Spider Man 3 Is It As Good As The Rest? By April on Nov 01, 2007 - Updated Oct 15, 2011

2007 was the summer of sequels in movies. Spider-Man 3 was one of those sequels. When I watched the movie, out on DVD, I realized a few things. First, it definitely was not as good as the first movie. Second, Venom was not utilized as well as in the comic books. And third, the acting was redundant.

Spider-Man was, and is, huge. I still believe the first movie is he best of the trilogy, but I like the extra bad guys in Spider-Man 3 compared to what Spider-Man 2 offered. The action and plot were both subpar compared to what we have previously seen. But that is why sequels are never as good as the originals!

According to the comic book, Venom is a huge character that Spider-Man 3 failed to capitalize on. I think the character was played weakly, but then again, there were huge shoes to fill to die hard fans. If the screenplay would have focused more on Venom than Sandman, the movie would have been better.

Last, the acting was like a deja vu type feeling. We have heard Peter Parker tell Mary Jane that he loves her, but he has a job to do. We have heard his aunt tell the same stories. It is all redundant. I am not saying the acting was bad, but it was practiced. Maybe something needed to be added to spice things up a bit!

The DVD was of good quality, the sound and picture were both decent. The special features (I bought the double DVD) were nice to see from a director's outlook. My favorite part is always the interviews with the actors in the movie, which this one gave you three.

All in all, I did enjoy Spider-Man 3 as an action adventure movie, but it paled in comparison to Spider-Man. I just hope there are no more sequels, it would ruin the hero of Spider-Man.