Great sequel, but one can't help but think...

Rating: 7/10 (6 May 2007)

My Take: A rushed and bloated mess. But an extremely enjoyable and exciting one.
...isn't this all too much? This was indeed a great sequel, not just for more CGI. But it is clear that everything goes way too fast in the frantic first half. It is fun and is as deserving as the second (the first was good, but not as great). One of the film's problem lies on its abundance on special-effects. Particularly, in a "battle that lies within", do we really need the new villain, Sandman. Thomas Haden Church tries hard to be significant, but other than the fact that he might possibly have something to do with killing Peter Parker's uncle, he has very little to do with the film. With or without Sandman, Sam Raimi would have wrapped up a great film. And, unlike Green Goblin and Doc Ock, his origin of becoming The Sandman is, to but it bluntly, rushed. Obviously, the screenwriters just rushed it so they could get on with the circus of special effects.
But lets skip the negatives. what really gave me the urge to give it a positive review is the superb performance by Tobey Maguire as, not Spider-man, but as Peter Parker. This time around, he isn't just play a nerd, but a different side of Parker, after the "battle within" rages inside him. For my opinion, this is his best performance among the three films. The only villain that seems to matter is Venom, a symbolism of inner evil. It was good for the writers to think of that, besides just turning him into another villain.
My overall review, "Spider-man 3" is not that bad. For me, it was the most symbolical of the series, which was a good thing for the genre. But too bad, everything is turned bad when it comes to direction. Sam Raimi had so much in his mind at the time that it seems that putting them all together in one sitting is showing too much of a good idea. Let us be thankful, at least, that "Spider-man 3" is not another "Batman and Robin".
Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.