The Weakest of the Trilogy, But Still a Solid Film

Rating: Null/10 (5 May 2007)

"Spider-Man 3" is another sequel that once again falls into the mold where the third film is the worst. But "Spider- Man 3" wasn't a terrible film. Not at all. "Spider-Man 3" at its best is just a solid superhero film. Coming off of the brilliant "Spider-Man 2", what could they do this time? How could they top it? Who knows why "Spider-Man 3" turned out the way it did.
The flaws are there. A story that's a muddle. Peter Parker of course acts out of character and becomes a bit of a moron. One gripe many have with this film is the amount of villains. It's not because there are too many villains, it's just that the villains were underdeveloped. Venom did not get enough screen time. The Sandman just comes in out of nowhere. I heard that the original cut was closer to three hours before the film was released, so maybe there was some strengths (or flaws) in that version.
There were a lot of strengths. The acting was alright throughout, and there was some bits of humor here and there. The drama was either good or dull, some of it came off as campy. Peter acting out of character on his dark side was awkward. Many people to this day still pick at the scene of him dancing. "Spider-Man 3" could've been dark, but I think some of these aspects brought it down. The biggest strength is the action. The action sequences were pulse-pounding and incredible. The special effects were excellent (particularly the Sandman sequences).
When I first saw it in 2007, of course, I was younger and I ate up those big blockbuster films. I loved it. Nowadays, it's still a fun ride, but it's nothing great. It's hard to top a critically acclaimed sequel. "Spider-Man 2" was one of those sequels that was on par with its predecessor. "Spider-Man 3" is not a terrible film, but it's not a great film. It's a solid superhero film with great action and great effects to be a worthwhile watch. A 7.7 out of 10.