Compared to 2, this sequel was weak

Rating: 6/10 (8 May 2007)

Yeah I know. Some people are going to say that this is the best Spiderman yet. I know for certain it will beat out the first two films at the box office, but that still doesn't make it as good as Spiderman 2, and it's not quite on the same par as the first film either.
The problem this time around is that there are entirely too many sub-plots and villains. The last two films dealt with only one villain, and that made it possible for character development. Doc Ock was still the best villain, but with this film we have three separate villains, and in a movie that was 2 and a half hours long, that still wasn't enough time to make them interesting.
The main stars suffer a little bit here as well. The performance by Tobey Maquire wasn't as strong, and both Kirsten Dunst and James Franco were simply one note. I could tell that their performances were strained, and that only proves that the rumors may be true about the main stars not returning for part 4 if there is one.
However, I must give kudos to the special effects. They were by far some of the best yet, and with a budget at over 250 million dollars, I can see why. But special effects alone do not make good movies. Character development and interesting story lines will always beat them out, and that is the part of the movie that rings a little hollow.
There were also some nice action scenes, but even then there was nothing that really jumped out at you. Some of the scenes in Spiderman 3 were reminiscent of part 1 and 2. There was nothing original, and there were no wow scenes like the way Spiderman stopped the speeding train in part 2, or how he seemed to almost fly down the street on his web lines trying to catch the man who was thought to have killed his uncle in part 1.
Sadly, Spidermen 3 doesn't quite make the grade, but I have no doubt it will still break box office records once its theater run is over.