Venom was wrong choose for part-3 period.

I love how you have to argue with everything on an Internet forum.

I think Spider-Man 3 is going to be good, but I'm a little concerned about the whole 3 villians thing. I hope things don't get too cluttered.

i wish they did Venom by him self, and choose someone tougher a meaner looking guy. then Topher Grace

When I watch the film, I hope it doesn't feel as though the Venom storyline was tacked on, even though that appears the way it went down in production. Personally, I would have been fine with the majority of the storyline to be Sandman and Harry, with maybe a mention of Lizard. I'm not a huge Venom fan, but the previews of him look good to me, so I'm still hopeful.

Spidey 3 will be setting the record for widest release, breaking Shrek 2's record. It'll be at 4,252 theaters. Jeff Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere is saying he's seeing predictions in the $125 - $130 million range for the 3-day weekend.

Spidey 3, Shrek 3, and Pirates 3 probably have the best chance of being the top grosser of the year. Out of those, only one film clocks in at 80+ minutes, which is of course Shrek 3. The other 2 films are around 150 minutes. So that probably boosts the ogre's chances of being king of the Summer, again.

on Rottentomatos.com

Spiderman got 90%
Spiderman 2 got 93%
Spiderman 3 so far is at 68%

The worst part is, Spidey 3 will set records and that won't speak for the quality of it. Now, I haven't seen it yet, but everything I have read, points towards the Sony choosing the direction of the film and Rami just goin' along with it.

While I am not a fan of the first two, I can at least respect that Rami did what he wanted with those two pictures. This one on the other hand, seems to be Sony's baby. Three villains, plot points changed around, Gwen Stacy thrown in and various other things.

I forgot all about Pirates 3 coming out this year. I didn't care for the second one, so here is hopin' that they improve on the previous. Same with Shrek 3, I loved the first but can't stand the second.

So am I.
The original Batman movie started going that way. Way too many villians and not enough time for the Protagonist.
I'm excited though.

Maybe someday. I'm just glad to finally see him on the big screen.

From some reviews it doesn't seem that bad. Of course if you think about it, Batman Begins had 3 major antagonists. Falcone early on, Scarecrow, and Ra's.

'Spider-Man 3' snares web of first-day records
By Hy Hollinger
May 3, 2007

"So far, so good," a jubilant Sony Pictures Entertainment vice chairman Jeff Blake said Wednesday as he reported a slew of records set by "Spider-Man 3." The latest entry in the comic-book franchise snared $29.2 million in a May 1 blast-off in 16 overseas markets, topping "Spider-Man 2's" bow in the same territories by 86% and that of the original by 175%.

"The bottom line," Blake said, "is that 10 of the 16 openings had the biggest opening day of all time."

Spidey's boxoffice power became evident Tuesday afternoon as early record returns came in from eight day-ahead Asian countries. By Tuesday night, the champagne corks really started to pop when Sony's stats specialists finished first-day calculations from all 16 markets.

Their findings revealed that all 16 bows of the third film adaptation of the comic-book superhero beat the openings days of both "Spider-Man 2" ($15.6 million) and the initial "Spider-Man" ($10.6 million), bested the combined gross of both previous films, and that four territories came up with their biggest single days of all time.

Sony said France's $6.1 million represented the country's biggest opening day of all time, beating "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" ($3.9 million), local blockbuster "Taxi 2" ($4.5 million) and the combined opening day takes of Spidey 1 and 2 ($4.9 million).

Just watched it tonight. It was a C+ at best, and I'm a huge fan of the franchise - and of the comic books. Too many characters, ridiculous out-of-place scenes, a Sandman that more closely resembles the monster at the end of the Hulk (Lord help us) and some seriously lame dialogue. I was really hoping for better.

Not quite the same, but I understand what you are aiming for. The big difference is, Falcone could be described as , at best a side villain. Scarecrow was minor also, with the big threat being Ra's. This on the other hand, you have the Harry angle, Venom (a fan favorite - that can't be delegated down to a minor) and then you have Sandman - which with the Uncle Ben angle, becomes more than a minor villain.

I love it, and think the three movies work really well together as one piece. Is it perfect? Not quite - the ending act is a little too rushed, and yeah, there's too many villains in the stew, but this is still by far the best comic book "Part III" to date (of course with competition like Superman III, Batman Forever and X-Men: The Last Stand, that might not be much). I had a heck of a lot of fun with it and it did the trick for me, although some fanboys will nitpick it all to death I'm sure. I'd say A-/B+ off the top of my head.

Technically Superman Returns is the new Superman III. So maybe that's not so after all.

I really don't know what to make of this movie. I came out of both Spider-man 1 and 2 very disappointed but later learned to love those movies. I felt the first was too dark, and didn't do enough to develop the Green Goblin. The second had too many awkward moments between characters that were neither humorous nor touching. However I later came to really appreciate not only the technical qualities of these movies - something that really disappointed me the first time i saw them - but how they encapsulate the vision and storytelling of the character so well.

It might therefore be my expectations again creeping up on me and ruining this movie for me. Again, just like the first two movies, I thought the action sequences were cheesy, overdone, unrealistically animated, poorly choreographed, and awkwardly presented. And also like the first two I thought some dialog sequences were way overdone, ham-handed, and lacked flavor. And yet again, I felt like the movie was too long and accomplished little in the time that I was watching it, but needed another hour or two to fully develop its story.

So while I might enjoy this movie sometime in the future, I can't say that I really enjoyed watching it for now. I felt bored most of the movie, with long takes on actors who can't show a single genuine facial expression, filling in holes that are otherwise occupied with meandering, circular dialog. The action sequences were spectacularly executed, but they felt flat and repetitive, especially in the light of how the second movie focused more on drama, and less on outright bloody fistfights. Some sequences really felt out of place in the movie, and the overt patriotism - something that contrasts very sharply with Superman Returns - made me wonder if the studio executives made more than half of this movie. It was almost as bad as the blatant product placement of the first film.

Perhaps it is just that Spider-man is such a difficult character to bring to life on film - and he is, from the perspective of a comics fan. It's hard to get a man to move like you think that Spider-man would, at the speeds that he does, with the same grace and precision. His villains are not conducive to appearing threatening, because they were spawned in an age where they were much more comical in appearance. But perhaps the worst part of the movie is that it even manages to fail to capture the easiest character in the Spider-man universe to bring to film: Peter Parker, the everyman.

Well said Superboy. I liked the first Spider-Man when I saw it in theaters, but it took a second viewing of part II for me to really enjoy it. When I first saw II, my expectations were through the roof after reading all of the dynamite reviews. Naturally, I was let down.
I think I might like this one as the reviews so far have me less than amped and my expectations low. Of course I might look back and realize it was a shoe-horning story. Having watched the other two over the past few nights, I intend to try and view this as the third act of a single play as opposed to a stand alone story. I think that way everything seems more developed. Still kind of peeved they just decided to throw Venom in superfluously though. I realize he is a fan favorite and all, so logic would dictate if you are going to have him there, he needs to be a movie in and of himself.

I'm seeing this tonight and hope it's enjoyable. Spider-man 1 was, imo, a bad movie. It had pacing problems, boring action, and a boring villian. It had moments of greatness but was mostly just bland. Spider-man 2 reversed all of that, and was a fantastic movie with far fewer problems and was a thoroughly enjoyable film with interesting character conflicts, great action and a fantastic villian.

I really don't know how to read into these reviews. Most say it is only a mild disappointment that still entertains, while the net based ones make it sound like a "Matrix Revolutions" type travesty. Granted, I kind of liked Revolutions, but that's me.

our newspaper gave it 3.5/4 stars

Matrix Revolutions sucked so bad...

Off to see a semi early free screening. Will be back later with thoughts :).

The S.F Chronicle reviewed it today. The little Man was asleep.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...DGE7PJ9TN1.DTL

David Walker likes it: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=27861
Jamie Rich Hates it: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=27890

and Brian Orndorf is right in the middle: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=27868

It was the same for me. My second viewing of Spider-man 2 really improved it for me. It's now one of my favorite movies.

Judging by the first two movies and the trailer, I will not be seeing this.

guess you'll be the only one.

And what is Eric D. Snider, chopped liver?! ;-)
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=27895

When you say Gwen. You mean that sweet girl that baked him a cake? If so I have to agree with you here. MJ and PP don't really have a strong on screen chemistry. In any case, I'm glad to know that "other girl" gets some screen time. If I am totally mistaken, please ignore this comment. :D

Totally mistaken :)

No, I mean Gwen Stacy. Peter's first love in the comics. Killed by a snapped neck in the comics.

The Russian chick does get some screen time but Gwen doesn't get much of the attention she deserves in this film. So there's two "other girls" in this film.

The Russian gal who baked him his cake and now needs to get him some nuts in his cookies has some funny "douche bag Parker" moments.

Well, I need some time (and probably a repeat viewing or 3) to make my final judgment, but for right now, I will call it 2>3>1, but all of them fairly close. FWIW I don't consider SM2 the best comic movie ever as some do, so there's some background for the ratings. Some very, very cheesey scenes and dialogue, but the action was better than the first two films easily.

The way it's handled IMO it doesn't become too much of a clusterfuck. The villains are spread out enough for me.

They handled the villians fine in this movie (they were shallow but not distractingly so), it was the hillariously over the top emo parker, horrendously cornball ending (think Matrix Revolutions level corny), and seemingly high school geared love plotline that hurt the movie.

That said, I enjoyed it more than last summers "big movies" (Its actually pretty close to X3 in terms of quality but with higher highs and equal lows, and it didn't bore me into submission like Dead Man's Chest) as it didn't bore me, it just made me cringe from time to time. The CG on sandman wasn't all that hot later on, either.

Overall, fitting conclusion to the trilogy, and a good overall movie, just corny and overwritten.

** 1/2 out of ****

Edit: for some reason, the movie didn't have the same feeling the first two had, which may be a great thing for some, I considered it part of the charm (of the second at least, I didn't care for the original.)

I think "Disappointing" will be the operative word used when reviewing Spider-Man 3. There are some awful emo-Parker scenes that just made me cringe, but some of the Darker Parker scenes almost made up for it in the mid-section of the film. The villains and their motivations are threadbare and just uninteresting and made for a very uninvolving last act.

The fight scenes looked clunky and just didn't quite strike the right balance of amazing action sequences and the "cool" factor. It got downright repetitive and vertigo-inducing far too much.

There are comic relief scenes that just utterly stop the film dead in its tracks to its detriment. Raimi took a step backwards with this installment of the Spider-Man franchise. It almost had the feel of a cash-grab, with very little to say, or what was said was so clumsily executed and drab.

I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+, which is being charitable.

I don't think I have heard as many groans as I heard while watching Spider-Man 3 since I saw Batman & Robin in the theater.

I have to say though that I did love Bruce Campbell's part.

Saw it last night. Good but not great. Definitely the weakest of the three, no argument from me on that point. Higly entertaining though, with some real laugh out loud moments as well as top notch action sequences and effects. However, while this was not an X-3, this definitely had dange of becoming one at times. For one thing it never seemed like a product of the same filmmakers of the first two. Someone could tell me an individual other than Raimi directed this and I would have believed them, although explaining Bruce Campbell would have been a bit difficult.
I guess my main gripe is that overall, this movie came off as a spoof of a Spider-Man movie as opposed to a movie itself. Peter going over to the "dark side" so to say was amusing, but they tried to push it too hard. The scene of MJ and Harry dancing almost made me wretch. Venom (who really was the only true villain of the movie) came off as more of a smart ass bully than Spider-Man's allegedly deadliest foe. Topher Grace was wrong on all counts. James Franco seemed to revel in his role with all of his "I'm evil, hee hee!" glances, and I can tell Dunst is over playing MJ. She really wants to get out of this series and it showed. I am guessing the prospect of going on without her is why Raimi and co. almost made her story take precedence over Spidey's. Finally, this movie had way too many stories to try and follow. A movie with what we had minus Venom and Gwen Stacy would have been good, but this way it just seems like a bunch of little talkie bits that serve as an excuse to get from one fight to another.
That said, I still give it a solid B or three out of four stars. The setup for the action sequence at the end with the TV announcemount was just like going into a ride attraction, and would actually work quite well on its own as a kind of fanboy made movie. I loathed the announcers during the actual fight though. Oh well, I will see it again sometime, but I don't have the nagging desire to return like I did with the previous two outings.

Why does CGI spidey still look so friggen awful.

Did Bryce Dallas Howard get some bolt-on upgrades, or just some gell-filled bras?

Does anyone in the film use Sony laptops, phones, Blu-ray players, cameras, etc? I hope they didn't flood this with product placement like they did for Casino Royale.