJ would have been away on a photo shoot somewhere. I think everyone had too high of expectations. Name any movie and you can find something wrong with it. Special effects were great.

1. Ryan Says:
   May 8th, 2007 at 14:48

   I think everyone is missing the point of this Movie. This was Raimi's last chance to cash in big on his "baby". If the reports are true about Sony going cheap for the second trilogy and looking for replacements across the board, then what he did with Spider-man 3 was brilliant. Although, I will agree three villians was a bit much, Sam did it perfectly. He not only left the door open for endless posibilities for other movies, but he added just enough to make it respectable. This movie had a little bit of everything (effects, story and action). The way things ended allow for so much to happen. Like Peter and MJ's relationship being on the rocks. This allows for other love interests to evolve such as Gwen, Betty or Felicia Hardy. Honestly, I'd like Raimi and McGuire to return. Aside from those two, everyone else is replaceable.

1. Josh T Says:
   May 8th, 2007 at 14:49

   Ryan,
   
   Sony isn't looking for replacement actors because they want to go cheap. From what I've heard they're willing to pay quite a lot to get everyone back. It's simply that Maguire and the rest may not want to do it at ANY price.

1. jake Says:
   May 9th, 2007 at 01:01

   David says:
   
   "I want action, no more storytelling, I wanna see the fights."
   
   and also:
   
   "Spiderman had the origin story, Spiderman 2 had some storytelling with more action, now I just wanna see action (did I mention that already). Enough of the critics who want character development."
   
   David then says:
   
   "I would have liked to see more of a character development of Venom and the villians have been kind of wishy washy"
   
   Nice one.

1. Dindi Says:
   May 9th, 2007 at 08:55

   Avi Arad sucks! Venom is rubbish! EMO Spiderman was really bad! Dance sequence was way too long and needless! Harry was dull! MJ and Aunt May were boring! Worst film of the trilogy! 1 + 2 are way better.....Sandman was good though until the end when they just made him massive but not much else....yawn!

1. asd Says:
   May 12th, 2007 at 15:31

   This movie was very disappointing. X-Men 3 even destroyed it.

1. Damien Says:
   May 20th, 2007 at 22:04

   Spider-Man 3 really disappointed me. There was too much of Peter's & MJ's boring soap opera relationship. They could edit her out of this movie, and it would actually be pretty good, even though it would only be an hour long. I can't begin to say how much I hate the character of Kirsten Dunst, who is not only pointless, but she serves to slow down the plot progression of the film.
   
   None of her conflicts are resolved. She's conflicted over Peter & Harry, her music career, and the fact that all Parker thinks about is Spider-Man and his problems. There was no resolution for any of these problems. (Unless you count MJ running out of Harry's place, even though it's never mentioned again)
   
   I honestly hope they cut out that attention-whore Dunst who seems to want to make the whole movie about her. So why not just call it Mary Jane & Peter Parker 3 if that's all you're going make out of this movie?

1. Damien Says:
   May 20th, 2007 at 23:33

   one more thing...
   
   I think the casting of Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man is really starting to show its limitation. While Maguire can pull off the nerdy high-school geek perfectly, can you name one other film where he plays an action hero? He's just not designed to be one. He's not Vin Diesel, he's not even The Rock. This is why the Spider-Man movies seem to be bogged down by non-stop dialogue with hints of action here & there. I believe Raimi knows the limitations of his actors, and that's why a lot of people (myself included) have wanted to see more action in all 3 movies. Because Maguire simply cannot pull off the action sequences effectively.
   
   Ever wonder why the trilogy always seems to want to unmask Spider-Man whenever he is in costume but NOT fighting? My guess is they do this because all the action sequences with Spider-Man are just CGI animations. So to try to convince the audience that it actually is Tobey Maguire in the costume, they always unmask him when there's no action. Picture how the movie would look if they didn't perform this little trick. Every time Maguire would turn into Spider-Man, the movie would start to look like a cartoon with a CGI-drawn Spider-Man. Every time. People would start to notice, and it would look like one of those movies taking place in the real world, but with cartoon characters to support the cast. (Monkeybone, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, etc.) Unmasking Spider-Man when there's no action creates the illusion that he is the one actually doing the fighting, and not just a CGI-drawn cartoon character.
   
   They could use a new Spider-Man, somebody who could believably perform the action. Maybe this series needs to pull a Batman and shake it up a little. The dialogue is getting unbelievably stale and drawn out, especially during the Maguire Dunst scenes. (Not to mention Aunt May & Gwen, but some performers were also good in the series)

1. Erin Says:
   May 31st, 2007 at 06:52

   Okay, I understand what all of you are saying, but in my opinion, Tobey Maguire does an excellent job as Spider-man. Yeah he doesn't look like Vin Diesel or anything but Peter Parker DOESN'T look like them anyways. He looks like Tobey. He's not a buff wrestling look alike. Which is exactly why Raimi chose Tobey. He fits the part perfectly. And just because there was a long dance scene or be cause he looked "emo" doesn't make the movie bad, in fact, the whole point of all of that additional stuff was to show not that he was emo or anything, it was just to show the OPPOSITE Peter Parker. The dark side of Peter is that arrogant, selfish, player type of guy, and as for the darker look, that was just to symbolize when he was wearing the dark suit or not. I mean, what else were they supposed to do, write EVIL on his forehead whenever he put the black suit on? The dance scene was just meant to give the audience a little laugh and kind of make fun of who Peter was becoming, and it's not the film makers fault if you guys can't take a joke. I loved the movie, I thought it was well put together. And as for the whole CGI thing, not all of it was a CGI. Tobey was dressed in the suit and he did PLENTY of the action scenes, as many as humanly possible at least, so don't bash him saying that he "doesn't do anything except look nice when they take off his mask." He is a great Spider-man, after all, would the series have been so popular and made so much money if he was horrible? People wouldn't go see it if the main character couldn't pull it off or was horrible at their job, so in my opinion, Tobey was great, the movie was great, and everyone did well. You're all so immediately judgmental and you don't think about anything behind the silver screen. And Kirsten Dunst, by the way, although I'm not a huge fan of her as a person, can act. And she's good as MJ, can you see anyone else successfully taking her place? Once you've been an important character in a trilogy of movies, you can't just replace her like that. The whole Peter MJ thing is great. It adds a lot to the movie and their love story is one of the main factors in Peter's life. So it only makes sense that there is a lot of it in there. I can't wait until the forth, and if they replace Tobey, I refuse to go see it, because he is an excellent Spider-man and a genuine guy, exactly like Peter. "'Nuff said."

Leave a Reply