Good, not great.

Rating: 4/10 (10 May 2007)

I think Spider-Man 3 will be placed into the category of "Bad third installments", along with X3, Godfather 3, Batman Forever... etc. Because it's just not as good its two predecessors.
That's not to say I didn't like it. There were several enjoyable moments, and I was entertained. But it didn't strike the same chord that Spidey 1 and 2 struck. The first movie was entertaining and enjoyable, and had great drama that had a good resolution, and left you wanting more. The second movie gave you more, and didn't disappoint. It had even better action than the first movie, an even cooler villain, and darker drama that led exactly where the story needed to go. But Spider-Man 3 took a couple steps back. Yes, it had cool action, but it wasn't as cool or intricate as Spider-Man 2, and didn't quite pack the punch that the first movie had. And there was a lot of drama as well, but it didn't feel as powerful as Spider-Man 2 did.
SPOILER: And there is one particular plot-point that is handled absolutely terribly, IMO. Harry finally finding out that Peter really didn't kill his father. Why... oh why... oh why did they have Bernard do this??? Why couldn't they have had Peter finally break Harry, and finally explain it to him in that scene when he asks Harry for help. I thought that's what was going to happen... but no, Peter leaves, and then Bernard does it... terrible. Talk about a stupid resolution. Talk about an anti-climax to the Peter/Harry story. With all that's happened between them, its Bernard that finally fixes it all. After the movie, the only thing I could think about was what the hell is wrong with Bernard? He's known the truth all along... he's watched Harry obsess about it. And he only tells him now? If I were Harry, I would have been, "Y'know, you could have told me that a long time ago. See the face?? Before that happened would have been REALLY nice!"
They could have so easily avoided that horrible bit by just having Peter explain it to Harry. Simple as that. Why they didn't do that is something I'll never understand.
SPOILER: The other major thing I have a problem with the introduction Venom. I don't think they chose a very good time to have him appear. They should have just introduced Eddie Brock, and established him. Maybe end with a cliffhanger of him becoming Venom. Having him appear and then get defeated in such a short amount of time wasn't very effective, and pretty disappointing. Even if he does re-appear, I think it would have been better to just save him for the 4th movie. And if they had to bring him in during this movie, then why have him get destroyed? Maybe just have him get over-powered by Peter and Harry, and then flee. Leaves a better cliffhanger, its reminiscent of a cartoon episode, and doesn't kill off Eddie Brock. And if they do bring him back, it spares us the moan of the old 'He's dead.. NO, HE'S NOT!!" cliché.
I dunno. I'm not entirely sure what would have been better, but I know that Spider-Man 3 isn't as good as it could have been. Still enjoyable and entertaining, with some pretty good parts to it... but some pretty bad parts as well. I hope if they make a 4th, which I think it's confirmed that they are, then they do a better job handling the story lines. Whatever frame of mind they were in for the second movie... get back into it.
Overall, I'd give this a 6 out of 10. While the first got about an 8, and the second was either 9 or close to 10.