Great movie but why the SAPPY ending?

Rating: 9/10 (5 May 2007)

This was a really good film. The story line was so good that it had me completely engrossed for the whole time, up to the last 10 minutes when it turned a little too sappy for me. This was more of a thinking man's film then the other two and you really had to follow the story to feel what was going on inside all of the main characters. Also, once again JK Simmons's JJ Jameson was the truest to the comics but everyone was great. Eddie Brock was the perfect anti-Parker Venom, Thomas Haden Church was brilliant as the Sandman. These two are real good actors and they brought a life to their characters that was missing in the last two films. Kirsten Dunst and Bryce Howard played off each other very well and made it believable and Tobey Maguire had so much fun playing the dark side that I think they should bring back Black Spidey for the next movie. It had everything you could ask for, the best action by far, the most Spidey humor which is more like the comics, great acting and an over-packed story line that I loved. They could have easily made two or three movies, sort of like a "LOR". I have to agree with "LennyRenquist" another writer here and it is worth repeating when he said; "the sequence in which Peter turns into the "lamest bad-boy in historyand the looks on the faces of the 'laydeez' as he struts along the street like a nerdy, emo-midget Travolta are absolutely priceless". All of this made the movie the most entertaining of the three by far, so it is a wonder to me why Mr. Raimi felt the need to make the ending so SAPPY. This was not Gone with the Wind, the audience was looking for a great Spiderman ending so they could all jump up and cheer. What they got made them sit in silence looking at the credits. Maybe he can re-tool the ending to make this the great movie it should have been.