Spider-Man 3

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. (06/11/2007)

The first two episodes boasted that unique Raimi’s signature that makes me appreciate them as modest little-big movies created out of pure love for the original comics. Compared to them, the third one is fake, pompous and seemingly hungry not for the support of the fans but for a big chunk of money... A blockbuster that is noisier, more megalomaniacal and more sprawling than its two predecessors, mocking itself in a figuratively and emotionally overblown finale that juxtaposes a heartfelt life confession and a tearful J.K. Simmons haggling with a little girl over how much she wants for her camera. Raimi’s direction is still better than good, the action sequences have the proper charge and the illegibility of the main character saves everything, but this is no longer the original Spiderman, it lacks personality and a surprising motif, just like all current comic book adaptations. 65% (07/21/2012)

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. (04/05/2014)

Average, sometimes incredibly bad and naive. Raimi wanted everything - depth and fun - and he came up with awkward CGI coloring pages with an unconvincing protagonist and such conspicuous clichés that they can't even be enjoyed. Visually, Spidey offers nothing new, and inside the film rumbles like an empty barrel, despite trying to look very wise and thoughtful. Taken as a whole, it doesn't hold together in any way, and Maguira's performance is truly the culmination... This was simple not very good. (11/07/2008)

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. (01/15/2009)