Smoreni Zmaj
"Spider-Man 3" has really great special effects but, if it wasn't so awesome visually, I probably wouldn't watch it till the end. Peter Parker is portrayed as self-pitying selfish cry-baby, Mary Jane is a personification of negative prejudices about women, and in the role of Venom we have Eric Forman from "That '70s Show". And by it I do not mean only that it is the same actor, but virtually the same character in the new environment. The film has no focus at all and is fading into a multitude of insufficiently elaborated stories and characters, with too many bad guys, none of which is the main one. Two and a half hours of meaningless action, based almost exclusively on excellent effects and some pathetic scenes. The scene in the jazz bar is the only really good thing in the movie that even director himself, Sam Raimi, was not satisfied with.5,5/10
Joshua Belyeu
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.Marvel CEO (at that time) Avi Arad liked the story very much, but he had one concern. Online polls had been screaming with fan theories and guesses ever since the second film's release, wondering who the next villian would be. Arad was concerned that the Sandman wouldn't attract a big enough audience alone, so he asked Raimi to include a fan favorite: Venom. When Raimi intially refused, Arad pressured him. Raimi eventually agreed, and so the black suit story from the comics' "Secret Wars" arc was simplified and added to the script.Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.The effects in this film took another leap, but not towards our web-suited hero. Instead, animators studied all sorts of dirt, sand, and dust to make the Sandman truly convincing. Doing so meant pushing every effects boundary that existed at that point, so far as making Sony Pictures Imageworks add more computers to their setup. The team also studied serpents and worms to get a feel for the crawling done by the symbiote, and layered large amounts of black slime on Topher Grace's costume to have it appear living.The music this time was two-fold. Danny Elfman originally refused to return, citing uncomfortable relations with Sam Raimi during the second film's production. So, Raimi brought in scorist Christopher Young, who used some of Elfman's memorable themes while creating a few of his own. Eventually, Elfman returned to assist Young, who recieved main score credit for the film.Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was one of a spiritual nature, when Eddie visits the church, asking God to kill Peter. That struck me on an emotional note, since I know that God would never do such a thing. Otherwise, I guess my only real complaint would be Gwen Stacy's cleavage. There's a few moments in the "crane rescue" sequence where you can practically see down her shirt. It's not as blatant as Mary Jane's situations in the first two films, but I still felt it was inappropriate.All in all, this film gets a 7 out of 10, for the spiritual issue, cleavage shots, and confusing story.
Pjtaylor-96-138044
'Spider-Man 3 (2007)' is certainly a step down and 'Emo-Peter', or more specifically his arrogant dancing, is as cringe-worthy as his reputation would suggest (though when viewed on their own these scenes are funny to say the least, it's just that as a part of the overarching narrative they are entirely out of place), but despite its problems this is still a relatively enjoyable picture that has some entertaining sequences and even some nice character moments (some of the stuff with 'The Sandman' and his daughter is quite well done) sprinkled throughout the over-cluttered and generally messy narrative. The action feels a little less impactful than before, mainly thanks to the blatant surrealism of the antagonists who are actually less believable in concept and execution than our spider-enhanced hero and the villains of the prior films, and most of it is too big and too silly to ever feel like our heroes are ever really in danger. It can be fun at times, though, and does have some lasting consequences, leading to an ending that's surprisingly sombre. 6/10
