Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I cannot wait till May 4th!

This is gonna kick off the blockbuster season on an amazing note.


Who here is excited?

I think it can be better than the 2nd one which is my favorite.


Comments, trailers but no spoilers please.

Couldn't care less about it.

Unless they show some bare naked asses.

your in luck then .....Going to see Spidermans ass. that should get you hot and heavy  : ok:


going to be there opening day. looks like its going to kick ass.

Shame every detail in the film has leaked....

I was hoping for more Venom :'(

this looks awesome, i think we already have a thread on it though.

I was hoping Venom would come in at the very end to set up the 4th movie where he was the only villian or at least the main one. Venom is too kickass to play second fiddle to Harry's Goblin and the Sandman. That's a shame.

Anyways, it looks like it'll be great and I'm pretty pumped.

...apparently that was the plan (the 300 million dollar budget including preparation for SM4)...but now it seems everyone involved wants to do different things (i.e they want more money) and we'll have a new cast and director for the next one

..which i think could be a good thing, Sam Raimi is no genius in my book (stopping trains with your bare hands?) maybe he could go butcher the next Superman film with Bryan Singer instead

I still don't see how they're going to fit all those characters and storylines into one movie.  Based on the first two, I have faith, though...

Sam's next flick that may or may not butcher will more then likely be "The Hobbit".

Dude Singer isn't the only person to blame for the shit fest none as superman Returns also got to blame the writers.

As for the Spider-Man 3 , i do worry about the three villains being in it all at once. Though by the end it will only be to during the final action sequence.

Superman Returns trumps any of the other comics-related movies released since the new era of comics movies started happening not too long ago. Even Batman Begins, and I'm a loyal fan of the Batman through and through. It's a real shame so many people couldn't get behind it, and I don't bother debating it. People have different tastes and I respect that (so don't bitch me out for liking it, either).

Really? I thought Superman Returns sucked. Then again, I was never a big fan of Superman so I'm not a fair critic anyways. Glad someone liked it.

i'm a huge Superman fan and i thought Superman Returns was solid.

i think the worst comic movies are X: Men 3 and Daredevil.

X: Men 3 was such a huge dissapointment after the other two quality X: Men movies.... fuckin' brett ratner. i think if Bryan Singer stayed with the project it would have kicked ass.

i'm happy spiderman 3 is still directed by the same guy, sam raimi did a good job on the first two IMO.

x-man 3 wasn't that bad. Bret did a decent job consider dude came in to directed it shortly before film started ,due to Mathew Vaughen leaving the directors chair. If would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Brett been around for the whole pre-production stages.

I'm pretty happy to see same direct the 3rd spider- man too.

as for the worst comic movie ever . Fantastic Four still reigns at top for me . complete shit all around. the only good thing was Jessica alba and that was only when she wasn't talking.

X-men 3 is fucking awesome!!! My 3 favorite comic book movies are Daredevil director's cut, Spider-man & X-men 3... Fantastic Four, Spider-man 2, X-men, X2, Ghost Rider, The Hulk and The Punisher I enjoy a lot as well... Elektra is mediocre... Spider-man 3 looks awesome and I've read some good reviews...

No genius, but still one of only two guys to make a good superhero flick in the last decade (aka "ever"). If you remove Raimi and Nolan's movies from the equation your best comic book directors are suddenly Singer and. . . I don't know, take your pick from whoever directed one of the other Marvel-brand celluloid abortions. Do you really want a Spider-Man 4 directed by the guy who made Fantastic 4? Or Ghost Rider? Or Elektra?

I have a good Kirsten Dunst story.

I was flying from Zurich, Switzerland to New York City in 2005 and had a stop-over in Toronto, Canada. So I'm sitting in the smoking room at the Toronto airport and this really cute blonde girl walked in. Looked about 19. Dressed sort of "hippy," her hair was really blonde and straight, and she was kind of short.

So I struck up a conversation with her and chatted for a few minutes about Amsterdam and weed. (Apparently she gets high)

Then this couple from Germany looked at her and asked... or I THOUGHT they asked her to take their picture. She said, "No, I'd really rather not. I'm sorry."

So then me... like a nerd, looks at the couple from Germany and I'm like, "I'll take your picture for you." I thought they were doing that tourist thing where they need a third person to take their picture. Then the blonde girl says to me, "No, it's because I'm an actress." So I said, "Oh, I'm sorry. I guess cuz I just came from Amsterdam and saw 1,000 pretty blonde girls, my mind just mixed you up with them."

Then we chatted for a few more minutes and she put her cigarette out and left the room... telling me to enjoy the rest of my trip on the way out.

Later that day when I got home I was trying to figure out who she was. The reason I couldn't pin it down was because she looked NOTHING like she did in the last movie I saw her in... Spiderman. Her hair was straight and didn't have the goldie locks curls like in Spiderman. Her hair was more white blonde and not yellow'ish like in Spiderman. And she was short. (you never know how tall or short actors are on TV or the big screen)

I eventually figure it out though.... and felt like a big tool afterwards.

we are in complete agreement, Spiderman 1 and 2 put other comic book films to shame - but thats as much to do with ineptitude of the others...

What makes Spiderman 1 and 2 so good (the proper backstory, the 'human' development, the decent acting etc etc) - all those things SHOULD be part of any superhero film, we praise Spiderman for doing it, but really - they should be par for the course, Raimi is just doing what any one with a brain would have done, nothing more



Indeed, indeed - comic book films have been a rather distressing experience

...what was the deviant behind Daredevil and Fantastic Four thinking about? Money? Going home?

Sam Raimi recently said that there are plans to do a 4th, 5th, and 6th movie. Should be cool assuming the original cast would actually want to do it.

The films are averaging 800 million at the Box Office, there will be sequals for ever.... untill they do a 'Batman and Robin-esque' disaster....then they'll just reboot and do it all again....genius, you cant lose!

...it might even be an idea to build into any long running series an installment so awful that a reboot is the only answer....then you can take all the storylines you've already used, get in new actors and rake in new money for old rope - seems to be the current fad, Bond, Batman, Star Trek.....some new ideas might be nice guys....

Well, the Batman movie did use new characters and a new story so it's not really a refurbished version of what's gone before (until the next one at least.) I think that with some franchises  there really are more stories that you can tell which make it worthwhile. On the other hand, some franchises have nowhere to go (especially horror franchises, what can you really do with a Halloween or Friday the 13th reboot? Bond is a good non-horror example of that too.).

Superman returns sucked big fat moose cock.

1. The plot was super lame and lazy.
2. The actors were terribly miscast. The woman who played Louis Lane looked like she was a sorority girl.
3. Brandon Routh is a wooden Soap Opera actor and doesn't deserve to hold Reeves jockstrap.
4. Zero chemistry between any character.
5. The twist about Superman being the father of Louis's kid was fucking retarded.
6. Parker Posey kicks ass, and that's about it. 

It had a plot?

...so there isnt enough land for everyone, so Lex Luther decides to create new land and kill billions

...but if billions have died why would they need his new land??

...how could anyone live on that rock anyway?

nope, that film had no plot just a series of increasingly bizarre situations tied together only by the fact the same actors where in each scene

OK here's the deal. I liked Spider-Man and I loved Spider-Man 2...until Batman Begins came out. Goodness gracious it blew Spidey 2 out of the water in my eyes. I'm hoping SM3 can raise the bar but from the trailers I've seen and that 7 minute clip with Harry and Peter, I can't say that it looks like anything other than "more of the same." That's a shame too. Hopefully Venom and Sandman kick some ass, but I am not as hyped about this as I was when the first "Black Spidey" picture came out like a year ago. I'm way more pumped for The Dark Knight now and if Spidey's sequel could improve as much as it did over the first one (just as X2 improved over X-Men quite a bit), then just imagine a proportional increase in quality for TDK over BB. Considering I think BB is already the best superhero movie ever, that'll be insane if TDK improves on it. LOL.

spiderman 3 can kiss my ass.. the venom suit's supposed to make spidey turn evil and not regard people's lives as valuable as long as the bad guy gets stopped, not just turn him into a prick who treats his wife like shit.. spiderman 2 was a piece of shit movie too.. the whole fucking time he bitches about how being spiderman puts his loved ones in danger.. well that's what the secret identity's for, ya ass! the first spiderman was the only good spiderman movie in my eyes

No it isn't. If you actually know your Spider-Man storylines you'd know that he ditched the black suit when he realized that it was a living creature which was so addicted to "being" Spider-Man that it was taking over Parker's body while he was sleeping and having adventures of its own. The reason that Venom is so hateful is because the symbiote is angry that Parker rejected it.

If you're going to judge the movie by how faithful it is to the original story, perhaps you should compare it to the original story and not to a cartoon which itself was unfaithful to the source.

Whoever said Toby Mcguire or however you spell it, acting is of high order all I have to say is? :rofl: he is one of the most 1 dimensional actors i have seen.

All his facial expressions remind me of is someone taking a dump? :confused:. I like Kirsten Dunst her acting is ok. I just hate Mcguire.

Batman Beigns was solid som my hope for the Dark Knight is still intact, although bringing back the Joker why...... surely we could have avoided the comparison with the spot on version Jack nicholson portraid.

Saying that I will see the movie with an open mind and I hope my gripes with Mcguire do not ruin the film.... oh and too much cgi can ruin films.

that was a bloody funny comment, kudos to making me laugh.

i h ope this spidey is better than spider man 2, it had too much plot and life scenerios over fight scenes, they could have done much more with bad guy in spider man 2.

Nicholson's Joker was awful. Good performance, bad Joker. The first couple of Batman movies were okay but they were far from good representations of the characters. And while being faithful to the source material is by no means the most important factor in making the movies "good" I still don't think that Tim "Everyone who knows me knows that I would never read a comic book" Burton was the right guy to "reimagine" Batman for the big screen. I don't think that Nolan and his crew have to worry about being on the losing side of a comparison to the previous movies.

Back on topic; Too much CGI may be a bad thing but there's a good reason why Spider-Man projects never got off the ground before cheap CG was commonplace. You can't really argue that it would be possible to make a good Spider-Man movie with miniatures and mattes. And the CG has been of a high standard so far, it's not as if we've been suffering through sub-standard effects. So if the effects are necessary and the effects are good what's to complain about? Now if only there were some computer effect which would make Kirsten Dunst's "acting" watchable. . . . 

Or just more wet t-shirt scenes, like in Spidey 1.  :)

LMFAO. Dunst and the old lady who plays Aunt May are both pretty bad. "I believe there's a hero in all of us" while trembling cuz of a past stroke or Parkinson's or something. George Carlin once said that we should make the Miss America losers keep coming back until they win. After about 35 years it would get kinda weird. Trembling, he says in a Aunt May voice, "I just want to work on world peace." Then he busts out with his sarcastic voice, "Fine, sit down before ya fall down!" ;D

Batman Begins is the kind of film that makes me afraid to go near a cinema

...a microwave gun that vaporises water...but not nearby pesky humans made of 70%+ water? ::)

...Liam Neeson prancing about taking about destiny and swordfighting as if the Phantom Menance had never happened - might as well have had Ewok's as the ninjas.....

...dialogue that makes NO SENSE, at various points in the film Katy Holmes manages to say the exact opposite of what she was saying only a few scenes previously....

...Christian Bale's AWFUL ''acting'' - ''when i speak normally i'm Bruce Wayne...but when i speak really deeply - i'm Batman!'' Genius! - and what was with that FAT neck?

...that NO ONE works out the Batmobile looks strangely like a Wayne Industries prototype.....did the engineers just forget? Die?

and of course the biggest one of them all

Bruce Wayne is legally declared dead, when he is infact very much alive - thats a felony! That would lead to MASSIVE tax fines and imprisonment - not to mention he'd have lost control of Wayne Industries (unles he perhaps named himself in his will!!!!!) - but no, he comes back and everyone's like 'oh hello there!'

Batman Begins was a stupid, brain dead film almost without equal - i felt i was actually losing brain cells watching it, did no one else notice any of this stuff?

its based on a comic book and its a movie. your not supposed to analyze it. jesus christ its about some guy who prances around in a suit and cape with pointy ears..... your not supposed to take it THAT seriously.

Batman Begins kicked ass.

and if thats all you can find wrong with Batman Begins, i think thats a good thing, you could write a book on what an atrocity Batman And Robin was. oh and most of your points were just opinion and are highly arguable, the only valid one was the microwave thing. and even that isnt that big of a deal when u realize the whole premise of the movie and comic book is a little out there, as i stated early, a vigilante dressed as a bat running around gotham.

and i saw u liked Rocky Balboa, so did I. but we can analyze that too!! a 60 year old guy fighting a champion boxer in his prime would probably get killed...... again, its a MOVIE!!

i'm not bashing you or anything, please don't get all defensive, i'm just pointing out some things.

Don't even get me started on pretty much every other comic book film out there, including all the other Batman films. You want a stupid, brain-dead comic book film, just watch Fantastic Four or X-Men: The Last Stand. Character development is almost entirely missing from those films and the plots are completely ridiculous. Whoever thought of having Juggernaut get beat by a 12 year old girl should have their balls cut off and shoved down their throat.

Oh, and if you think Begins was bad, check out Batman Returns. Penguins with rocket launchers. WONDERFUL!  ::) And while we're on this topic, Batman '89 had a nice screwup regarding a major plot point. Batman has a jet full of rockets and missiles and a target locked onto the Joker, and Joker doesn't get hit at all despite about 15 shots being fired at him. Then, Joker pulls out a 5 foot long pistol and with one shot takes out Batman's jet. How ridiculous is that? You see, if you really wanna take comic book films seriously, then you'll realize that most of them are utterly ridiculous (including Spider-Man 2 with the fusion bullcrap).

lol agreed. shame about X:Men, i love the first two. i actually think the second one was better than the first.

Yep me too. The first one is good, but the second one is very good. It's 2nd on my superhero films list behind Batman Begins.

switch off brain right?


nah, thats just what i could remember was wrong with the film - give me time i'll be back with more



Rocky was about 55 in the film, and if he can take Drago's 1250 ppsi blows then HELL YEAH could he take a champion 30 years his senior!

ummm, exactly, to a certain degree. have u forgotten that the purpose of movies, especially these types of movies, is to have fun? and not analyze shit.


maybe. but thats a big "if".

look, all i'm trying to say is that when you have a movie with such a ridiculous premise when compared to real life, i doubt the writers really cared if the microwave thing made sense, or if they worried about some law about being legally dead, c'mon man.

regarding Spiderman 3, i have high hopes, but more villains doesnt necessarily mean a better movie. look at Batman And Robin and X: Men: 3.

as long as it's better than #2

So let me get this straight, you can suspend your disbelief about boxing but not about superheroes? LMFAO. And also, let me get another thing straight here. You accuse us of turning our brains off, and yet you can't even put a coherent sentence together. I think you meant something along these lines:

"Rocky was about 55 in the film, and if he can take Drago's 1250 ppsi blows then HELL YEAH could he take a champion 30 years his junior!"

Those in glass houses should not throw stones, especially regarding other people's intellect. Had he beaten a champ that was 30 years his senior as you wrote, he would have beaten an 85 year old according to your description of Rocky being 55 in the film.

Rocky is about overcoming seemingly impossible odds - the film featured Rocky triumphing over...you guessed it...

Rocky films are to all intents and purposes superhero films complete with supervillians blessed with superhuman abilities...Drago punches at 2150 ppsi!?!?! Tyson hit at 1200.....


accuse ???

What an odd thing to say....



 :hihi: well spotted

lol - that is a typo my friend, i'm sure you've never made one

another example of a typo is this

'i think you rock!'

...so we agree?? :hihi:


ohh generalising

So Schindlers List was made for the audience to have fun? :nervous:

Oh dear me thinks you made a foo' out of yo' self :yes:



your right - i'll try and dumb my self down to a level where i can enjoy it

what technique did u use to switch off ur brain in preparation? Booze? Total and utter lack of education? :hihi:



absolutely - i'd prefer a single villian we could could get to know, having multiple villians (as Batman Returns showed us) is often because none of the villians involved can carry the film on their own

I'd have loved to have just had Venom - Sandman's contrived back story - 'he..er....killed Ben Parker...er.....'' really wasnt needed

a movie, especially one based on a cartoon comic made for kids, should not be looked in fine detail, aslong as it has a decent story, lots of great action i enjoy most comic movies, its when they shove things in that are FAR too over the top in.

awesome!! we agree on something!!! i agree about what u said regarding villians and sandman's back story.  as far as Schindler's List, notice how i said "especially these types of movies". u got me there, i did over generalize a bit.



THANK U!!!! its a fucking superhero movie dude!!

horrah we agree on things

Spiderman is gonna rock no matter what, the first two have been great (though could have been much better...)

I'll be first in line when SM3 opens, so close...so close now

yeah i'm gonna see spiderman 3 as soon as possible too.

this whole deal with sandman killing peter's uncle reminds me of the first Batman movie, where they made it so the joker killed batman's parents. that always bothered me too, and i found that to be very contrived.

its just a superhero film - doesnt have to make sense ;)

ya see what i was meaning before?

A superhero film has a wide range of absurdities they can pull on us - but somethings are just going to far.

At times the director and writers are just sticking two fingers at the audience and basically treating us as idiots

The whole Sandman angle is to make the audience care about a ''b'' list villian - c'mon, we're going to the cinema to see Venom, Sandman is padding - and why have they felt a film featuring Venom needs padding??

Spidey going evil and confronting those inner demons and then facing his toughest adversary - how does that need padding, you could get two films out of that!

Your claims about Drago keep changing. First it was 1250 now it's up to 2150, or is that a typo also? I find your suspension of disbelief regarding boxing but not regarding a far-fetched superhero to be pretty hypocritical. I have no problem suspending my disbelief for EITHER subject. That's what films are mostly about, unless there is social commentary involved. Batman is the most realistic superhero, but a lot of the stuff that goes on in the comics and in the films is completely over the top, namely his two biggest villains: Joker and Two-Face. There is nothing wrong with a story being over the top as long as there is good character development. Otherwise, I would hate every superhero film and not just the crappy ones like Fantastic Four or X3. The reason I like Superman 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, BB, SM1, and SM2 is because there is decent/good/great character development in all of those films.

My interest in these stories lies more with the "tortured soul" aspect of the characters. Jedi's have to learn to let go of what they fear to lose so loved ones will never be used against them.

Spidey's the same way, so I think it's a big mistake if he's gonna marry Kirsten... or whatever her name is. She'll be captured and held hostage or something like that.

Michael Corleone: When they come... they come at what you love.

Captain Ivan Drago of the Russian army punches with an average force of 1850 ppsi, but in ''montage mode' hits at 2150. That's superhuman strength if ever i saw it! Aint no chance Rocky would have been able to last more than a handful of blows, he's a true American hero!

indeed, shame those aspects of the film are ''undeveloped'' according to reviews.....

Venom is the padding. Sandman and "New Goblin" are the co-headliners. Maybe not to the strange, strange fanboys who think Venom is an interesting character, if those people truly exist, but in the context of the movie it's undeniable. I sincerely hope that those heading out to Spider-Man 3 on opening day for a dose of Venom aren't expecting him to be in play for long periods of time.

Is Venom more than a second-tier villain these days?

Venom is the ultimate Spidey villain. He knows everything about Peter, he's practically unbeatable, and it takes a lot more than flashy fighting moves to beat him, which is something no second-tier villain should have. The way they changed Sandman (and used him at all) is bizarre. Too much could've been done with Venom. If he is just a side-villain and he is never used again that'll be ashamed.

Harry's Goblin was a pussy, and the Sandman was a B-list villain at best. Venom is fucking top of the list.

IMO they should've used the alien costume throughout the movie, but not give it to Brock until the very last scene, to set up a fourth movie. Then you could add a secondary villain like Scorpian, Lizard (although he could almost be the main villain), or the Vulture. But hey, that's just me.

saw some trailers.

it could be any big movie that came out in the past 8 years. boring.

In the movie? Or in general? I remember Venom as being a very boring, cliched character in the books, the "bizzaro Spider-Man." Visually appealing, with all the depth of a paddling pool. I'm not sure what sort of story you could tell with Venom as the main villain, given that his entire motivation is "I hate Spider-Man."

Best case scenario; They could have simply set up the symbiote suit in this movie and introduced Venom in a sequel using the Superman/Batman professional rivalry angle. That might have been interesting, to see Spider-Man usurped by a crime-fighting Venom who also has a vendetta against him. Perhaps they could have gone down that road if Marvel hadn't insisted in shoe-horning Venom into this movie.

Not in the movie. I know he'll have a small role, but the character is sweet. If you watched the 90s cartoons, they had a tree-parter with him that I think could easily translate to a movie. I think Shocker was involved in that particular 3-parter cartoon (I could be wrong), and something like that could imo make the best Spidey movie yet.

In the comics Venom could be a little cheesy, but I think a modern, dark version would be great.

carnage is the best spider man villian. powers of venom, but with the mind of a mad man.

Carnage would be good for a terrorism story, but I don't think there's a ton of depth there.

New budget revealed

Currently at $350 million

Previous most expensive is Superman Returns at $270

...bear in mind Episode 3 was 99% cgi and cost $117 - someone has been ripped off!

Carnage would be awesome - he was even stronger than Venom, and as mad as a bag of snakes

...it would have to be a far more adult film to accomodate him though, without his evil nature he'd be just another cgi baddie

o man all i've heard is bad stuff about this movie from critics and on other forums. the only good thing i heard was what my best friend said, he said it was pretty good overall but it seemed like some parts were rushed. i'll probably be seeing it tommorow.

Just saw it

50% is naff, 50% is pure gold....which leaves u with a 5/10 film

Jam packed with contrived plot elements - just why did the crane go berserk, why did the police stand and stare at it and why was their a bulldozer in Venom's web?!?

...not to mention a meteor that lines just next to Spiderman - oh the odds!

...half the plot lines lead nowhere - MJ being blackmailed lasts about 10 mins...

...and three villians of which none manage a decent fight, not to mention any characterisation, Venom's inclusion almost seems like an act of desperation

Very much a 'tired' film, Spidey gets rammed into walls...but we've seen it all before, and some of the CGI is awful - the skyscraper smashed by the crane just looks all wrong

There is some gold to this film - Bruce Campell waiter is just hilarious, Parker's turn to the dark side is fantastic

Overall a big disappointment - enjoyable, but at $350 million, what did they pay for - some godawful cgi and 15 mins of Venom

..and Sandman is the most boring villian ever - and how does sand fly against the wind????

I have seen better movies.

But it was ok entertainment, and I had nothing else to do anyways.

Somestuff was quite cringeable though.

The movie was ok at best, the action sequences were good, venom was kool, but there was just too much going on.

They should change the title to Emo Man.? :smoking:

Sam Raimi on SpiderMan 4,5,6
Movie Spider Man 3 Posted By: Michael / Source
Related News : Action Movie News , Movie Interviews , Comic Flicks ,


We caught up with Sam Raimi today and got to ask him all kinds of great questions about Spiderman 4 5, and 6 and the musical. He spilled the beans that yes there are 3 more spidey flicks coming. First off about the musical he made it clear he has no involvement.
I?m not involved in the Spiderman musical. Sounds exciting would love to go and see it.
Then we asked him about the upcoming Spiderman 4, 5 and 6 and whether there was any truth to it.
Yes Sony is making 4 5 and 6 but I have not had time to think about involvement. I don?t want to assume they were going to ask me to do it. Right now I am not involved, and have not decided. If there was a great story to tell and I felt I had a really great take on the character, and where he could grow to, then it would be great. But I would have to have a passion to do it, so many people love Stan Lee?s character, if I could not do it fantastically I would be better to step aside for a director who would have the passion to do it.
I would definitely need a break before going into doing any new Spider Man movies.? ?I would have a very hard time saying good bye to Spidey.
Of course we then had to ask if the characters were going in a different direction could he see a new person stepping into the Spidey suit.
I don?t know if there should be a new Spiderman in the new series. I would have to make that choice based on the story and the characters. I couldn?t make that decision. It would be very hard to be involved without Tobey or Kirsten.

They raped the character of Venom - shoddy cgi, and he appears for just 7 mins 22 seconds

I was afraid he'd barely appear...and they so messed up the character i wish he'd been left out - hy would he have needed help to take out Spiderman?!?

..whats worse is there isnt an obvious back door for him to return - Eddie got blown up after all

the Lizard guy gotta enter in the next...

7 minutes and 22 seconds more than the character warrants. Add that time to the time spent on the "black spidey" angle, all that screen time could have been spent on Sandman and Goblin and 90% of the contrivances would never have been necessary.

Raimi was already juggling two villains and a love triangle, did the company really need to insist on shoe-horning a lamer like Venom into the movie? At the expense of everything else? After the script was basically locked?

This production didn't cost $350 million, as the patchy fx prove. I'll bet that at least half of that figure represents advertising time bought with endorsement deals. Spider-Man 3 merch has it's own aisles at toy stores and supermarkets across the country.

The movie isn't a 5/10, it's a misfire but it's not any worse than the second two acts of the first movie. It just doesn't live up to quality of the previous installment - It's enjoyable but deeply flawed. And without Raimi on board for the next attempt it's all downhill from here.

i wasnt expecting much, two wasnt very good either, total lack in action.

im dissappointed to here the cgi sucks, i thought that was evident from the trailers too.

There is a sequence where a crane goes berserk (as cranes do?!?)

The cgi is lifted straight from a 5 year old computer game....there were a few murmurs in the audience at that point too so i'm guessing i wasnt the only one that noticed

Overall the cgi was fairly rocky, Venom's face seemed to have caused the animators so much trouble they'd just given up and used Topher Grace's instead....

The more i think about the film the more it sucks - angles that go NOWWHERE, Parker and MJ's relationship in difficulty - as it turns out that whole bit isnt needed as she's blackmailed anyway!

Sandman does nothing - doesnt even advance the plot, the whole 'he shot Ben Parker' thing is ultimatly irrelevant as Spiderman has already gone mean through the black suit anyway

...and again the scene with the crane - why was it there? A contrived excuse for some action in a film really lacking in that field

Bizarrely the best fight is Peter v Harry with their fists!

Sam Raimi you have now joined the ranks of the Paul Anderson's, Bryan Singer's and Brett Ratner's of this world as men who have killed series that really deserved so much better

Indeed, but regardless of where the money as wasted...the point is the film had that amount...and wasted it



I dont see how - whats another director going to do - blew a vast budget, in indulge us with terrible effects and throw in as many plot devices and villians as they can? :hihi:

The film looked tired - people going through the motions, it needs a new start (i'm tempted to say reboot as Venom really doesnt have a way back...atleast not as one part Eddie Brock).

A new director is a must, and Kirsten Dunst can go too

...all we need is J K Simmons to remain of the old guard, the only actor to emerge with his head held high!

Well, it was the studio producers who insisted on adding Venom at a late stage and bringing all of the effects in-house to save a buck. Those people aren't going anywhere. Spider-Man is a multi-billion dollar movie franchise, no director has enough pull to steer that ship. 

Was phenomenal!!! CGI was unbelievable (Take that, Peter Jackson!!!)... Venom was well designed... Action was great.. Story was great... 10/10... The only complaint I have, is when the pipes fell, the CGI looked bad and pipes don't bounce...

ok as a non Spider man geek i thought the film was not to bad it had its cringe worthy moments most noticably when Peter was walking through the streets acting cool, i like how a floppy haircut means he is mean spiderman whereas pushed back is normal spiderman not much thought needed in the makeup deptartment, unfortuantly my daughter needed the toilet at the scene in the church so i missed how venom was created and how spiderman lost the suit

id say  6 maybe 7 out of ten

I agree with you on everything sir. Which I think might be a first.lol

They comletly fucked up Venom. Course Sam isn't a fan of the character so I was a little worried ,but hoped they would git it right.

the movies just seem to be a big jumbled mess. they tried to do two movies worth of stuff in one. and they failed at it.

...come again?

yeah what? the cgi was just plain bad. looked like a $50 million dollar flicks cgi and not a $256+ million ones.

As for the movie, it's terrible. The dialogue and teenage soap opera felt like something a 9th grader would write. The action was very good but the film was just horrible in all the elements that are required for a film to be considered great. I gave it a 3/10, and I gave SM1 a 8/10 and SM2 a 9/10 so I am by no means a hater.

As for the budget, Sony has admitted that it cost $258 million just for production, but there was an article in the New York times that cited sources who said it cost around $500 million including marketing. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that's true, given how this movie's advertisements completely saturated the market.

Nah. The movie was a laugh. Actually, it was freakin' hillarious.

Yeah, hilarious in a bad way. The audience shouldn't be laughing when the protagonist is crying, but the audience I was with started cracking up (and rightfully so...it's cheesy as well as badly acted out).

I didn't think it was funny when Peter cried at all... And the CGI was great... I don't know what you guys think is so bad about it...

i didnt think it was funny when peter cried either.


it was a solid, fun, and entertaining movie. it obviously couldnt live up to the hype.....

i wish they focused more on venom and cut out one of, or both of the other two villians, but for what it was it was good.... i still think the second one is the best of the series though.

He looked like an emo kid, the dance sequence was horrible, the strut was pathetic, and than how can anyone take him seriously in eye-liner! Should change the name to EmoMan.? :smoking:

Most of the complaints in this thread are utter crap. Some of the effects are substandard (specifically the recycled shots of Spider-Man swinging through the city and the dodgy plate shot composites throughout the movie) and the story is muddled, that's about the worst of it. All the rest of the blather is internet fanboy bullshit. Pretty much everything which is in the movie works, despite the whining about the jazz club scene and the fact that the protagonist has emotions and relationships. The movie would work better as a whole if the story was pared down to Spider-Man seeking revenge against Sandman while being the subject of Harry's vendetta. We didn't get that movie because you all wanted your Venom. It's a trade-off; gain a villain, lose the substance of the story. I'll bet there's a solid 30 minutes of this movie just waiting to be edited back in for the "director's cut" dvd. And I'll bet it contains less symbiote and more story.

It falls short of living up to the second movie but it's pretty much on par with the first. Hardly a damning criticism.

Most of those advertisements are paid for through endorsements, it's not money that Sony spent or even saw.

why do you guys keep going to these kind of movies to come here and say it sucked?

stop it already and go see good movies: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0859765/

It's foreign and boring so it must be good? If that movie was in English and starred Ben Affleck it'd win an Oscar and be roundly slaughtered. And rightly so.

You know you'd rather watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063678/

boring : subjective.
foreign :  to 1 billion people, it's not.

if it was english, from america, or from europe, it'd have more chance to be "formated and standardized".
if ben afleck was in it, ..... wait, i'm trying to think ....
if it won an oscar, it would have more chances to be "mainstream", in the sense of trying to appeal to a large community,making it very "flat".

thx for the link, i'll check that out.


on spiderman 3 ... you expect these movies to be bad, can't you just download it and watch it for free with some friends?
you know they 'll be on TV soon.
save Cinema for rare movies.

..so you didnt notice the plot lines that went nowhere?

Parker and MJ's relationship on the rocks - but she gets blackmailed and the relationship ends because of that - so why was all the bumf before needed? Wouldnt it have worked better if they were engaged and THEN Harry Osbourne had wrecked it?

Sandman 'i killed ur step father!' - irrelevant, Spidey goes ''evil'' because of the suit!

Total lack of character development for anyone really, Sandman just doesnt need to be in this film, he's a 10 second plot device stretched to well over an hour, (and how much did he cost??)

Contrived elements galore - thank god that meteor landed so close, and did so silently!

-why did the crane break, what was the point of that scene?!? How did it advance anything?

This was a bad film, its nothing to do with 'fanboy' stuff, hell i've never read a comic in my life.

...oh and other problems, woeful acting, effects, editing, and cinematography - (goblin v parker at night, could anyone actually tell what was going on??)

i dont know if you noticed that, but action movies tend to like night fights. when they cannot, they do fast editing - remember batman begins? - i think i got an epileptic attack from that movie.

i know i know - they do them cos it keeps costs low

AVP's ''battles'' were little more than a blur......

It made $148,000,000 in the USA & $227,000,000 outide of the US... The #1 record of all-time for opening weekend in the US!!! A total of  $375,000,000 in 3 days!!! It already made its money back!!!

.....er? u just oblivious to reality?

Its $350 million in production and a further $200 million in promotion

+

that figure is ticket sales, only a percentage goes to the studio

The studio needs $550 million just to break even!

yeah its about an even 50/50 split between the studio and the theaters.

so Spidey would have to make roughly $1.1 billion world wide before it even breaks even.which isn't going to happen. but they will make a shit load with the dvd and toy line.

Yes I noticed the contrived elements and the leaps between plot points and, as I already said twice over, the reasons for them are clear. The story they're trying to tell goes off on a symbiote/black suit tangent and never comes back to the revenge angle. Yes it's annoying and it robs the movie of any substance and it causes every development in the film to be delivered in shorthand thereby preventing much of the important developments from having the impact needed and the time to develop. That said, all of those things ought to cause a trainwreck but the movie manages to juggle things around and remain coherent, certainly watchable and enjoyable, on a purely surface level.

Sandman needs to be in the movie, he just needs to be in it more. Harry's vendetta against Peter is supposed to be mirrored in Peter's attempts to avenge his Uncle. Sadly, we don't get to spend any real time with Sandman so that story is basically a non-starter - which emasculates the minimal time we spend with the other revenge angle. Those plot elements should have been the heart of the film, as was the filmaker's intention. What didn't need to be in the movie was the entirely separate and unrelated story of space-goop and rival photographers. A conclusion which we spent two movies working towards is stolen away by the last minute decision to cover a Saturday-morning cartoon angle. That's something to be annoyed about. The fact that Raimi and co. managed to absorb that situation and still turn out a decent movie is quite impressive.

So I agree with much of what you're saying, I just don't find that they lead me to the same conclusion.

Aside; I don't think you can blame the cinematography for the first Osbourne/Parker fight being such a clusterfuck. I think you can lump that in with the general complaint about visual effects. While it's an exciting sequence it does get bogged down by both having the black Goblin on a black background and having some of the worst green-screen/background plate compositing in a major movie in many years. It alternates between the background being too washed-out (so that we can see Harry at the beginning, so poorly done that it looks like 1950s rear-screen projection) and being too overpowering (so that we can hardly see him for the rest of the sequence). I have a suspicion that contrary to the reports of record-breaking production budgets the post-production on this movie was hampered by either lack of money or lack of time/talent because so many of the effects are either recycled, poorly done, or - in the case of the crane sequence - missing. Where is the rest of that sequence? Surely if Spider-Man didn't stop the crane it should still have been swinging around during the final battle? That's not a plot-hole, that's "oh shit, we're never going to finish this sequence in time. Cut it."

Hate to sound like a broken record but the promotion was likely paid for in full by endorsements. Allow Spider-Man to grace the front of a cereal box, the cereal company ponies up the cash for advertising time. And look at how many cereals, apple juices, candies, and fast-food cartons Spider-Man is currently plastered on to. I doubt Sony spent much of their own money on advertising at all. So suddenly you're down to $350 million to break even. If we ignore the fact that the first two movies made incredible profits and paid for this production many times over, making it basically a free movie for the studio, and pretend instead that it's real money coming out of the company's pocket then they need to take about one billion dollars in ticket sales worldwide to make back the alledged $350M cost. Maybe they'll break even at the box office, maybe they wont. If they do it's quite a feat, most big summer movies don't come close to making their money back in theaters. Regardless, they'll make a killing on DVD. They'll make their money back five times over on worldwide home video, no-one at the company is going to be losing sleep worrying about that.

And given that the production was all in-house, how much money did Sony really spend on this movie in the first place? The humans involved took away their salaries, the rest of the money went from one Sony-owned company into another. I would love to see a real breakdown of what was spent and where the money went, it would be fascinating reading.  I'll go out on a limb and estimate that this movie probably cost Columbia/Tristar's corporate parent about $100 Million all told. Considerably less than R&D on their new Playstation.     

i enjoyed this movie, more than spider man 2.

reasons why, spider man two had hardly any action, and got boring.

this movie broguht back the action i wanted.

HOWEVER

it did reek of cheese, the dance thing, all that cheese, so much cheese.

And really, why did sandman have to be there.

However it was a fun enjoyable movie like the first one.

apparently the studio gets about 90% of the opening weekends recipts then each week the percentage falls

...thats why they are so obsessed with the opening weekend recipts as opposed to overall sales

Bizarrely they are now happy to have the film actually lose money on its theatrical run and then cover their costs through product tie ins and dvd sales

No way can Spiderman recoup the money at the cinema, they'll be hoping for a POTC 2-esque DVD mega success (sold like 25 million copies in a year......)

...on a completely unrelated note, no one wonder less people go to the cinema - its costs be ?10 a time at my local!

jesus thats a lot!!

the most ive paid is ?5

Well most see the theater run as a trailer for the DVD now.

Not quite 50/50....it varies through the run, actually.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/

First week is typically around a 75/25 split in favor of the studio and that gradually decends until by week 5 or 6 it's a 35/65 split in favor of the theater.  50/50 doesn't happen until around week 3 or 4.  The "bigger" the movie, FYI, the better the terms the studio gets, usually.

Typically, you need to make about 3x the production costs to "break even", and that factors in the split.

That estimate, though, doesn't includes ancillary revenue like promotional fees (for example, what Burger King paid Sony to feature Spidey 3 in their current promotion, videogame licensing fees, product placement fees, etc).  I'm not sure what Spidey3 is making on ancillary fees, but given how prominent it's featuring everywhere...I'd guess it probably will make about 1/3 of the budget...which will basically cover a LOT of the advertising and promotion.

So if we use the split, and figure it all out, here's what I get.

Figure ancillary fees at about 83 million, which basically will have covered the promo budget.

So they need to "make back", after split, the 250 mill of production.

They took in 375 million.  They'll get about 75% of that back.  That's 281 million.  Looks like they're already ahead to me.

^ that it pretty much it . well their is also the back end deals .

True, the points will cut into that amount, too....so maybe they haven't started to MAKE money yet, but they're pretty close by the looks of things.  I'd guess by the end of next weekend...

Course that is also depending on how well it holds up . the film could be and probable is very front loaded.they will make a little back . but with the budget being hire then what is being said by the studio . the real money want be seen till it hit home video market. course then you have the tv rights. ECT.

the movie was good,? not the greatest-? but after not being too impressed with spiderman 1or2,? i did'nt get my hopes up as high this time.? ?

people compliain of too many stories,? i did'nt mind so much-? hell i could have used 2 more villians,? add Rhino and Electro in there for some more fun.? its not that there was two many stories,? just the stories are boring,? i've seen harry be mad at peter,? and i seen peter whine about his uncle too.

venom was cool,? the only thing that would have pissed me off is if venom and spidey did'nt get to have a decent fight,? i was worried the shot in the previews of spidey ripping off the suit at the bell tower would be the last scene.? and it was dumb that the symbiote was on that meteorite instead of astronauts finding it in space-? but it was supposed to save time.

who really watched the first goblin/parker fight and complained it was too dark?? you are nitpicking- i saw everything just fine.

and... i just read too that the studio has picked up the rights to do 3 MORE spiderman movies,? who will be attached to direct/star is still up in the air.? http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2007-05-07/#3? ?

and... what would be everyones opinion if the new spiderman was played by a different actor-? can spiderman be like james bond in that regards?

I have changed my mind..

The movie is crap.. some fun scenes-animated effects etc
 
but
They fucked Venom over.
Venom is like the coolest nemesis Spiderman ever will have.
And they made him a wimp.

And he scene with the american flag....jesus....buddha...allah...  :no:

And the plot and everything was not neat.

"Points" don't figure into the equation until the studio makes break-even. And that's "break-even" as defined by the studio, so most points deals have a dollar value of nil (unless you have full accounting, which only Arnold and Tom Cruise have managed if I remember correctly - and Cruise had to wave his acting fee to get it for his production company.)

As I said before, the studio can't fail to turn a profit on this movie. No point trying to get your head around the figures, the bottom line is that every penny Spider-Man 3 brings in is pure profit, the franchise paid for itself with the first movie. But I'm sure that the producers and execs are touched that we're so concerned about their financial well-being.

Venom's so cool that New Line bought the rights to the character and then spent the better part of a decade not making a movie about him. He's just ripe with potential!  :hihi:

Studio's get most of the receipts which is why Concession prices are so fucking high. Thats how the theater makes money.




http://movies.go.com/boxoffice?CMP=ILC-Flash1



Production budget was 258 million. IT made over 375 million in itsf irst week worldwide.

This movie is gonna profit HUGE.

yeah the movie is going to make a good bank more then I thought it would for the studio.

The Concession prices are so high because that is the sure fire thing at the theater.
You forgote Jack Nickelson , Peter Jackson.James Camron, bruce Willis hell I could go on and one with the cats who have and have back end deals with their projects.

believe me the could fail to turn a profit , see superman returns.

lol - how come we're talking about the money?

Obviously they'll make money some how

The more pressing issue is what a bad job Mr Raimi made of this film.

With all the bad dialogue, effects and plotting - i honestly wonder if Bryan Singer or Brett Ratner (the go-to guys for crap superhero films) could have made it any worse

Why are we talking about the money??? oh, wait I know it is more interesting the the actual movie.

Singer should never be allowed to touch a super hero movie ever again. And I quess Ratner too.

ah yes, now i remember :hihi:


but they brought us such gems as Superman Returns and X Men 3 :rofl:

If Singer had directed Spiderman 3....

...Spiderman would have left New York for several years, returning almost to the day (conveniently) that Sandman decided to cover New York in sand. We'd get no real explanation as to why he'd want to do this but we'd have our attention diverted from the absurd plot by the shocking revalation that Venom is Spidey's son, and that all the charaters are a fraction of the age they should be. The film would conclude with Spiderman moving New York to Kansas.

If Brett Ratner had directed.....

...we'd have villians both old and new appearing everywhere, though no one would be introduced, and we'd never be sure why they are following Sandman in the first place.

Venom would be super powerful though would stand ideally in the corner as if waiting for a command thats never given

The plot would involve Sandman trying to destroy a water bottling plant but - despite having the ability to crush it from afar with any of a number of heavy objects such as giant bridges - he's instead order his associates to run into Spiderman's web, which they'd do without any real explanation as to why they'd be so stupid

The film would end with Mary Jane, Aunt May and Spiderman all dying as if the whole objective of the film was to ensure the impossibility of a sequal. At the end of the credits we'd have a scene where Brett Ratner points and laughs at the audience.

This movie is garbage! I felt like leaving half way through.

Man, I've let you spout your rubbish for long enough, but I'm not having that one.

Do you want to know who ruined this movie? You! Well, people like you.

If you fan-boys-without-a-clue (ie. those who saw the cartoon) got a clue, hadn't have made a big fuss about bloody Venom then the studio (ever intent on what will make a good film!, eh? (we were just talking about money, right?)) wouldn't have forced him to be crowbarred in there.

It's not Sam's fault that he couldn't make his movie, it's yours.

Venom was so pointless and was treated like a complete afterthought.

the main thing is they just tried to squeeze to much in it. it's is basically two maybe even three movies worth of store lines in one flick.

the Harry stuff should have been the main focus. then sandman at the end .ext.

I haven't seen it yet, but I've seen enough previews to know it looks as though it'll be just what I'm expecting: a big-budget-over-the-top-special-effects-Hollywood-blockbuster-superhero movie, and that's just fine by me! : ok:

I didn't forget them, they just didn't have full accounting (. . . as far as I'm aware. Not sure about Pete Jackson actually, he must have had some variation if he's suing New Line over his split of the  Rings money.)

this movie sucked, spider man 1 is the only good one and they are gonna have to pull a "casino royale" or "batman begins" to save the spiderman series

From movies.ign.com

Sony Plans Spidey's Future

Saying that he was "really over the moon" about the record-breaking $382 million worldwide debut of Spider-Man 3, Sony Pictures chief executive Michael Lynton is already reportedly mapping out the franchise's future.

"Everybody has every intention of making a fourth, a fifth and a sixth and on and on," Lynton informed the BBC. He sees the series lasting for "as many as we can make good stories for."

"Everybody's been so busy trying to get this one out that that's been the focus," he added. "When everybody comes up for air, we can think about how to make the next one."

That would seem to include cast and crew, although that hasn't stopped the rumor mill from offering up a name about who might succeed Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. According to CinemaBlend.com, Mandy Moore, Alexis Bledel and Camilla Belle are contenders for the role.

The site adds, "Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jake Gyllenhall are the front runners as of now [to replace Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker] but word is that a third name might be thrown in the mix as well." They also suggest that a new director may be tapped as well since Raimi would want more control over Spidey 4.

CinemaBlend's scooper claims "those in Sony don't want to give Tobey or the returning cast that kind of money because they want to lock the cast down for the next three films instead of one and they want to do it cheaply, so they are looking at other actors to continue the franchise in a cheaper way and if the movie opens big and makes a boat load of cash, Tobey and the cast has a huge advantage in negotiations."

It's a no-brainer that Sony wants the Spidey gravy train to keep rolling. For example, of the $148 million that Spider-Man 3 earned in its stateside opening, a record-setting $4.8 million of that came from IMAX screenings. The picture also broke the record for IMAX's largest single day worldwide total at $2.2 million and posted a remarkable domestic opening weekend per screen average of $57,147.






I'm not surprised by the studio looking for a new director, as Raimi was apparently fully against venom and several other things about spiderman 3 from the get go but was pressured by the studio. So it makes sense that the studio would want someone that would not argue with them over everything. They should have let him make his movie instead of forcing him to make it their movie with his touches.  :smoking:

Exclusive: Spider-Man 4 Villains Revealed... Already?!

When Spider-Man 3 was being prepped Sam Raimi and Columbia Pictures tried to hold the announcement of Venom for as long as they possibly could... confirming the news just before Comic Con in July of 2006. But here we are, the day Spider-Man 3 hits theaters, and your good pal here has the skinny on who you will see in Spider-Man 4 - with or without Sam Raimi (hater of all things symbiotic).

Before I hit you with the news, let me make it clear that we got this news from a 100% reliable source working on the film. He's the one who told us Venom was the villain in Spidey 3 and nobody believed us. So here you have it, the biggest announcement of 2008... NOW!

Our regular scooper tells FreezeDriedMovies that plans are underway for Spider-Man 4, which were (obviously) set up in the third film. In the third entry, Dr. Curt Connors (played by Dylan Baker) looks at a piece of symbiote with Peter Parker. The movie then travels along it's path without another mention of that "piece" of symbiote. This is the set up for Spider-Man 4 where that small piece of alien symbiote becomes CARNAGE. Yes Cletus Kasady is coming to the big screen, one of Spider-Man most horrifying and evil villains. Not only with Parker have to deal with the red lean mean killing machine, but Connors is set to become the long awaited LIZARD! these two villains have all been CONFIRMED for Spider-Man 4. There is talk of the Black Cat making her first appearance, but that's all but official.

So there you have it. Spider-Man, The Lizard, Carnage... and hopefully NO Sam Raimi. Avi Arad, please find someone who CARES what the fans think!

http://www.freezedriedmovies.com/blog/index.php?/archives/64-Exclusive-Spider-Man-4-Villains-Revealed...-Already!.html

See, that's what I went in expecting.....a summer popcorn flick.

And it's what I got.  I wasn't expecting an acedemy award winning picture.  I wasn't expecting a fan boi circle jerk.  I wasn't expecting anything other than what I got: A major studio-ized, big budget, high octane, special effects laden joy ride that would enjoyably kill 2 hours.

And, again, that's what I got.  So I liked it.

Yeah, because "fans" always know what they're talking about and their input always makes things so much better. The "fans" just love them some snakes on a plane.

Does anyone else find the idea of a movie website begging Avi Arad to do something for "the fans" to be absolutely hilarious?

Ah the ol' classic. A director makes s shite film and its the studios fault! Do i hear David Fincher moaning about Fox's meddling in Alien3?

...now we go one step further - its the movie going publics fault! - oh yes those devils with their 'standards!'

Venom was in the film for 7 mins 22 seconds,

Sony must really have been demanding!! - So demanding that they even let him kill Venom off despite the obvious pay off he'd be in a future sequal!!

I assume it was also Sony that insisted on scenes that went nowhere? - ''oh look a crane...thats gone mad! Better go stop it, ah what the hell.....''

Was it the clever guys in Sony's feminist division insisting on two songs minimum?

Was Raimi ordered to dumb down the acting to the level of Hollyoaks?

I assume including 'the twist' was some hip Sony idea to promote something?

...and OBVIOUSLY Sony execs demanded the Butler scene!

Get a clue, atleats bring a credible argument

Well, I went to see it last night, and I can see where allot of you are coming from.

While most of the movie is fantastic, there were scenes that were outright silly. There was some good character development in the second movie along with the special effects, but this one seemed to have too much going on all at once, and had some very bizarre scenes that made it seem silly (like Peter going emo, and the dancing/piano playing in the jazz bar :o ).

Still pretty good for what it was, but a bit of a step down from part two.

The special effects were awesome! : ok:

I loved that sequence! Totally out of place, but a hilarious stand alone piece of film making

..and obviously the symbiote can play the piano, i mean - c'mon, what alien cant?

Um...it did go somewhere.

In introduced Gwen as another "damsel in distress", gave motivation to Brock to dislike Spidey, and provided reasoning behind the schism between MJ and Peter (the resulting ceremony).

Again, was it the greatest cinematic construct of all time?  Certainly not.  Befiiting a summer popcorn flick?  Sure.

I think you're just expecting WAY too much out of these movies.  This is not meant to be "Gone with the Wind".....

On that, we agree.  That was my one criticism: Trim the singing and dancing, and add that time to the development of the Sandman's character.

It was "too long" in some places and "too short" in others.

But still a fun ride.

yeah i'm sick of everyone's bitching. honestly, what were u expecting? we knew there was gonna be 3 villains for a long time now, so i wasnt very suprised to see that some aspects were rushed. i still like the 2nd movie the best but this one was far from bad, it wasnt awesome, but far from bad.

i had alot of fun, and thats all i really wanted.

...all of which could have bene done with 10 seconds of dialogue

Why was Gwen in the film?

To cause friction with Parker/MJ? - perhaps, but why was that angle even there, the relationship folded because of ''new goblin'' - made all their relationship problems irrelevant when you think about it - that angle would have worked just as well if they had been engaged, hell it would have worked far better

Motivation for Brock? Lol - maybe it was the acting, the script or something else - but Brock never seemed particularly bothered, and he had all the motivation he needed when he got fired. Gwen was in jazz bars with Parker and Brock never seemed to mind, so i'm guessing spidey saving her life wouldnt have been too distressing for him!

With some careful editing dont you begin to see the film that was hidden beneath the debris?

Spidey 4 better be good because i was extremely dissapointed with this film

that movie sucked.
I've never seen so many grown up man cry like in that movie...
and those are suposed to be super heroes and super villains...
and that chick is the ugliest thing I've seen in movies since Godzilla.

which one?

I thought 'Gwen Stacy' looked like a transexual.....

To give Peter REASON to believe MJ was breaking up with him of her own accord.  Had it come from out of the blue, it likely would have led him to ask question.  With what had happened with Gwen, amongst other things.....it seemed reasonable to him.


You might want to watch the movie again and watch more closely how Brock reacts.  He DOES seem to mind.  And we're talking about his dislike for SPIDEY, not Peter.  He was willing to besmirtch spidey 'cause he was pissed off about what went on, at the ceremony, between Gwen and Spidey.  His dislike/hatred for PETER stemmed from getting fired.  He didn't find out until much later in the movie they were the same person.

Again, I liked it for what it was.  I think expecting more, all things considered, might not be realistic.

Spiderman 1 and 2 had no trouble offering a mature ''human'' tale, filled with great acting, effects and clever story telling

...it was too much to expect the same from part 3?

...why?

Two film limit on quality?

I didnt expect, want or need Godfather-esque performances or direction, the same level as the first two would have been just fine.

Why the fuck would they get a skinny little shit head like Topher Grace to play eddy brock ?!

Wasn't Eddy Brock a big muscular football player ?

bad peter parker looks like gay Hitler gone "Bee Gees".

See, and there's where we're going to disagree......I don't see this as a whole lot different than the first two, other than it stroked the "fan bois" a little less directly by veering even further from the plot of the comics.  NONE of these movies have outstanding acting. Dunst's turn as MJ in the first movie bordered on wooden, and surpassed wooden in the 2nd.  Willem Dafoe played a great Norman Osbourne, but his Goblin wasn't great as it was played WAY too over the top to be taken as a "serious" acting performance. At points it made Nicholson's turn as the Joker appear understated. Molina's turn as Otto was passable, but he came off too smarmy for my tastes. There are/were plot contrivances littered throughout the first movie, more of them in the 2nd, and yes, still more in the 3rd.    The effects have been the strong suit in all 3 movies, including this one (even the critics giving mixed reviews on Spidey 3 admit the effects are still amazing.

You didn't like it.  Bummer for you.  I'm not sure, exactly, why this one pushed your buttons the wrong way while the first 2 didn't. Is it that we didn't get the "villian motivational development" that we got with Norman and Otto?  If that's your big grip, I agree.  It just wasn't enough of a factor to ruin the movie for me.

 It was a summer popcorn flick.....not the best of the 3 movies, but good enough to be entertaining for 2 hours and 20 minutes.  Given the box office numbers, even with the 60% drop off, it looks like a whole lot of other people think so too.

You say you're not expecting "Godfather" quality, but then critique it exactly like you do.  That's what's confusing me.  You seem to want realism and believability from a movie based on the fantastic, based on a comic book setting.  You seem to want deep character exposition...and I'll grant you, I wouldn't have minded a bit more dedicated to that  (especially on the Sandman front) rather than the singing and dancing....but I'm not sure this type of movie NEEDS it to be entertaining or successful.

You know, it's funny.  When I saw him doing his "Bee Gee" walk down the street, I kept thinking: This guy should go try out for Springtime for Hitler.

U misunderstand, i didnt like the film because it was clumsy, amateurish and very VERY cheap

The effects were awful in numerous places, the direction sloppy, the editing non existent

I have no problem with Parker dancing away and suddenly able to play the piano, but plots that go nowhere, a running time dragged to a daft length by go-nowhere scenes and utter contempt for the audience is just going to far

Raimi didnt even manage to make the film coherant.

edit> the film is such shite i'm still discovering new absurdities to it - JJ Jameson's blood pressure tablets apparently caused him to forget it was Parker who stole his son's fiance :confused: This film cracks me up

I think this was obviously the bottom of the 3 movies, but it was still entertaining. It was a little too cartoony though, certainly overly-cheesy and a character like Venom needs more development and has to be MUCH darker. But overall the movie was exciting enough. I hope they make the city anti-Spidey in the next one. Spidey isn't supposed to be loved.