Better than the second one.

Rating: 8/10 (10 May 2007)

I have to say I am a bit biased. I like the Spider-Man franchise. So it just being a Spider-Man movie it automatically gets a good vote from me (unless it somehow got dropped into the hands of that guy who ruined Daredevil -- eesh). That said as far as sequels go, this one captured the camp and fun of the original Spider-Man TV series as well as being up to date, exciting and having a popcorn friendly plot. I had the Spider-Man comics where he got and lost the black costume and other than the cheesy cream filled donut of an asteroid bit (seen Slither anyone?) it followed canon pretty well. What people obviously seem to be wanting is a gripping epic Spidey/Venom saga a la Todd McFarlane era but this is clearly drawing on the less slick, more goofy, pre-McFarlane era books. Admittedly the Sandman plot wasn't as emotionally deep at Dr. Octopus, and I agree with my good pal that the Harry plot was about the best it had going and losing one subplot to give it more room would have been a bit better. In a structural sense the movie needed the double jeopardy of the two villains to bring the whole thing around. Even though the plot was a bit crowded it was still easier to follow than the Pirates sequel. So definitely a good installment of the franchise, sorry to hear it will likely be the last Maguire/Raimi install (another reason it was so jam packed) but definitely a far cry better than almost all of the crap out there these days. And those saying it is the worst of the series, I dare them to try to remember the 'good points' of the second one. Not many. This one had far more 'ooooh' moments.