you idiot keep your mouth shout and let the fans decide I think it is time of the critics to realise that movies are made for the fans and not for the critics why don't u make your moive oh yeah gigli will be oscar marterial comparied to your movie

tr,

Everybody is a critic--fan of the film or not. Remember that reviews are subjective. Why resort to namecalling if someone presents a differing viewpoint?

When you see Spider-Man 3, you let us know what you thought. Oh wait, that would qualify you as a critic with an opinion, which means I suppose you saw a movie that wasn't made for you; it was made for the fans.

Hmm, I think the point was over there -- you missed it.

Specifically, Tobey Maguire was deliberately playing those scenes in which he's under the influence of the black suit that way. Note that the very first time he goes out with it on, before we know he's got the suit on, he's casual, and women are paying attention to him. He notices this and that's when we find out he's wearing the suit.

So he begins wearing it all the time, and going over the top with it. He still thinks he's cool, but the people around him are rolling their eyes or turning up their noses at him. That's the point. THe suit makes him act drunk: at first it softens his inhibitions, and he benefits, but then he loses the ability to self-evaluate, and we all suffer.

Given that you missed that rather obvious point, I'm not surprised you didn't like the movie. You've got some valid criticisms buried in there somewhere, but this movie beat #2 by a mile.

I still plan to see the movie and make my own judgement, but from this and other reviews that I have read, it sounds like this will be the worst of the 3 Spider-Man movies (here's to hoping that I am wrong when I go see it).

Just a correction to this article though.... Venom is NOT the name of the alien symbiote, itself, that comes down to earth and effects Peter (thus making the black suit).

Venom, specifically, is who Eddie Brock becomes when he merges with the alien. In the comics he/they always says "We are Venom" (refering to Eddie and the alien collectively).

Typical idiotic critic. Just saw the movie and i thought it was great. So far in 2006 and 2007 according to critics theres been no good movies. Are the bars raised so high now that theres never going to another good movie ??

Sibin Mohan more like Simple Moran.

First off, as Brandon mentioned, everyone has a different opinion. This is my opinion after I saw the movie. If you disagree with it, then well, you are welcome to do so. If you are resorting to namecalling just 'cos you don't like what I wrote, well, then we needn't talk about maturity levels anymore do we? So, tr and Roxas - you guys can go on a spree with your silly kindergarten name-calling and nonsense, you won't hear any more responses from me - there's no point in trying to dignify your ridiculous comments by me responding to them.

Second, I don't consider myself a critic so as to speak. I'm a regular movie buff who watches a lot of movies and also happen to be a comic book/graphic novel fan. So I'm just like you and everyone else who watches the movie. This movie disgusted me enough that I decided to write a strong review. Besides I don't rate a movie based on what others write or whether is won an Oscar or how much it made in the box office - I watch it and then decide.

Now getting to some more serious stuff...

Philip,

Specifically, Tobey Maguire was deliberately playing those scenes in which he's under the influence of the black suit that way...

Given that you missed that rather obvious point, I'm not surprised you didn't like the movie

Just a correction to this article though.... Venom is NOT the name of the alien symbiote, itself, that comes down to earth and effects Peter (thus making the black suit).

Dynamo (#4), I really didn't like #2. I saw it as completely derivative of #1 and nonsensical. Scenes existed to look good, but made no sense.

This movie was much better. I don't think it was quite as good as the first one, which told a more personal story, but it was quite good nonetheless. Give it a shot!

Roxas (#5), please learn to spell, capitalize, and use metaphors properly before criticizing critics. You enjoyed the film, right? Got any more info than that? I enjoyed it, and disagreed with parts of the review, but I hope I've managed to make that point without sounding like a moron.

i am very much lookin forward to this. Phillip, it baffles me how a man could be in anything but awe regarding Spider-Man 2, but it is still something of a joy to hear it said.

But how is Kirsten in this picture? To hell with suits and The Black Venoms or whatever the sweet damnation, how do Her dimples, smile etc cope with this onslaught of disco boogie black-tongue mania? this is the question the world is asking, until such times as it can see Spider-Man 3: Kirsten Vs Some Stuff About The Evil

Ah I knew I missed something - Kirsten Dunst!

Well, she seems to be going the Calista Flockhart way - avoid the eating! She looks emaciated and of course we barely get to see her dimples, 'cos she rarely smiles - most of the movie she goes through with a sad expression...sigh!

That movie sucked. I hated it more than i hated Kazaam

I think you got the darker, more aggressive Parker sequence, set to a nice retro beat song, wrong. It's definitely meant to be over the top and funny. It parallels the same humorous sequence of confidence (with equally retro beat song) in Spidey 2.

I agree that the fight sequences are a bit too fast; however, if you sit towards the back of the theater, you should be able to enjoy them without too much trouble.

In regard to the witty remarks that Spidey in the comics make, I always found those great in print, but in "screen reality," there's not much time to trade witty barbs with your opponent in fast-paced combat. So the exclusion of it here makes perfect screen sense.

Sibin, re: #9, she smiles none for she is sore pining for a young lad from Northern Ireland knows a thing or two about Cannibal Holocaust and Bjork. Her entire filmography, upon close reading, reveals this to be the case. What was Dick! about if not that?

Duke, I love you. It is out of deep respect for you that I have avoiding mentioning this until now, but I believe that Kirsten Dunst is the devil. She is a succubus, sent from hell to lure men to their deaths. She is a siren, and all who look upon her ghastly visage turn to stone. She is a ridiculous "actress" and I even feel that she is probably not a decent human being. I mean, this is the woman -- and I use the term loosely -- who stated in an interview that she thought they ought to kill off Spider-man and keep the Mary Jane character going.

Her presence on screen is a dark blotch, a vomit stain on an otherwise enjoyable movie. She is anti-beauty, anti-charm, and anti-grace.

I was delighted to learn that I am not alone in my feelings. At the midnight showing I attended, there were laughs and boos when she tried to be serious, and cheers when she was dealt a rough blow. Admittedly, those were mixed with gasps and boos, but I still delighted in them.

I forgive you for your ignorance regarding the true nature of the she-witch. The hellspawn deceives many. Your weakness in this area is troubling, but in the end I still respect everything but your taste in women.

:-)

*hangs head and prays that dear Kirsten might never hear tell of that comment fell out Mr Winn's fingers o'er the keys in a moment of fiercest delirium*

Hardly delirium, Dukester. It's a rare film that survives her putrid presence, and this one nearly doesn't. When she petulantly tells Parker/Spider-man, "This isn't about you, it's about me," I want to injure her badly. Oh, if only they'd killed off that character completely, in another break from the comics, and had Parker pursue Gwen instead!

You want a real woman? Have Spidey hook up with Scarlett Johansson, after Scarlett's character murders Kirstin's character. :-)

Honestly, I do hope that Kirsten Dunst never reads my words. My passionate disregard for her as an actress does not actually extend to wishing her ill. Much. She would be quite within her rights to wonder why someone who has never met her should be so disgusted by her.

To which I can only say, Hey, I've seen your films, and in every one of them you've been disgusting.

While I'll take Scarlett over Kirsten and been within arm's reach of both, PW, you must not have seen "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or "The Virgin Suicides" because your charges certainly don't apply in either case.

Obviously this is not 100% in line with the comic storylines either so why should you feel that would hamper this movie? There are so many differences from the comic books...Gwen Stacy was supposed to be the one who gets her neck snapped in spider-man 1 but none of that happened. Raimi never wanted to include Venom and he put his own twist on the symbiote. The reason he acts the way he does is answered by Dr. Connors in the movie who states that this symbiote amplifies the users feelings, and is very aggressive. When he sees the poisitive reactions from the fans, Gwen Stacy etc... Peter is feeling hes on top of the world and it carries over when he has the symbiote. He feels angry and betrayed at MJ after she dumps him which is why he asks out Gwen Stacy and acts the way he does. No insult to your critique of the movie but look at it in the context of what it was... a movie written by a screenwriter and not a comic book writer.

I love the spiderman movies... and i was really excited to see this one... i couldn't wait to see what they were going to do with parker and venom. Watching spiderman 3 i was actually sad because early on through the movie i could tell that it was just not going to be what it should have been. They tried to put to many story lines into a 2 hour and 20 min movie. They wanted to wrap everything up in a nice big bow at the end. I do not know very much about the comic book series but i do know that the venom character is one that took an entire series to develop, and it took them only one movie to tell the story. If they really wanted to tell the story of one of the most beloved comic book super villians then it would have taken at least two movies. This one should have marked the starting point of this story. The sandman was a character that could have been placed in the next installment. This movie's focus should have been on harry and venom. These two characters fit well into the revenge theme that they were trying to work on. If they really had to they could have introduced the sandman near the end to work in parkers need for revenge. Of they could have just took parker that his uncle's killer was still on the lose and introduced who it was near the end. There was just too much that they were trying to tell in a short period of time. Two movies worth of material. Eddie does not even become venom till the last half hour of the movie and by that time you are just bored and don't really care anymore. Spiderman does not realy show and 'evil' side when he is wearing the back suit. He is just more of a guy stuck in the 70's. My problem is not that it did not stick with the comic book story line (because i do not know the story line myself) but that it tried to do to much in one movie and lost what made ths spiderman movies so great somewhere along the long. I feel that this movie should have been at least 2 movies long. With that i must say though that i know why they rushed the story lines. They may have a spider man 4 in the works, but toby,dunst are not signed for anything after 3.... so i am assmuing that they wanted to wrap everything up before they left....

But the action seqences i thought were really great and venom actually looked pretty awesome, i just wish that we had seen more of him.

Anyway this is just my opinon, i wanted to like this movie so bad... and i just didn't... it actually made me sad that i didn't

He's right. The movie stinks.

Greg
denvertvguy.com

I haven't seen it yet, but the use of multiple villians is usually the kiss of death for these types of movies (you can reference the Batman series about three movies in for proof of this--at least until they pulled off the brilliant resurrection act with the Christian Bale movie).

Richard Roeper gave it a thumbs down, which isn't a good sign either (both Roeper and Roger Ebert have been big fans of the series in the past).

As for the film's lack of adherence to the comic universe---well do these films ever do that?

Not sure where I stand on the whole Kirsten Dunst as sex siren vs. anti-christess thing. She certainly did play a convincing little she-devil in "Interview With A Vampire" though.

-Glen

I liked the Spiderman movies as well. The 2nd one was good. But you were right in some things. The fast paced CGI action can be all too much for us to muster. I'm sure when the DVD comes out and people watch it in HD, it's going to be a lot better.

My opinion, the movie wasn't all that good. Too much lovey dovey stuff. Too many villains. And Tobey can't act. I mean cmon, it's been years since he's been spidey, he's fought so many villains, so the least he couldve had was self-confidence. I think he's too used to the role now. Whatever happens, the movie will definitely rake in tons of money. Out of 10, I'd give it a 6.5. Bring on the Pirates!

The movie never matches the comics. In Japan we have the Japanese manga version of Spiderman where our Peter Parker (Komori Yu) is a much darker and more repressed character. The movie opened in Tokyo first but I would have liked to have seen a movie based on the Japanese manga version

Clearly none of the people making comments here have actually SEEN the movie.

THIS REVIEW IS ENTIRELY ACCURATE!

Believe me, the audience at my local theater said it all. During all the 'serious-acting' stuff people were lauging! It was not meant to be funny, but the audience was not sold on the soap opera. The audience even booed at the end. On the way out of the theater all you could heard was people complainging about such a crap movie, but the most telling aspect was the look of total disappointment from all the young boys. They are the audience that keeps the Spiderman franchise alive and they felt completely duped by:

A MOVIE THAT TRIED TO BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE AND ENDED UP BEING NOTHING TO NO-ONE.

Glen,
The latter Batman movies went downhill 'cos of Joel Schumacher's involvement I guess. They messed up the Dark Knight with all the neon and stuff! But I agree that "Batman Begins" was a good resurrection - and note, it did synch in well with the comic universe. Besides I guess the reason that movie was good was because of the director - Christopher Nolan.

By the way, the reason why most of these movies make money is because the fans of the comic universe will watch it multiple times and buy the DVDs, etc. If they stray too much, then these people (myself included :)) will not like it and hence the studios will lose a lot of potential income...

Rob,

Believe me, the audience at my local theater said it all. During all the 'serious-acting' stuff people were lauging! It was not meant to be funny

Thank you for this great review! The movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen! It was painful, and I couldn't wait till it was over, almost got up and walked out of it. It was a total chick flick, with little action, terrible acting, and terrible writing. I agree the CG was so obvious it was painful! Why wait till the last 20 minutes in a 2 1/2 hour movie to actually get into real action? And to all you people who complain about movie reviewers, that is their job, they tell it how it is... and yes, there have been NO good movies in the last 2 years!! All studios are doing is trying to put out money makers, make the trailers look good so you'll pay to get in and once you're in you're stuck!

So again... Great Review!!!

Hi from India. Spiderman 3 sucked big time. Same as above, people laughed at serious scenes :) Only appeal is to the emo. group ;)