X-Men 3 was at least two times better than Spider-Man 3 . At least X-Men 3 didn't have a story that rely on all the characters just happening to be at the right place, at the right time. Was X3 in the same spirit of the first two? No, it was a totally different director. This on the other hand, same crew and not even near the same ballpark.

The only dreamland I see is, living in a world where you ignore the fact that this film was one huge disaster, with only a few scenes that have redeeming qualities.

Don't have time to read all 8 pages but did people in the theatre laugh when Maguire was trying to act out the upset scenes? The first one was when MJ broke up with him, and he just makes this strange face. About 1/3 of the audience just burst out laughing. And then again when there is an emotional moment between Parker and Osbourne, and then again when Emo Parker his MJ to the ground in the bar scene. Obviously these weren't meant to be humerous moments, and it's not very often you experience an audience react like that to sloppy acting. Or is it just that Maguire has a strange face?

This happened in my theater as well. I worked for a college film festival a while back, and that's the only place I've really seen people laughing at dramas, and that is not a good sign.

You know, I think we all get by now that you hate the Spider-Man movies. So why go see them and why keep coming in here? Some of us actually want to discuss the film in question instead of using this forum to endlessly push our anti-Raimi agenda.

Posts like that, imply that only good opinions of the film are allowed. Yet, you are almost alone in defending the film. It's a review thread, people are posting their opinion. I've always said Spider-Man 1 was over-rated, Spiderman 2 was decent and this one is complete crap. And we are not even talking about the films, we are talking about the FILM, not plural. We're talking about the third one, the one, that if you go by general opinion, was a dissapointment on every level. Need more opinions? Check out more web-forums like Superherohype.com and you'll see that you're in the minority.


I didn't care for the first two X-men films either, but I can apperciate X3, so it has nothing to do with not liking the first two Spiderman films.

What I don't get is what's with a trilogy that sets the groundwork for a major rivalry in the first movie, and then fails to deliver this in part three? How do you screw something like that up?

I've waited five years to see some Spiderman/Green Goblin buttkickin'. I thought the reason Norman Osborn's costume in the first one was so goofy looking was so his son could wear the same costume and look like the same character. I was really excited when I saw Gwen Stacy was to be in part 3. (And those familiar with the comics know what I thought would happen between her Spiderman and the Green Goblin.)

Yet - what we got in this story arc was a big fizzle. Essentially some hugs and tears and an "I love you man." Gwen Stacy's character vanishes two thirds through the film. And I don't think there was a single Spiderman/Green Goblin fight scene. There were a couple featuring Peter Parker. But none with Parker as Spiderman.

I don't consider the movie as bad as others. For the most part I feel the complaints are valid, but I was still entertained. To me, the resolution of the Green Goblin character was the most disappointing aspect of the movie. There was a good story in there - wanting to be told. So what happened???

I have to agree, when I first saw Harry and Peter fight at the start of the film, I was feelin good, but then after that, it just fizzled out. They built up on this tension in the previous films, but in the end, we got nothing for it.

I still say, if they would of just focused on GG2, this could of been a fantastic film, but instead it suffered from the Batman & Robin syndrome, throw as many villains in as possible and hope for the best.

Batman and Robin being so terrible had nothing to do with too many villians, It went waaaay beyond that

That was the one thing that really bugged me about the movie. It was such a deus ex machina. If only they had at least put *some* foreshadowing in there so it didn't seem so 'out of left field' when it happens.

I generally liked the movie. I agree with the general consensus that the dark Peter turn was handled poorly, like it was done by someone whose only exposure to 'bad boys' was West Side Story. I did like the a-hole behavior he showed to Harry and Eddie, though. I thought that worked a lot better to show Peter's selfish, non-compassionate ways than him strutting his stuff looking like an odd cross between Heroes' Peter Petrelli and DJ Qualls.

I think the multiple villain setup worked here better than it has in any previous movie, but I do think the villains got a bit shortchanged here. This could have easily between two movies. The villains' backstories and motivations were adequate and definitely better than I feared.

But still... Sandman gets an okay setup and then is forgotten for the majority of the movie. They really could have used to character to play off the notions of good and evil, right and wrong... Spidey's sort of arrogance toward his own heroism, and the whole idea that you can do whatever you want (vengeance) as long as you are on the 'good guy' side (which has a number of real world parallels) in contrast to someone breaking the law, but for truly heroic reasons (saving his daughter's life).

And Venom is introduced too late into the movie. I miss the fact we didn't get to see him terrorizing the city (until the climax). Plus they missed out on the chance to play on the potential confusion of Venom doing evil things and being confused for black-suited Spidey. There was one throwaway line about 'initial reports thought it may have been..' but if given an entie movie it could have really fleshed out that story.

Still, I have to admit the thing I liked about the multiple enemy setup was the Jedi-like ending. It was obvious and telegraphed but still got me excited.

Studio Signs for Three More 'Spider-Man' Movies


Webbed superhero Spider-Man will appear in at least three more movies, Sony Pictures has confirmed. The studio's chief executive Michael Lynton said after the box office success of the latest release Spider-Man 3, there is a huge audience waiting to see the story continue. Lynton tells BBC News, "Everybody has every intention of making a fourth, a fifth and a sixth and on and on. (We'll make) as many as we can make good stories for." Spider-Man 3 entered the record books as the most successful new release ever after taking $148 million in its opening weekend. Lynton enthuses, "I think it had a lot to do with timing - the fact we were the first out in the summer. I think it had to do with the fact that the movie had a universal appeal, it had a broader appeal than the second movie, it attracted a family audience and brought the family audience back. There were many factors that contributed to it, and there's a part that you just put down to 'I don't know'." Lynton did not confirm whether director Sam Raimi or Tobey Maguire would be coming back for the fourth installment and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------
well thats that.... now time to ponder the next villian

They should have left the stupid Sandman out completely. Did we need more about Uncle Ben biting it? Peter and Harry should have fought the first act of the movie. Peter finds the symbiote and when Harry makes MJ break up with him Peter and the symbiote turn into black Spiderman for act 2. Also during act 2 bring in Gwen Stacy and have something happen were she falls for Peter and Peter and Brock have a run in about it. And leave in the part about Peter and Brock at the Daily Bugle. Then in act 3 have Harry find out the truth of what happened to his father (and not by some surprise butler). Peter and Gwen get it on but then Peter realizes that the symbiote is destroying him and have the suit come off and fall on Brock while is taking pictures of him. Then have Venom kidnap MJ and do the end scene but without Sandman of course. But just have Harry and Peter team up now that Harry knows the truth. Harry gets stabbed and MJ comes to his deathbed while Peter is disposing of Venom. Harry tries to tell MJ about why Peter changed but dies before he can explain it all. Have Peter still think MJ and Harry were together. Then you could go into Spiderman 4 with Peter still seeing Gwen. Harry dead. MJ being all "emo" about everything. Then you would have a lot more to complete in Spiderman 4 without having 2 new enemies and a disappearing Gwen since she had no story in Spiderman 3.

I may be the only person, but I was sort of hoping for a Venom Cliffhanger. I, and pretty much everyone else I went with, was expecting the whole Eddie Brock/Venom thing would be the ending.

Either way, that was pretty weak with the entire Venom storyline.

Guess they won't be making anymore

I think the people comparing SM3 to those movies are off base - but did anyone honestly go to see any of those movies expecting them NOT to suck? I can see someone saying that Spider-Man 3 is to the Spider-Man franchise, what Batman and Robin is to the Batman franchise, but that doesn't mean Spider-Man 3 isn't leaps and bounds better than B&R, because it is.

I think this movie also is more of a disappointment than X3, because with Ratner taking over the reigns and the shortest running time of the X-Men series, anyone who thought it could live up to the promise of X2 going in was kidding themselves...but Spider-Man 3 has the key creatives back, same cast, excellent new additions and incredibly good marketing (awesome posters, perfect trailers) and didn't deliver the way the previous film did...

I can understand both sides of the coin - the people who didn't like it and those who really did. I'm in the middle. I don't think it's the worst movie of the year, I don't think it's the best...but it's that last part that hurts because if you asked me a week ago, I would have bet that Spider-Man 3 was going to be my favourite movie of the summer/year... now it's not even in the running.

but 1 thing came out of the movie.... the clapping for the new harry potter movie

It amuses me to see that those who enjoyed the movie deride those who didn't as having a "pack mentality", "fitting in", or even stranger, having "an anti-Raimi agenda".

I liked the original Spider-Man quite a bit. Although it needed a bit more oomph in the action department and was a tad overlong, it successfully translated the character to screen in a visually exciting and entertaining manner. Lots of heart and good character moments.

Spider-Man 2? BRILLIANT. A perfect comic-book movie. A grand opera of fantasy derring-do, Stan Lee bombast, grand opera, pitch-perfect emotional cues, and exciting action pieces throughout the running time.

But Spider-Man 3? Bad. More than bad, it's just a collossal disappointment throughout. The movie is overstuffed with characters and undercooked with lack of momentum and follow-through. Sandman disappears for, what, 40 minutes in the middle of the movie, killing whatever interest we had in the character. Venom/Eddie Brock is introduced and taken off the table, also stopping any momentum we have in *his* story (and when he finally shows up in costume, it's a case of "too little, too late" syndrome). Gwen Stacy is so entertainingly portrayed by Bryce Howard, she serves little purpose but introduce some conflict into the Peter / MJ relationship and then is brushed off the table entirely. And Dunst is *SO* bored and lifeless playing MJ we wonder why Peter is even bothering with her to begin with.

Add the multiple plot contrivances, bloated running time, and severe pacing issues (the movie starts then stalls, starts then stalls, over and over to the point where the film becomes really boring in Act 2), I'm wondering just how in hell the same cast/crew responsible for the first two movies could have made Spider-Man 3.

(OK the Bruce Campbell cameo... my god I had tears of joy there.)

If you enjoyed, liked, or loved the movie.... great!!! I'm actually envious of you, I *really* wish I could have. But I came out of that movie disappointed, perhaps even a little depressed. X3 was crap but at least it was 90-minutes of crap and didn't meander and wallow for an extra hour after that. Even Ghost Rider managed to be a more entertaining movie than Spider-Man 3, and *that* I still cannot even fathom.

Fooey! Fiddlesticks!!

Why does everyone blame Ratner for the shitfest that was X3? He was a hired gun that came in at the eleventh hour to shoot this film because of studio intervention to get it released ahead of Singer's film. A scraggle piece of shit script was already there in place.

And the same type studio intervention pretty much caused the inclusion of so many characters into SM3. If you read some of the interviews with Sam, he's (I won't say forced to include Venom/Brock and Gwen) coerced into including these characters into a script he already had written involving just the Sandman. I think he did miraculously considering the studio pretty much said, "we love your script Sam, but write in parts for Gwen/Brock/Venom. Don't change anything about your script, just make those other characters fit."

side note: I just watched X3 for the first time this weekend(after seeing Spiderman 3). I tried to keep an open mind going in after reading all the negative feedback, but damn if it all wasn't justified. What a pile of shit that movie was. That being said, unlike Spiderman, I WOULD put X3 in the B&R/Catwoman/Superman 4 category.

I understand that, and it's the nature of the business...but he didn't work them in miraculously well. He should have adjusted a few more things in his original script to make the new elements work. I know they were working under the gun, but like I've said earlier in this thread, I feel there are MANY ways you can keep the core story that Raimi had originally laid down, integrate the new elements and make it work in a much better fashion.

I'm sure Raimi didn't realize that the script was disjointed and going to disappoint people as much as it has...but I don't think this "The studio forced it on him" shit excuses the film he made...because HE STILL MADE THE MOVIE. Raimi wasn't so pissed off that he quit, he didn't take his name off it...he gave it his all regardless...I just feel that this time his all wasn't nearly enough and the scripting came off as lazy and sloppy.

(and although it's not a popular opinion, I actually like Brett Ratner. I think the guy knows how to deliver an entertaining movie. I agree that X3's less than stellar quality doesn't fall squarely on his shoulders - but most people on forums like this went in with checked expectations because they knew Ratner was nothing more than a hired gun...that was what I was saying).

I agree with most people that Sandman should have been left out. I hate saying that because I really like Thomas Haden Church, but he didn't serve the storyline. The perfect way to pull this off would have been to have Peter with the symbiote for half the movie, then introduce Venom and end it with a big 3 way fight between Spidey, Venom and New Goblin. This is a clear-cut case of too many cooks spoiling the soup. There's enough plot here for 3 movies, not 1. Sandman was underused and completely pointless. I wasn't given any clear motivation for his actions. What the hell was he even supposed to be doing? I really hope they do part 4 with Lizard/Carnage. I could see a great story coming up there if they do it right and give it time to breathe.

I've glanced all the reviews.

I'm a fan of the comic, and the first two movies. I have limited time, but will clear my schedule to see this movie in the next two weeks.

The Question is Should I See it Now, or wait for the DVD in October/November?

Please help.

I would see it now, it is still really entertaining

1. Raimi was contracted into doing a third one. Big word being contracted.
2. Raimi, like every individual, still needs to put bread on the table.
3. If you're contracted into doing a film and the powers that be tell you to do something, you do it if you still want to work in Hollywood (a.k.a. Fincher on Alien 3). That way, everyone in Hollywood thinks highly of you and you're not blackballed out of there.

I feel that Raimi seems like too 'nice' a guy to put it back to the studio and say, 'You know what, this isn't gonna work, guys, and I'm not gonna do it.' I don't think what ended up on screen worked as well as it could have. Yes, I liked it, but I also read the first draft with the inclusion of Venom and I thought that worked (see post 22 on my comments.) Really, this film could have been much, much worse than it is to the point of it becoming B&R.