Marvel Movie Madness! Part 24: Spider-Man 3

Not even close to being as bad as most people would claim. It does have a fresh rating after all. I stand by my claim that if this was the film released in 2002 instead of the original Spider-Man we would talk about it very differently. The films biggest problem is how good the first two were and the fact that it didn't live up to expectations. Like X-Men: The Last Stand they tried to do too much and the ending's felt rushed, overblown and at time very silly. Oh god that scene with Harry and the Butler...and Peter and Sandman at the end. Overall a missed opportunity to bookmark a great movie saga, but a rather decent blockbuster in it's own right.

Jul 1 - 02:05 PM

It was BAD, maybe not Batman and Robin caliber BAD, but bad all the same. The love story shmaltz between Peter and MJ had me wanting to slit my wrists. It is, hands down, the worst film Sam Raimi ever made and that's including the first Evil Dead (which might have classic status, but not the camp and humor that part II and Army of Darkness had).

Jul 1 - 02:34 PM

I can understand your passionate dislike of the film because of the disappointment and high expectations but this is not a BAD film, especially in regards to summer blockbusters of the past years. This is leaps and bounds above the Pirate sequels, all the Transformer films, and other superhero pics like Fantastic Four, Green Lantern, etc.

It's got a bad rep, no doubt, and it probably deserves it. But from an objective point it's not as bad as its made to be.

Jul 1 - 03:48 PM

Bartlett Pears

No, it wasn't the hype caused by the first two films. It was all the really awkward shit that ruined that movie. The musical bits had me cringing. The emo spiderman crap had me struggling to keep from pausing the movie and watching something else. It was half a decent spiderman movie covered with 2 movies worth of really dorky, awkward, unnecessary and poorly acted scenes.

Jul 3 - 11:39 AM

Sean Guyon

You're argument went right out the window just when you said The Evil Deal was one of Raimi's worst films. You obviously have no clue.

Jul 5 - 11:04 AM

Noah Kinsey

Agree 100%. I LOVE the first Evil Dead. Considering what he had to work with, I enjoy it more than Evil Dead II!

Jul 6 - 01:40 PM

Very Good Observation StaindSlave . . .I thought that Spiderman 1 was pretty shallow actually (probably because it was the first in the series and "they" wanted to steer-clear of things being too complex)

Jul 1 - 03:15 PM

While I very much enjoyed Spider-Man 1, I see your point.

To me Spider-Man 3 didn't fail as a film, it failed as a third entry in a film saga. Return of the Jedi was significantly weaker than Star Wars or Empire and it has cringe worthy moments (Ewoks anyone) and yet that film seems to be given a pass. I don't see a large difference in quality from Spider-Man 3 to Return of the Jedi, however there's a very large difference with them and their predecessors.

Jul 1 - 04:15 PM

I liked the Ewoks! I was like 12 years old at the time though.

Jul 2 - 05:03 PM

Sean Pak

I still like the Ewoks, and I'm 25!

Jul 2 - 11:09 PM

Also, Return of the Jedi didn't spend the entire film crooning over a love affair people had long ago lost interest in, destroying the film in the process. Attack of the Clones did that, and it sucked too.

Jul 3 - 05:55 AM

Cyborg Unicorn

I kind of know what you mean.

Jul 1 - 04:18 PM

Jake Peffer

staindslaved you said it perfectly. Couldn't agree more.

Jul 1 - 08:57 PM

Noah Kinsey

I find myself torn into two people with this movie. The one side of me could sit back and enjoy this movie for what it was - and since I love Spider-Man - just accept it. It wasn't the crapfest of Batman Forever or Batman & Robin - but it doesn't live up to Spidey 1&2.

The other part of me struggles with (like these Marvel reviewers said) how there's just too much going on. Even that wouldn't be SO horrible, except they never really flesh out everything they started. I think that's what kills me the most about this movie.

Introducing Gwen Stacy? A little late in the Spidey mythology, but fine. However, don't just bring her in to use her for a few minutes.

I don't have any problem with how they used Sandman. For the most part, Spidey villians are portrayed as people in bad situations choosing the wrong path. Yet, I feel like his character was just used as a device for Peter to choose how dark he will go - which is FINE - but if you are going to try it - flesh it the frick out!

I was fine with Venom's costume. I enjoyed Topher's scummy character. However 1)the character was Eddie Brock by name only, 2)Venom deserves better than being a villian Spidey beats in their first encounter.

Also, the scene in the church? That was ripped beat for beat by John Semper's 90s animated Spider-Man series. I think there's a youtube with a side-by-side.

On a previous Marvel column, I talked about how it was crazy that Venom called Peter "Tiger" because he had never heard MJ call him that. In the comics, it's expressed that the symbiote stores memories, so it made sense that Brock/Venom knew all about Peter. However, since the movies both change the world to suit their needs, and are bringing their product to people not 100% familiar with the source material - they NEEDED to address it for it to make sense. There's a quick throw away line between Brock and Sandman, but I argue that doesn't count.

Hated the Peter emo dance, him playing piano at the jazz bar (and the dancing), and didn't like the corny Harry and MJ interactions. Yes, Harry playfully pretended to hit MJ in the head and said "Bonk." Bonk?!

Jul 1 - 02:18 PM

There was a comic book I had long ago, a Spidey comic - I think it might have had an audio cassette with it (shows my age) - where an astronaut goes to the moon and comes back with some strange rocks or gems. Anyways he makes a locket out of one of the stones and puts it on, but it grafts itself to his skin and turns him into a wolfman or something. He goes on a rampage, yada yada yada, and Spidey has to come save the day. Anyways my point is there's alot better shit to put in a Spiderman movie than they did in P3. Even if it's obscure crap only old people like me have heard of.

Jul 1 - 02:43 PM

sputnik 99

Hell, dude, I had a Spidey comic that came with a vinyl record in it! You ain't that old!

Jul 1 - 02:55 PM

Noah Kinsey

Val- If I'm not mistaken, the person who brought the rock back from space was JJ's son. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. Anyways, even if I'm wrong and they still said it was him, that would have been a cool movie to have Harry team up with JJ's son (jilted by MJ at the alter) and go after the two of them.

Jul 2 - 01:16 PM

Yeah you might be right, it does sound familiar.

Jul 3 - 10:14 PM

William Renaud

That would be the 90's TV show version of the Venom origin.

Jul 20 - 09:46 PM

You know, another thing that bothered me here is that Peter was still acting like a petulant child. At this stage in his life Peter should have been more mature. He shouldn't need anymore pep talks from Aunt May, yet again we see Peter acting like a selfish kid, unaware of how his actions affect those around him. What made him think Aunt May would be cool w/ hearing that Spider-Man killed someone, even if that person was the man behind her husband's death (a ridiculous plot device by the way)? What in all of Aunt May's character moments in this franchise do we get even the slightest hint that she'd be cool w/ someone killing another person? Peter should have known better. He also should have known better than to kiss Gwen, even if he was doing it as a photo op. What's the point of all the personal growth achieved in the first two movies if he's still going to act like an oblivious teenager?

Jul 1 - 03:42 PM

SPIDERMAN 3 is didactic in nature--it appears to want to teach redemption and forgiveness . . .Biblical Principles. Revenge is bad; revenge injures the Avenger and further injures the victim. Peter Parker's "murder" of his uncle's murderer made him out to be just as bad as the murderer. Peter's action of telling his Aunt he murdered The Sand Man so to speak showed us the audience The Hurt Aunt May felt at knowing that her Nephew (Peter Parker) was capable of inflicting the same degree of injury on another person. The Spiderman films (and comic books in general) are like Parables in a sense, visio-literary devices to "teach" the audience about Good and Evil. People are supposed to Build-up each other, not put them down and forgive other people; that appears to be the philosophical liet motif in Spiderman 3: Forgiveness, Patience, and Redemption.///Conversely, Venom, the "infected" reporter died in a state of un-foregivess and was extinguished. The Reporter had a LUST for power, a Venomous Lust that eventually led him to his death.// SPIDERMAN 3 totally ROCKS!!!!!! when do you see forgiveness and redemption dramatized in a movie that's ostensibly action-oriented?// never . . . rarely./ maybe in TOY STORY.

Jul 1 - 05:00 PM

JustinD. Just out of curiosity since you seem to be a big comic book movie fan, which films of the sub-genre did you actually like if you didn't like Spider-man 1 and 2?

Jul 1 - 06:11 PM

You know Ryan that's a fair question considering how much venom I've been throwing at these movies. To be fair, some of the movies - like the X-Men films, save the last 3 - that I was harsh on I don't necessarily dislike. It's easy to say a movie we saw and loved almost a decade ago is still amazing when you haven't watched it in a long time and are only working off of memories, but if we watch it again, when we're older, wiser, and w/ evolved tastes in film we might find some things wrong that we didn't see before. We may still like the movie - sometimes not as much as before - and may not. With the Spider-Man film series I'm in the latter category. That said here is a list of comic book movies I do like in no particular order; Thor, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Blade, Blade II, 30 Days of Night (don't judge me, it was one of the few non-Twilight vampire movie that came out in a while), Road to Perdition, Scott Pilgrim vs The World, Sin City, V for Vendetta, Red, Men in Black, and Hellboy II: The Golden Army (wasn't a fan of the first one).

Jul 1 - 08:20 PM

No batman movies, hmmm.... I thought that would be the case as I just don't think we agree on which CBMs were good and which weren't. The one's I felt stood out the most would be the 2 Nolan Batman movies, X2, First Class, Iron Man 1, Spider-man 1 and 2, Watchmen, A history of Violence, V for Vendetta.... I didn't find The Incredible Hulk, Thor or Red to be anything special, but not bad.

Jul 1 - 09:15 PM

Oh crap I left out Nolan's Batman flicks. I could swear I put them in there. Well you can add them to the list because I liked those too.

Jul 1 - 09:48 PM

And I forgot about A History of Violence.

Jul 1 - 09:49 PM

I don't see where we disagree save for the X-Men films and Spider-Man. No, Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Red were nothing special at all, but I was entertained by them (I might have to rethink Red though, now that I think about it). You asked me to list CBM I liked, not ones that I would list as my favorites and from the look of things we agree on a lot of the same flicks.

Jul 1 - 09:55 PM

You're right, we pretty much agree, I assumed you were one of those against Nolan's Batman and that along with disliking First Class, not thinking much of Spider-man 1 and 2 and X-men 1 and 2 and praising Letterier's Hulk and Thor (which was also assumed) seemed like we were polar opposites. Looks like we really only disagree strongly on the First Class front and are on the same side of the others, just at different degrees.

Jul 2 - 10:32 AM

Accursed Arachnid

The church seen "ripped" from the 90's animated series?

Someone needs to do some more research before commenting. Try that it was reverent to the source material(E.G. the comic---Web of Spider-Man #1 to be precise).

Too bad the setup of the costume wasn't a little more reverent or believable...a meteorite that just happens to fall into Central Park next to the only superhero in the world?

Jul 2 - 08:38 AM

Anders Gatten

I found it was stupid how they brought the astronaut into the second film yet they didn't use him as he was originally meant to buy bring the symbiot suit.

Jul 2 - 08:01 PM

Anders Gatten

I found it was stupid how they brought the astronaut into the second film yet they didn't use him as he was originally meant to buy bring the symbiot suit.

Jul 2 - 08:01 PM

Matias Sabaj

the Venom portrayal wasn't the only problem,his origin too: the meteorite conveniently falls near Peter and MJ,and they didn't even hear it falling and crashing!I mean,it's a freakin' rock from outer space,I think it has to make some noise.they could have used the JJ Jameson's son again,he was an astronaut after all,something like in the 1990's cartoon

Jul 1 - 02:28 PM

herein lies ANOTHER ANSWER: "the meteorite conveniently falls near Peter and MJ,and they didn't even hear it falling and crashing!I mean,it's a freakin' rock from outer space,I think it has to make some noise."///Audiences NEED PLAUSIBILITY . . . and NOISE . . .and ACTION . . .subtly is a no-no in a Comic-Book Movie. ///I love it: I mean,it's a freakin' rock from outer space,I think it has to make some noise. ///The dude makes a Classic Point.// I didn't care either way if it made noise or not, but The Dude who wrote the statement sure cared about the noise level and he speaks for the majority of film-goers.

Jul 1 - 03:33 PM

Doomz Davo

Here's another answer Gordon. Maybe the meteorite was drawn to Peter Parker because of his Spiderman powers. In the comics, the two of them we're always the perfect match. So maybe the symbiote crash landed next to Peter because it knew that he was more human than a human. I for one, like Spiderman 3 the best out of all of the trilogy. I don't really have to say why except it's for all the same reasons that you do. This movie was so multi-layered and deep for a superhero movie that it's no wonder that it flew right over most people's heads.

Jul 2 - 11:14 PM

King Crunk

Man, this movie just goes all over the place in terms of quality. There are great moments, but there are a bunch of lame ones, too. Venom is handled so horribly that it truely seems like Raimi did it on purpose just to piss Avi Arad off for forcing the character into the movie. Topher Grace as Eddie Brock? Really? He is not horrible, but he was nothing like the character, and his motivation for wanting kill Peter was absurd. As for the actual look of Venom, it was actually very good, but he was used so little that you cannot even appreciate it.

Jul 1 - 02:44 PM

Right-on, Mainstream Films can't be "All over the place" or The Audience will will become befuddled. The Best Comments are on ROTTEN TOMATOES!!!! its either A to Z or BUST. And Casting is Key.

Jul 1 - 03:38 PM

I like your assessment, the films quality does jump around a lot from moment to moment. We're left clamoring for the high points and squirming during the lows.

Jul 1 - 03:53 PM

Sean Guyon

Every time I see this on FX, I try to give it a chance, and I just hate it. Maybe it is because it seems like it was purposely fucked up by Raimi, and I had such sky high expectations for Venom. Hey, if you don't want to do Venom, and respect him as a character, then don't do the movie. I liked the brawl between Parker and Osborne in the highrise. That is it. It seems like Parker is crying throughout the entire movie. Dude, suck it up, you are a superhero!

Also, I don't care why Sandman is a bad guy. The whole, "My Daughter is sick, and I had no choice but to go into crime bit" was poorly put together. That was what was so refreshing about Ledger's Joker. He kept on making up stories about how he got his scar because it didn't matter. He is a psychopath!

Jul 1 - 02:53 PM

alas herein lies THE ANSWER!!!!!! (as to why Spidey 3 is demonized.)
". . . I don't care why Sandman is a bad guy."///--audiences "don't care . . . "//Audiences don't want a lot of EXPOSITORY CRAP . . . and explanations and motives and stuff . . . just a bunch cool-Assed special effects and hand-to-hand combat. Explanations and exposition only tires-out The Audience.// But I like the "expository crap" to no end.

Jul 1 - 03:28 PM

Captain Terror

Regarding paragraph 2:
I've also never agreed with the need to have everything explained in these films. If Sandman suddenly tore down my street in some sand-whirlwind, would I know or care how he got this power? No, I'd run for my life and think "Holy s--t, that guy's made of sand!" I see nothing wrong with leaving stuff like that unexplained, especially in a film where you've got 2 or 3 other guys to explain as well.

Jul 1 - 07:11 PM

Chuck Helleksen

Good point Bubba, so many CBM's are weighed down by the obligatory "Origin Story" Would love to see one with a little more mystery, not so literal. Why can't a villian just appear and kick the heroes ass around for awhile before we know what's going on. Later you can go through and origin in flashback so it doesn't consume the movie.

Jul 2 - 11:05 AM

Sean Guyon

The thing I am getting at also is that I want my bad guys to be bad. I don't need the guy at the end saying, "I didn't want this".

Jul 2 - 01:59 PM

Chuck Helleksen

Agreed, Evil for Evil's sake. Not because society made me this way.

Jul 3 - 06:33 AM

Tall Cool One !

I agree. And also, what a terrible back story. How about this one? My father lost his job right before I was born and resented my mother for having me. He drank alot and took it out on her and later me. We had some things like cable and decent clothes for a time but then we lost them. My father beat on me some more and mom left. I got into trouble a lot as a kid. I dropped out of school and ended up in "kid jail". I kept getting into trouble as an adult wound up in prison. I escaped, only to get caught up in some experiment and now I'm not even human.

And none of the audience has to know any of this because they can see it in my eyes and hardened features.

Jul 5 - 06:44 AM

Shannon Potratz

While I agree that this is the weakest of the three, I don't think it was so "Batman & Robin" bad that it warranted a complete reboot (I mean really, do we need another Spider Man origin story?). Besides, I felt like they really nailed Sandman. And to Raimi's credit, he didn't even want Venom in the movie. Chalk that one up to studio interference.

Jul 1 - 02:56 PM

I would prefer Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man 4 to the re-boot as well

Jul 1 - 03:54 PM

Darkman! Yes! Thanks for the reference, Raimi does have a knack for these kinds of things

Jul 1 - 03:55 PM

Captain Terror

"Darkman" was one of the first films I ever saw that I felt really captured a comic-book sensibility. A kind of zany, none-of-this-makes-sense-but-who-cares mentality. So I was thrilled when Raimi was announced as the Spider-Man guy. I think the problem with the S-M trilogy is that there were occasional Raimi moments, but they were tempered by having to make a Happy Meal-selling blockbuster. So the emo dance or the Power Rangers Goblin might've made sense in a zanier film, but instead they were inserted into a mostly-serious one. I like the trilogy for the most part, but would've preferred a more consistent tone. A Spider-Man movie made in the "Drag Me To Hell" style wouldn't have been for everyone but I would've dug it. I just think this trilogy could've used a few more "Take the f----ing elephant!" scenes, if you know what I mean.

Jul 1 - 02:59 PM

Darkman . . . comic book totally--especially when Raimi mounts the camera atop The Gun during the opening sequence's shootout with Durante. we see the POV (Point of View) of The Machine Gun: comic book city dude!!!!

Jul 1 - 03:11 PM

That went on the wrong post, sorry

Jul 1 - 03:56 PM

I LOVE SPIDERMAN 3 THE BEST!!!!!

Especially the sequence when Tobey McGuire is walking down the street hitting on the girls . . . it is sooooo fuuuunnneeee (SO FUNNY!!!!) . . . its as though Bruce Campbell himself directed that scene!

Just by McGuire HAMMING-IT-UP in the manner that "The Chin: Bruce Campbell" always Hams it up in movies (like Sky High).

(When I saw Bruce Campbell in Baltimore, MD the line went from the "basement" into The Lobby and out into The Street of the hotel, EVERYBODY LOVES BRUCE CAMPBELL!!!!)

----

But . . . I'm still upset that Spider-Man IV won't happen with Sam Raimi

we can see below that The Numbers (at 140 Million on the first-pop way back in 2002) were very high and that's a shame. Even at the Inflated price of $140 Million Spider-Man one was still shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

SPIDER-MAN

Budget $140 million
Gross revenue $821,708,551

---
SPIDER-MAN 2
Budget $200 million
Gross revenue $783,766,341
---
SPIDER MAN 3
Budget $258 million
Gross revenue $890,871,626

--- At 63% PERCENT FRESH RATING compared to a 93% Percent Fresh Rating for Spider-Man 2 (AND an 89% Percent Fresh Rating for Spider-Man) its VERY CLEAR that Spider-man 3 was not favored by people.

With
(A)at least 3 BAD GUYS (Venom; The Green Goblin, Jr.; and The Sand Man)

and (B) the continued Romantic Spats between MJ and Peter Parker

AND (C) the murder mystery of Peter Parker's Uncle

AND (D)the Bruce Campbell Connection,

AND (E) the Christian Forgiveness / Redemption themes

there was Too Much Going-on in a "Spiderman-sequel-movie" for audiences to follow.

but I Love Spiderman 3 BE-CAUSE of the multi-dimensional (tri-linear) storyline.

Films "should" be A to Z in terms of plot-structuring and "Spidey 3" went A1 to B5 to A2 to C3 to A3 (Speaking Abstractly . . . because it opened with The Sand Man story, then cut to Peter Parker and MJ story, then went back to The Sand Man, then went to VENOM, then went to The Green Gobin Junior, then back to MJ and Peter Parker)

something like the above.

----I'm sorry people didn't like Spiderman 3, to me Spiderman 3 is one of the most under-appreciated Marvel Comics sequels.

Jul 1 - 03:00 PM

Ur posts read like they have ADHD. It's quite amazing to behold

Jul 1 - 03:57 PM

hahahahahahahaha . . .urrrrrrr-RRRRRRRIGHT!///I try to put "chapter markers" in between thoughts. SPIDER-MAN 3 plays like it has ADHD as well.

Jul 1 - 04:38 PM

Link O'Fett

Oh Gordon, this site just wouldn't be the same without you.

Jul 1 - 05:33 PM

Mitchell Nash

Man, do you froth at the mouth when you watch this movie? XD

Jul 3 - 05:19 PM

sputnik 99

Spiderman 3 isn't as bad as its rep, but it sure is tough to watch. So many things are happening with so many people it's just a cluster-fuck. Venom is my all-time favorite Spidey-villain, but boy did they screw him up. But the character that bothers me the most in it is Gwen Stacey. She was just added so that there would be a love-triangle, not because she was going to appear as she should be: Peter's first true love that dies horribly at the hand of the Green Goblin. It was just a boring, annoying sub-plot that bothers me more than Venom. I liked the Sandman, though. They made him a little too weird at the end, but throughout most of the film he was pretty cool. And emo-Peter strutting: cool. emo-Peter dancing: stupid.

Jul 1 - 03:02 PM

Travon Smith

This is the only reason why I'm semi-glad that there's a reboot in the making. It give Venom a second chance at the screen presence he deserves. I mean, having some one like Topher Grace play someone as menacing as Venom is ridiculous and it's not about his size, they could have went the Ultimate arc route and had Venom be skinny if no one was capable of pulling off a good performance to replicate the 616/TV version. It's just that Topher wasn't a good enough actor and the script made him out to be a pathetic wimp than a furious creep. I just hope they get it right this time around.

Jul 1 - 03:04 PM

. . . and Tobey Ma Guire (SPIDERMAN himself) is totally POSSESSED by Venom:

(I can't believe it . . . Spiderman involved in poker-Fraud.

---I guess Tobey needed the income from Spiderman IV . . . I sensed that Tobey McGuire would become dependent on "Spiderman income"///especially when he got married and bought an 8 MILLION dollar house. /// now he's unemployed actor and fouled-up in a Poker Ring (according to the story below).

(The cancellation of Spiderman 4 was too sudden; I wander if Spiderman 4 was in Tobey's contract?// For Sony AND RAimi to suddenly "part-ways" like "that" was bad and hard on Tobey's wallet . . . and to make money, when all you can do is act in movies, you gamble)

Tobey Maguire Denies Wrongdoing in Poker-Ring Lawsuit
Published: June 30, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

By Tim Kenneally & Pamela Chelin

Tobey Maguire has laid his cards on the table in a bizarre lawsuit filed against him last week.

In court papers filed in United States Bankruptcy Court and obtained by TheWrap, Maguire denies defrauding incarcerated hedge-fund manager Bradley Ruderman in high-stakes poker games at ritzy Los Angeles locations.

What he doesn't deny, however, is that he played in said poker games.

In the suit filed last week, Ruderman Capital Partners claims that Ruderman -- who's currently in jail for running a Ponzi scheme against his clients -- lost $311,300 to Maguire, including $110,000 in a single hand during a single hand, and says that the cash constitutes illegal earnings that the company is entitled to retrieve.

Also read: Tobey Magure and Others Sued for Being Too Good at Poker

While Maguire's response mostly claims that the "Spider-Man" star "lacks sufficient information and belief upon which to respond to the allegations," it does admit that the actor "was invited to participated [sic] in the Poker Games" and that Maguire "did receive checks from Ruderman." (The suit also claims that Maguire is "entitled to an offset" against any liability found against him "in the amount of $168,500" -- money that he paid to Ruderman for poker losses.)

Maguire claims innocence in that the poker games weren't "controlled games required to be licensed by any governmental body."

And if Ruderman did lose all that money to Maguire, the response claims, it's his company's fault -- for not taking sufficient steps to prevent Ruderman from blowing the money.

Overall, Ruderman is reported to have lost $5.2 million in the games.The suit alleges that Ruderman hatched his Ponzi scheme in an effort to make up for the poker losses.

Jul 1 - 03:08 PM

While the first two films were merely mediocre, this one is just bad. Now when I say bad I don't mean downright awful, I just mean bad. I've definitely seen worse and there are some genuinely decent moments here. The action wasn't bad and I actually liked the - albeit painfully predictable - last minute rescue by a reformed Harry Osborn out for his third act redemption.

But the good was too far and in between. As the RT staff said, there's way too much crammed into this film. Harry should have been the primary antagonist, while the black suit should've remained a suit until the end of the movie, setting up Venom for a fourth. From what I understand Raimi didn't even want Venom in this movie, and that he caved to studio pressure (the studio itself caving to fans demanding him). I hear he never liked Venom because he was just a monster w/ no humanity. If this is true it just further proves my point that Raimi never liked Spider-Man. Eddie Brock actually does have a pretty human back story, more so than Flint Marko, who didn't become Sandman because his daughter was suffering from some nonspecific illness. He was just a crook who accidentally got sand powers.

Anyway, the camp is taken to new heights in this film. Peter not only has one musical moment but two, and boy are they a struggle to get through. In the comics the symbiote ramped up aggression and strength. It was like a suit of living steroids. It did not give Peter the ability to speak like he was a 1930s playboy. At least most of the girls he was thrusting his crotch at in the streets looked creeped out by him, which I found realistic. Speaking of music, I don't recall anyone I've ever hung out w/ asking, "Hey, could you put on some Chubby Checker." And enough w/ the child actors! Raimi litters the streets of his New York w/ annoying and unsupervised kids. From that rock stupid kid staring at the balloon about to squish him in the first movie, to the "Awesome," and "Wicked cool" kids in the third, this franchise has given me about as much as I can take from child actors.

Poor Bryce Dallas Howard. She was so underused in this movie, it made the fact that she did that collapsing crane scene while unaware she was pregnant such a waste. Thomas Hayden Church was also wasted here. His emotional range in this film varied from frustrated, angry, cranky, and constipated. Also a pity about Topher Grace, who I thought would have made a good Eddie Brock, since it appeared the movie was shaping him up to be an evil twin of Spider-Man. If only he weren't in the movie for about 20 minutes. At least he got lots of face time at the end since Venom just couldn't resist showing his puss every 10 seconds.

Yeah, this was a bad movie alright. Still, it could have been worse and I guess that's why I don't hate it.

Jul 1 - 03:32 PM

okay, I hear what you say . . . then I look at The Numbers:
Budget $258 million
Gross revenue $890,871,626.

Somebody is FREAKING LYING here . . . if Spiderman is a Bad Movie why did it earn close to A BILLION DOLLARS?//Sure the budget is excessive but . . . if the movie tickets are ten dollars each then EIGHTY-NINE MILLION people paid money to see a "bad movie."

Jul 1 - 03:44 PM

This will be the first and only time I ever respond to one of your comments so listen closely. The amount of money a film makes is not a reflection of its quality. All it reflects is that it was marketed well enough where people were willing to give it a shot in theaters.

Jul 1 - 03:50 PM

Then WHY did Spiderman 3 receive a FRESH RATING?/ You are a LIAR . . .Spiderman 3 WAS A GOOD MOVIE.

Jul 1 - 04:41 PM

Gordon, Spider-man 3 was a bad to mediocre(at best) movie for all the reasons that have been posted all over this page. If you liked it that is fine, everyone likes a bad movie from time to time, no big deal.

Jul 1 - 06:06 PM

thanks for the consolation. sincerely

Jul 1 - 06:35 PM

now here's a bad movie . . . SUPERMAN IV: The Quest for Peace.
Budget $15,000,000
Gross revenue $15,681,020.

Superman IV has a 10% Rotten Rating . . . even I didn't care too much for Superman IV . . . Golan-Globus/Cannon Films produced it.//
Superman 3
Budget $39,000,000
Gross revenue $59,950,623//Superman III has a 24% Rotten Rating . . . yeah its bad . . .I can't make a case for it. Richard Pryor and stuff-NOPE.// Jaws 3 was REALLY BAD and earned a 14% Rotten Rating . . . .Budget $18 million
Gross revenue $87,987,055/// Spiderman 3 is Casablanca when COMPARED to some other films.//

Jul 1 - 03:54 PM

This comment has been removed.

Agreed, the film should have tackled the dark inner forces within all of us embodied by Connors the Lizard, Harry's Goblin, and Peter's Dark suit. The film should have ended with Spider-Man's dark powers causing the death of Connors and Harry when he should have been trying to help them, then rejecting the suit and it falling of Eddie Brock forming Venom. The character Venom should them have been the main villain in Spider-Man 4...alas.

Jul 1 - 04:02 PM

Alan Smithee

It's certainly not even remotely as bad as plenty of other Marvel or comic movies in general. One of my biggest gripes is that Sandman was just an amalgamation of characters from prior films. I.e. the murderer of Uncle Ben as well as playing the sympathy card yet again. Also I'm not sure the amount of villains is the real culprit here, although it's best to keep it simple, the truth is the majority of comic movies have multiple villains. I think the real problem was that Raimi was forced to fit in Venom, a character he had no interest in. The third film really should have been where Connors transforms into the Lizard.

Jul 1 - 03:46 PM

Tom F

I was totally hoping for the Lizard myself. Ever since Connors showed his face I expected it.

I found the Lizard a sympathetic villain in the animated series and rather dangerous with his violent instincts. Spiderman also had to go into the sewers after him. The closed-in atmosphere would have been a great way to separate the third movie from the previous two and all their aerial/skyscraper action.

I enjoyed both Sandman's VFX and acting. What really brought this one down for me was the abuse of Venom and the poor writing especially with the new Green Goblin. If they had left Venom out of the last battle and held him as a footnote leading to the sequel I would have been much happier. And wth didn't they use JJ's son! they had already set him up in #2 ... too late now.

Jul 1 - 10:52 PM

Etienne Lussier

I disliked this flick for all the reasons already given: misused and wrongly casted Venom, reducing Gwen Stacy to a glorified extra, repetitive Mary Jane story line, too many villains, emo dance, etc...

I'll add to all that a moment which made me cringe when I saw it in theater. Just as Spider-Man runs toward the final confrontation to save Mary Jane (who got kidnapped yet again), he suddenly stops and there is this camera shot of him striking his best model-on-runway pose in front of a giant american flag followed by a NYC firefighter (the 9/11 heroes, anyone?) going "Oh, here's Spiderman! We're saved!" What the f...? Look, I get it, Americans are (and should) be proud of their country but this type of emotional trick reeks of desperation. Spiderman isn't politically involved or motivated. He's doing it as a consequence of losing his uncle, not to save his country. This really cheapens both US patriotism and the movie's storyline. If a your girlfriend is in danger and you're only one who can save her, you don't stop to strike poses.

This kind of sums up why I disliked to movie so much. It was intellectually cheap, even for a summer blockbuster. Like Raimi or the suits who tried to do his job for him decided to always take the easiest, the most cookie-cutter ideas they could come up with. It felt like Michael Bay was directing it...

Jul 1 - 03:48 PM