Spider-Man 3

My favorite part of the trilogy and apart from Kirsten Dunst, Bryce Dallas Howard is also a nice addition. I have no idea where the mistake was made, but keep the same satisfied audience for five years if they have enough of it. In retrospect, I appreciate many things, including the compactness of the series, the light humor, and the use of a generous number of characters. And I certainly don't feel that there is too much pathos. They’ve taken some of it away compared to the second one, which is much more extreme. And MJ at the theater? A total fairy tale. (13/02/2011)

A very inconsistent movie and unnecessarily long. Raimi didn’t learn his lesson from the mistakes in the first two movies he made, far from it, he even makes them again and again, making this extremely painful to watch. The screenplay is bad, real bad. After getting rid of the whole original mythology it creates a brand new one, only much worse. What worked in the first two movies is completely out of place here, landing Parker in illogical situations and what he then does is more than just bizarre (I can’t even call it pretentious) humiliating himself in front of the viewer. I was literally praying for Parker to get into his suit or for the story moves to focus on one of the many villains. The action is great as usual and Venom, as I see it, was pretty good, but there should be hell of a lot more of him. Sandman’s tricks are among the high points of the movie although Flint Marko himself comes across a bit stiff. The biggest surprise was the character of Harry Osborn who became a much bigger hero than Spider-Man himself. (11/06/2007)

The garishness of the coarsest, er... grain. The longer the film goes on, the worse it gets, and the soap opera-like romantic plot is definitely one of the worst things poor Spider-Man has ever had to contend with. In the scenes where he's supposed to be evil and obsessive, Tobey Maguire shows that he's more good at overacting than acting, and Mary Jane's jealous exit is an ordeal. Yet Sandman would have been a decent villain if he had been given more space, as his birth scene is one of the best ever seen in a comic book movie. Seriously, no irony. Most of all, Spider-Man 3 looks like an attempt to make "something like Tim Burton's Batman Returns" that didn't work. (11/05/2015)

After the brilliant second film, Raimi a) joined a sect professing universal love and understanding, b) got on drugs, or c) just went crazy. How else are we to explain the emotional hyperboles in which Peter dances in the street in a perfect block, or receives the most poignant "life advice" from his aunt? Everything is so over the top that it simply CANNOT be taken seriously, and Raimi is simply fucking with the viewer for over two hours. I admit that it's really hard to absorb. On the other hand, the real problem I see is the underdeveloped characters, where in particular the villains lack proper motivation (otherwise Sandman and Venom are great) - in fact, absolutely everyone is lacking motivation. It's also unfortunate about some of the sloppy special effects in the action sequences, which look really bad in contrast to Sandman's perfect birth. All in all, it’s a rather uneven ride, but not at all boring, even though I found myself staring with my mouth wide open at times, and it wasn't just due to the action. Right now I’m giving it four stars, and I have to watch it again sometime so I can give it a proper review. (15/01/2009)

After a gap of seven years, I watched the third "Spider-Man" movie again and I have to admit that it is even worse than I remember. It is incredibly cliché and the screenplay is sometimes even stupid. Important storylines are closed simply or with an easy plot twist, which is not even believable. The potential of new characters, especially Venom, is completely wasted. It's not a complete disaster, but at times it's not even great entertainment. What a pity. Hopefully, "The Amazing Spider-Man" will maintain a good level with its future installments. (05/04/2014)