So if you don't already, I'm a college journalist. It has its up-and-downs but the perks really kick in around Winter and Summer time as the biggest movies get early previews for critics. "Spider-Man 3" was previewed for another critic and myself. We saw, we enjoyed and we walked out satisfied. To my knowledge, it had similar qualities to the past two films and fulfilled pretty much everything I expected for a franchise that, at the time, was expected to come to a close.

So my review runs on the Daily Kent Stater site.... Three's a charm for Spider-Man series - Entertainment

The next day, after midnight showings have finished, I get the barrage of comments and read on pretty much every message board known to man's comments about how the movie was disappointing, sucked, "Where's the Venom" and other such complaints.

One person came up to me, told me how wrong I was and how the movie sucked. I acknowledge her complaints - the jazz bar scene was over-the-top and unnecessary, Peter turning dark was more cheesy than dark and the villains didn't have that big of a role. To that I say, yes, those are legitamate complaints.

And when comparing "1" and "2" to this one, they say it's an abomination. But to that I believe is wrong. All three movies were bound by human problems mixed with Raimi's love for cheese. You can complain all you want about Peter thrusting himself to women and turning emo and the jazz club scene but it's not like "1" and "2" were without cheesy Power Rangers-like fight scenes, bad dialogue, sappy moments and "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head." You can pretend they're flawless works of art. But, watch them again, they're not. They're all fine, "2" is an excellent sequel. But they aren't the best films ever made.

The villains complaint is valid. The other 2 films devoted alot more time to developing their villains while this one just lays the base. But, really, these two aren't exactly the most interesting villains. Yes, Venom has the potential to be the archenemy of Spidey. But it's clear 2/3rds of the way through, Eddie Brock is no Joker to Peter Parker's Bruce Wayne. You can blame Raimi, but in the context, he's just not that interesting.

That said, "3" did all it needed to do - great fight scenes, decent acting and a decent script. Convoluted - yes. A bit more unorganized - Yes. But "X3" this is not. Raimi still kept the feeling of the first two and didn't turn into nothing but a masturbatory work like Ratner with "X3" or kind-of by-the-numbers like "Superman Returns."

I agree with Roeper (even though he gave the film a thumbs down) on one thing. In "Batman Begins" the director was able to delve in a deep dark part of the hero's life. Raimi should've done that with Parker in "3." If there's one big failure in the movie, it's that.

Otherwise, it's a good bookend to the trilogy. Great - not really. But good enough. B