Spider-Man 3

By no means the dumbest film in the series (the previous ones were dumb too), just gaps between great action sequences so wide that no one can miss the idiocy... even an idiot. It's a giant laugh, this movie. The script is so retarded I'm surprised it was written and not drawn. Mary-Jane fires such salvos here ("How could you? This was OUR kiss!") that it can’t even be possible. The fact that the only thing the film perceives as purely negative is black alien matter speaks volumes, too. It's just that I'm not going to give a mediocre rating to a movie that, after a little work in the video editor, I could turn into a great five-star hour-long action flick starring J.K. Simmons and Bruce Campbell. And if Spider-Man hadn't run in front of the American flag in the third installment, I'd give one less star ;) (15/03/2011)

A triple portion of moralizing nonsense, tastelessly worn-out sentiment, and the fact that all good people will live a happy life, while all the bad ones will burn in hell. Sam Raimi must have had a fever during filming if he thought that this transparent, boring, and worn-out nonsense would satisfy the viewers who were expecting a golden peak after the original first film and its action-packed sequel. Instead of a peak, there is a tragic downfall, Spider-Man has become an idiot pointing finger-guns at passers-by, wearing a dreadful hairstyle, Mary Jane throws wisdom around like a shaman of an ancient African tribe in her twenties, and Harry Osborne sees his deceased father in the mirror. Some of the supporting roles may have been decent, but the rest is an annoying, dull, and visually repulsive (incredibly obvious presence of computers) ride where the beginning fizzles out of your head before you even see the end. (02/10/2007)

After a seven-year gap, I re-watched the third Spider-Man movie, and I must admit it's even worse than I remembered. It's incredibly cliché, and the screenplay is sometimes even dumb. Important storylines here are resolved simply or with an easy twist that's not even believable. The potential of new characters, especially Venom, is completely wasted. It's not a total disaster, but at times, it's not even particularly enjoyable. That’s too bad. Hopefully, The Amazing Spider-Man will maintain a good standard with its future installments. (05/04/2014)

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)

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)