Spiderman III

[Izzy]

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?

[2112]

I have seen better movies.

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

Somestuff was quite cringeable though.

[Sober_times]

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.?

[Axlfreek]

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.

[Izzy]

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

[2112]

the Lizard guy gotta enter in the next...

[25]

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

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.

[mrlee]

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 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.

[Izzy]

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

[Izzy]

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 a cross the country.

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

And without Raimi on board for the next attempt it's all downhill from here.

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?

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!

[25]

And without Raimi on board for the next attempt it's all downhill from here.

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?

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. 

[Back Off Bitch]

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...

[anythinggoes]

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

[Timothy]

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

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.

[Izzy]

CGI was unbelievable

...come again?

[Timothy]

CGI was unbelievable

...come again?

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

[GNRfan2008]

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.

[Jim]

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

[GNRfan2008]

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).

[Back Off Bitch]

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...