So, yeah, Spider-Man 3. I was expecting it to be horrendous, it really wasn't. I mean, it's nowhere near the greatness of the first two, but it's not bad. The critics are right, though: it is overplotted. Sandman could have been totally removed and the Venom story, which is far more interesting, expanded. That's the movie's main problem (that, and I hate how they felt the need to "rewrite" the first one, you know what I'm talking about if you saw this movie)... I was kind of like "um, so why is the Sandman here other than to show off the amazing special effects?" I also felt like Gwen Stacy could have been removed but at least I saw her purpose. Speaking of which: Bryce Dallas Howard is horrible. The makeup/hair department washes her out and then her performance is so bland, it makes Kristen Dunst's look fantastic (though it's the best she's been in a Spider-Man movie yet). Bryce, you can act! I saw it in The Village! C'mon!
I don't feel like the movie lost its heart or that the script was particularly bad. I mean, the Spider-Man series has always been kinda wacky. Nobody said anything with the whole Hal Sparks cameo in Spider-Man 2 but you put "Saturday Night Fever" in your movie and suddenly you're a freak. This is Sam Raimi we're talking about, people. Yeah, the script does have some really wonky lines, but Spider-Man always has. I don't know, I'm a bad reviewer and it's kind of shaken my faith in my taste in movies that I thought this was, well, not great, but far from horrible. It's good enough. During summer movie season, I'll take what I can get. And, let's face it. It's going to be better than Pirates of the Carribbean 3: At Series' End, Thank God. B/B- (Spider-Man is a highish B+, Spider-Man 2 is an A- or maybe even an A)
