24 spoiler:

Bruce, awesome! Emo Parker, ugh, a big dork, not a big dick. Harry, great (except for the Butler making him good again).

I really wanted to like this movie...just not going to happen.

I dunno, I didn't love it like Spider-Man 2, but I still really liked it. True, Raimi seemed like he was just throwing everything on the screen like he was never going to have a chance to make another movie again, but I that created a fun ride to me. It highlighted some of the reasons I really like Raimi, his loopiness and keen ability to shoot a chaotic action scene. Good times.

Bruce Campbell was priceless and I too would have paid just for that.

Amen to that. I really (like alot of people, it sounds like) wanted to love this movie. I still thought it was ok, but ever since the franchise was announced I'd been looking forward to seeing Venom on the big screen. Gotta say I was disappointed that he wasn't used better. Anything you see with Venom on it has his obnoxious tongue sticking out and I remember he used to lick MJ's face to piss Peter off. I can't recall seeing him stick his tongue out at all (in the flick). I know it's a nitpicky thing, but considering it was a major part of seeing the character acting so crazy, it surprises me that they left it out.

Has anyone got the movie's one-day take yet?

Fantasy Moguls and Box Office Guru are estimating Friday's numbers at $58M.

It made $57,980,000 including Midnight showings.

Box Office Mojo is reporting $59,000,000.

awe man. reading this thread is bumming me out to no end. hopefully my lowered expectations, thanks to the bad reviews here, will allow me to enjoy it more than the rest here.

If it's any consolation, I did like how it ended overall. But yeah, there's just a lot of WTF moments...

This movie isnt gonna hold up as well as the other movies. I think alot of people are gonna be disapointed. the more I think about the movie the more I dislike it. The fact that they wasted Venom makes me pissed.

the only good action scene is the out of control crane scene.

This movie felt like one of those 1000 piece puzzles and Riami tried to make pieces fit where they can't. It's a good movie, and unfortunately coming after SM2, that's all we could hope for.

Riami's normally distinctive visual flair was absent here. If Riami didn't like or understand Venom's character, like he's mentioned many times prior, then why include him? He really short changed Venom, if not raped his coolness. Gwen was just a plot device, Sandman was cool, had a good set-up and motivation but never finished it and Spiderman's saying to him at the end was ludicrious!

Harry (Franco) has the best arc and was the best written character here, the two dance numbers at first seemed odd, but delivered the laughs and character development, all the fights were entertaining, but why oh why did everyone cry so much? Cryder-Man 3.

Good but not great. Worth seeing theatrically though.

Grade: B-

DarkHorizons is saying $57 million and change.

Count me in the minority, but I thought Spider-Man 3 was HANDS DOWN the best of the series! First of all, it was MUCH different than the first two. I like the first two, but they are basically the SAME movie but with different villains. 3 has the coolest villains, even though Topher Grace sucked and I kept thinking they might as well have casted Doogie Houser (sp?) in the part. But Sandman was the coolest special effect I've seen in quite some time. I didn't like how he disappeared for about a half hour, but still a great character. 3 is also the cheesiest entry by far. However, I feel it works in its favor and I appreciated the added cheese. I mean when you see a meteorite crashing to earth, oozing black gunk, cheesiness is what you expect. All the action sequences were great and I just felt more entertained by this than the previous films. My biggest complaint is that there was way too much time spent on Peter and MJ's romance. And the butler scene definitely seemed like a quick fix. Still, when the movie was over I had a smile on my face and wanted to see it again. By the way, the french host had me laughing harder than anything I've seen in a while, as did "ladies man" Peter walking down the street. 3 1/2 stars out of 4...GO SEE IT!!

Haha, that is awesome. There was some applause at the end of my showing, but for the most part I think everyone was either disappointed or exhausted by the whole thing.

For the most part, I thought the whole thing was pretty terrible. And I'm a big fan of the first two films. It's basically Superman III all over again.

The whole Emo Parker story made me want to get up on screen and kick Peter's ass. That hairuct....

At one point, I think it was the scene where he takes Gwen to the jazz club, I seriously considered the possibility that I was back at my apartment dreaming the whole thing. It was so bad in such a surreal way, it just didn't seem real to me.

what about Harrys Butler that was worse then the Jazz club scene.

Saw it again, still enjoyed some, but other parts I loathed even more... Even though I didn't hate the 'fever' dance scene like others did, each time I've seen it, I can't help but think of this:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/faAjN7u6zhU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/faAjN7u6zhU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

David Elliott usually dislikes big budget summer action blockbusters. To see him so positive about Spider-Man 3 indicates to me that it is probably pretty good.

I'm going to see it tomorrow (Sunday), so I'll find out for sure then.

Just got home....Absolutely loved it! Pure Spidey magic for the 3rd time! Anyone who did not enjoy this flick is not a true Spiderman fan!

Well, I'm a huge webhead but c'mon, Venom got jipped, plain and simple.

It seems a lot of the people who didn't like the film are fans of the comic book who were dissapointed with some of the character's portrayals in the movie. (i.e Venom) Having never read a Spiderman comic, I can say I thought this movie was the best of the three. I can't say why, only I just enjoyed watching it and thought it was a blast. Just my 2 cents.

OK, I threw up a longer version of my thoughts on my blog which you can find in my signature, but here it is here too if you want to read - basically, though, I dug it, and don't get all the haters myself---

"Part III" movies don't usually fare too well with folks – I'm thinking "The Godfather Part III," "Superman III," "Batman Forever," et cetera. "Spider-Man 3" is certainly coming in for a surprisingly strong amount of bashing, but y'know what – forget the pundits and fanboy nitpickers. While not quite in the same league as the first two movies, maybe, this dyed-in-the-wool webhead fan found "Spider-Man 3" an action-packed summer movie romp that still keeps the characters in mind at center stage. If it tries to do a little too much with its triple villain storyline, it mostly pulls it off – in its very excess, "Spider-Man 3" is consistently entertaining.

I think what keeps "Spider-Man 3" afloat is the same steady hand of director (and co-writer) Sam Raimi, who's helmed the entire trilogy, and the returning cast. It makes all three movies feel like a single story to have this consistency.

Is it perfect? No – there is an awful lot going on. Sure, the Venom plot could've been an entire movie on its own, but I kind of liked the pack everything in go-for-broke feeling of this flick, as Peter Parker's entire life careens out of control. Raimi pulls this chaos off a lot better than, say, the godawful "Batman Forever," which also crammed in several villains, a new sidekick, love affairs, etc., but came off as pop-colored cornball kitsch. Character is king in these movies, despite some great action sequences and special effects.

My random thoughts (SPOILERS ahoy, of course):
The good:
All right, so the movie is balancing three major plotlines at least (and that's just the villains) – yet for most of its running time, Raimi is a master juggler as he zips around the tales. The final act is a bit rushed (and you can practically feel the strain where, rumor has it, the studio forced Raimi to include Venom in the film), but it really does all tie together pretty nicely in the end.

OK, so this movie is basically about Peter Parker's ego and its rise, fall and redemption. And thanks to a plot device that introduces his "dark side," Tobey Maguire has a heck of a lot of fun with "evil" (or perhaps "ego") Peter Parker. Raimi balances the nasty acts of Parker with the silly, pushing the envelope in how over-the-top he can go with his behavior. Was the "disco Peter" stuff ridiculous? Of course – that was the point! Parker's a nerd, so when he becomes cool he's still going to be a cool nerd, isn't he? I had fun watching Maguire break out of the "noble suffering Parker" mode for a few scenes, and thought he brought a nice barely-contained rage to these sequences.

I loved James Franco's Harry Osborn in this movie (the underrated Franco has also been a bright spot in the previous flicks). The arc of his character is a tragic one, and in lesser hands might strain credulity, but Franco really sells the character's personality changes throughout.

Thomas Haden Church is a terrific Sandman – in that silly striped shirt, he looks exactly like the comic character. While he turned into too much of a muddy King Kong ripoff in the final act, I thought the effects used to bring Sandman to life were remarkable (particularly in the "birth" sequence, which attained a haunting beauty).

The not great:
Unlike some, I do think Topher Grace gave a mighty good show as Eddie Brock/Venom, and think the movie script considerably bettered the character's tangled comic origins (some of the disappointment by fans seems to be that Venom isn't precisely like he was in the comics; having never considered him one of my favorite foes, I don't mind that he is a little underused). I love Brock here as Peter Parker's twisted mirror, a Spider-Man without soul or conscience; as opposed to the steroid freak, inconsistently motivated comic goon Venom became (the superb Madgoblin has a two-part essay series looking at how the comic Venom's potential was lost, by the way).

All that said, it was just too long in the movie until Venom appears, and his story feels very rushed. Grace packs as much scenery-chewing as he can into his limited time, but another 15 minutes or so could've fleshed this arc out and kept the same action-filled four-way battle at the end. There are some very awkward transitions into the final act (The overwrought television camera crew narration, very lazy storytelling, was my least favorite part of the film). Venom and Sandman's abrupt alliance also feels very forced.

I kinda fell in love with Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane in the first two movies (the final shot of her in "Spider-Man 2" might just be one of my favorite movie moments), yet it felt like she phoned it in on this one. Her conflicts with Peter Parker weren't as organic as they might have been, and she often seems glaringly self-absorbed. Although she was really a minor role in this movie, Bryce Dallas Howard's Gwen Stacy was enjoyable eye candy – fans shouldn't go in expecting anything much like the comic character, though.

The ugly:
Isn't it a little absurd that the climax of all three of these movies revolves around Mary Jane getting kidnapped?

There's no real elegant way to do an "alien symbiote" entrance into what's been a kind of earthbound series, but the meteor from the sky was clumsy – if a nice nod to old-school monster flicks like "The Blob." I might've liked to see the symbiote be the result of a science experiment instead, though.

So why does Peter Parker spend half these movies without a mask on? It got rather ridiculous in "Spider-Man 3," but y'know, I thought about it, and actually, it makes a lot of sense from a moviemaking angle. That mask is hardly very emotive, and even Marlon Brando couldn't deliver a great performance shackled by it. While it looks awesome in the comics, there's a reason that Maguire keeps ripping it off in the films – it's the only way he can really act in a scene (I know some folks think he's a little too stoic an actor, but he works for me). There was an awful scene in the first "Spider-Man" with Spider-Man and "Power Ranger" Green Goblin having a heart-to-heart talk, yet you didn't see a single mouth move during the scene. So awkward as it can get, I can understand the "Amazing Mask-less Spider-Man" being so prominent in these movies.

Like I said, though, quibbles aside, I had a fine time at "Spider-Man 3," which I'd give a strong "A-/B+." I'd have to say these three together make the finest superhero trilogy we've yet seen (with "X-Men" following close behind, I think). A "Spider-Man 4" is probably inevitable, but part of me wishes they wouldn't think about it without Raimi, Maguire and even Dunst. Through the highs and lows, they have defined Spider-Man on screen, and without 'em, I'm not sure I'd like what I'd see.

I enjoyed it. But the biggest complaint I have is that they just try way too hard to make you feel sorry for the bad guys. Way too hard.

It's obvious that Raimi has never had any of his friends get murdered.

I liked it even better the second time I saw it. I was able to relax more and just go with the fun of it all, and there was plenty to be had. I also had a better audience who was into it, and it was a 100 percent positive experience.

What do you mean? She totally served the purpose of making Mary Jane jealous and to pose problems between Peter and MJ. Am I the only one seeing this?

It was in the trailer?!??! Man, I am SO GLAD I don't watch trailers anymore! I would've been pissed had that part been ruined for me!

Yeah, me too. Like I said earlier, they just tried way too hard to make the audience feel sorry for bad guys. I guess it's typical Hollywood fare: "There's no such thing as evil" and "No one is really a bad guy".

I'd give the movie a B+.

that part felt so tacked on, I thought making sandman the killer was so dopey.