In the grand scheme of things SPIDER-MAN 3 is not a great movie but it's not a bad one either. The visual effects are impressive (they've improved over the first two films). The Goblin sub-plot gets wrapped up (thank goodness). Sandman is pretty cool (his first transformation is quite beautiful). We also see the further progression in Peter Parker's character. The movie throws a lot at us and considering the running time (2 hours, 20 minutes) it moves along at a relatively good clip. Yes it is weepy. There is a lot of crying. There are too many "asides" which take us away from the story (Kirsten Dunst performing on stage, Tobey Maguire doing his Bob Fosse imitation, etc.) and Topher Grace looks ridiculous as he morphs in and out of his Venom look but let's try to look at this movie in a larger context for a minute.
Sam Raimi quite possibly hit his creative peak (career-wise) with SPIDER-MAN 2 back in '04. If you followed his career then you know that his early films were fantastically fun (THE EVIL DEAD and EVIL DEAD 2) but also very raw. They were low budget ventures and almost felt like student films. In the years that followed, Raimi struggled at times to create balanced, entertaining big budget films.
SPIDER-MAN and SPIDER-MAN 2 both had the creative dynamism present in his early films (lots of sweeping camera moves and actor physicality) but both films also had strong thematic components woven into their major plot-lines and sub-plots. The films were polished and both (especially SPIDER-MAN 2) succeeded on many levels (casting, performance, visual effects, music, editing, even writing). SPIDER-MAN 2 was an incredibly well thought out movie in particular.
In some of Raimi's other studio films (I'm thinking DARKMAN) the style was so overwrought and the characters so over the top that one really was hard pressed to go along for the ride. Raimi has also been a producer on a lot of cheesy t.v. series (Hercules,Young Hercules, Xena, M.A.N.T.I.S.) as well as a bunch of fair to crappy movies (such as BOOGEYMAN and BOOGEYMAN 2). He's had a few successes as a producer (THE GRUDGE) but my point here is that we are not talking about a prolifically brilliant filmmaker, at least not based on what we have seen so far. As a director he struggles to balance polish / professionalism against the raw, instinctive impulses he displayed as a kid.
So I say, let's be grateful for the terrific job that he has done overall with the Spider-Man franchise. He has stuck to his assignment and with loving care has created an energetically realized, believable, emotional franchise. He stuck to his guns when everyone and their sister were criticizing him for casting Tobey Maguire (he was right and the world was wrong). He was able to pull it off while working on a large scale canvass. The pressure must have been considerable. The studios always want you to compromise. Raimi deserves a lot of credit for doing the job he has done when he could have easily screwed it up.
Finally, let's remember that Spider-Man is actually about something. It is not just here to entertain but to inform and Raimi knows that. He stuck to that throughout all three films. I long for the day when bloggers do not default to cynicism in order to prove how smart they are. Cynicism and intelligence are not the same thing. (I need to remember this too at times.) Nothing can touch us from behind our internet shield. We are so very smart.
Our anonymity doesn't free us from the responsibility of being fair. Let's remember the movie's message as well as the package it came in. With great power comes great responsibility. The platform of the internet is similar to the freedom we enjoy as Americans. It means nothing unless we are fair when we use it.