Columbia Pictures | Release Date: May 4, 2007
6.5
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 2191 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,219
Mixed:
538
Negative:
434
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
ShaunL.May 9, 2007
The writing was so horrible it made me want to cry.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
StanleyF.May 9, 2007
While this is a moderately enjoyable movie, and we get to see the character grow and learn, it suffers from the beginnings of "sequel rot". Once again the writers seem to have decided more is better and included three villains. Sandman, at While this is a moderately enjoyable movie, and we get to see the character grow and learn, it suffers from the beginnings of "sequel rot". Once again the writers seem to have decided more is better and included three villains. Sandman, at least, should have been saved for his own movie, not wasted as a secondary. And the character development sequences also seemed to drag - maybe shortening the movie would have made it better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ClaudineD.Jun 10, 2007
I have never understood the appeal that the spiderman movies have with critics. Although the action is flashy and true to the comic book genre, I have always maintained the Tobey MacGuire and Kirsten Dunst are grossly miscast in both roles I have never understood the appeal that the spiderman movies have with critics. Although the action is flashy and true to the comic book genre, I have always maintained the Tobey MacGuire and Kirsten Dunst are grossly miscast in both roles and offer little depth to their characters. It is really the villains and side characters that make this film watchable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KrisS.Jun 7, 2007
Good special effects is the highlight of the movie. Peter Parker's venom stage was utterly idiotic and ruined the movie for me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SophieJul 31, 2007
I loved the first two movies. Spider-Man could get a 9/10 out of 10 easily, and I'm willing to give Spider-Man 2 a 10. This movie was decent enough for one viewing.. but very very disappointing. It is on par with Fantastic Four 2, and I loved the first two movies. Spider-Man could get a 9/10 out of 10 easily, and I'm willing to give Spider-Man 2 a 10. This movie was decent enough for one viewing.. but very very disappointing. It is on par with Fantastic Four 2, and Spider-Man movies are normally so much more than that. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SteveOMay 7, 2008
Spider-Man was a classic and even Spider-Man 2 was good enough to keep me entertained... Spider-Man 3, however, is a bunch of BS. Everything seemed to collapse. What happened to the story and acting? This is a bunch of nonsense! Unreal and stupid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KeithJNov 30, 2007
Loaded with illogical and unlikely events, it feels like an excuse for special effects and to tie loose ends. That said, the special effects are good. So if you want to partly disengage your brain, this movie is satisfactory.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MikeW.May 12, 2007
Special effects were fine, as expected. But that no longer is a big deal in action cinema as all big budget pictures are expected to look spectacular. So we must judge the film on more traditional grounds, such as acting, screenplay, etc., Special effects were fine, as expected. But that no longer is a big deal in action cinema as all big budget pictures are expected to look spectacular. So we must judge the film on more traditional grounds, such as acting, screenplay, etc., and on these fronts, the film is very uneven. I'm not kidding when I say that the screenplay seems to have been written by Oprah, given the lengthy and numerous outpourings of emotions by the characters, usually done spontaneously and melodramatically such that none of it is really believable. Indeed, at many points I cringed at the sob-fests, and even laughed out loud at others. Really, it's that bad. I don't even want to see Toby Maguire try to "cry" again. Wait for the "bridge scene"; it's camp at its finest. So the acting is out the window. Same can be said for much of the writing, which is undeveloped, used chiefly to keep the plot moving forward, and reveals litle about the deeper thoughts of the characters. This is all quite surprising given the amount of time that the characters actually spend talking. At times they just wouldn't seem to shut up, just babbling on mawkishly about their guilt or fears or the depths of their love, none of which seems seems to much matter to the audience. We hear their pain, but we don't care. We simply don't know the characters well enough. There are too many bad guys, the comedic moments are awkwardly drawn out, Mary-Jane is a self-absorbed whiner who becomes more shrill will every seen, pushing us from feeling indifference to her character to active contempt. The only truly enjoyable performance was by Topher Grace, who genuinely seemed to enjoy his character, and brought great zeal to the role. I look forward to seeing him in future films. As for the rest of the Spider-Man crew, well, I won't be going out of my way to pay them any serious attention. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DiegoV.May 16, 2007
Yuck! This one sucks. I really hate it, its the wrost of the series so far. I love the first 2 but this one is as bas as it takes. So much boring moments and bad writing that I gave up. I really hate almost everything did in this pile of Yuck! This one sucks. I really hate it, its the wrost of the series so far. I love the first 2 but this one is as bas as it takes. So much boring moments and bad writing that I gave up. I really hate almost everything did in this pile of crap. Spider Man Emo sucks bad! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KenG.May 17, 2007
This seemed like filmmakers were going down a "to do" check-list, rather than engaging in coherent story-telling. Plus, I've never liked Maguire in the role.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DesireeC.May 22, 2007
The second spiderman movie was the best out of the three. There was too many characters that were introduced and not enough time, The effects were outstanding the acting however was not.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BenjaminR.May 4, 2007
I am very disappointed with this movie; I sincerely believe that Spiderman 3 can be considered among the worst comic adaptations made in the recent years, alongside Batman 4 and X-Men 3. I have to admit that the FX were great, but I really I am very disappointed with this movie; I sincerely believe that Spiderman 3 can be considered among the worst comic adaptations made in the recent years, alongside Batman 4 and X-Men 3. I have to admit that the FX were great, but I really wanted to see more of Venom and more of the things that the black suit just can do. And what can I say of the end? It was one of the worst I haveever saw in my entire life! When I was thinking that Batman 4, X-Men 3, Catwoman and Supergirl were the worst, Sam Raimy just give me another one! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
[Anonymous]May 4, 2007
Too many wasted villains, too many subplots. And please, someone should illegalize the "John Travolta" act of Tobey Maguire. But overally, if you can look past the uselessly complicated subplots, there are some good action scenes, especially Too many wasted villains, too many subplots. And please, someone should illegalize the "John Travolta" act of Tobey Maguire. But overally, if you can look past the uselessly complicated subplots, there are some good action scenes, especially the ones with the Goblin. But I still think Venom and Sandman got wasted. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
GregD.May 4, 2007
A huge disappointment. Some parts were extremely corny, at that is extremely disheartenly as the first two were wonderful films.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JamesR.May 4, 2007
Who the HELL cast TOBEY MCGUIRE AS VENOM?! O and the movie was definetely inferior to the first 2 films... The dancing cafe scene felt like spiderman turned into the mask... he was one step away from saying that "SMOKIN!" line...
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PaulT.May 4, 2007
A bit too long and I would of prefered a more good vs evil movie, with at least one bad guy from start to finish. But still nice to look at and a laugh at times.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KenC.May 4, 2007
Playstation 2 is to Playstation 3 as Spider-Man 2 is to Spider-Man 3: highly anticipated, completely overdone, and definitely disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ShabbirK.May 4, 2007
As a Spiderman fan and a look at trailers coming out of Sony, my expectations were crushed. The movie should have been called "Spidy, Goblin and MJ love story". A truly disapointing experince, the worst was the audience broke in to As a Spiderman fan and a look at trailers coming out of Sony, my expectations were crushed. The movie should have been called "Spidy, Goblin and MJ love story". A truly disapointing experince, the worst was the audience broke in to conversation often during the film, that show film failing to involve them. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JmonMay 4, 2007
Cheesy and riddled with plot holes, but not as bad as the "red" reviews make it out to be. Granted I'm not a devoted spiderman fan (this applies to the comics as well as the first two movies), and expected at best a corny but Cheesy and riddled with plot holes, but not as bad as the "red" reviews make it out to be. Granted I'm not a devoted spiderman fan (this applies to the comics as well as the first two movies), and expected at best a corny but diversionary Hollywood CGI fest. There are a number of genuinely funny scenes (the parade and Venom Toby come to mind) and the plot moves fast enough that it is difficult to become too bored or to dwell on the illogical plot and overrall triteness. This quick pace is also the movie's main failing, as, has been stated, there is simply too much crammed into the film, making it kindof a grabbag of two dimensional sublots- sandman, for instance, was unneeded and detracted from the more interestin venom and harry plots. however, the film (credit toby and kirsten in particular) maintains the overrall charm and breeziness of the first two installments and, despite its cliche moralizing, avoids the insensitivies and meanspiritedness of most movies of its ilk. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SatyamC.May 5, 2007
The movie is decent but as a huge spider man fan, it just doesnt cut it. Great action but the director ruined the movie by making Parker seem like a fool. Also poor acting by Parker as he can't cry and takes away the seriousness from The movie is decent but as a huge spider man fan, it just doesnt cut it. Great action but the director ruined the movie by making Parker seem like a fool. Also poor acting by Parker as he can't cry and takes away the seriousness from the movie. At key moments we as audience tend to laugh instead of actually feel bad. Also to easy to predict. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KenR.May 6, 2007
Too Many repeat elements from the previous films, too many cookie cutter villians, no development where it was needed and overdevelopment in the emotional side of characters which we already know very well, a lot of repeat themes from the Too Many repeat elements from the previous films, too many cookie cutter villians, no development where it was needed and overdevelopment in the emotional side of characters which we already know very well, a lot of repeat themes from the previous films too, how many times will spidey doubt his abilities?, how many times will mary jane be a flake in her personal life? and the most interesting villian is apparently destroyed in the end, it simply wasnt what it could have been. Sometimes 2 is good enough. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
WolfiefishMay 6, 2007
A chore and a bore. And I'm a Spidey fan. Read the onion review I totally agree. It was OTT. yes I know it's a superhero film. When Parker "became bad", why did he adopt a Hitler hairstyle? He also looked like the lead singer of A chore and a bore. And I'm a Spidey fan. Read the onion review I totally agree. It was OTT. yes I know it's a superhero film. When Parker "became bad", why did he adopt a Hitler hairstyle? He also looked like the lead singer of Placebo. Whats going on? Bruce Campbell stole the film. Campbell for Inspector Clouseau. (If thats how you spell his name) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KirkD.May 6, 2007
What hurts the most about this movie is the failure to meet expectations. Don
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RayM.May 7, 2007
None of the heart of the previous 2 movies. Felt sterile and pieced together. Very disappointing, especially coming off of the greatest comic book movie ever made (Spiderman 2).
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AaronN.May 7, 2007
There were a few decent action scenes or this movie would have earned a 2. God awful acting almost all around (Topher and Bruce being notable exceptions). some truly cringe inducing scenes w/ Toby strutting down the streets of NYC. theyThere were a few decent action scenes or this movie would have earned a 2. God awful acting almost all around (Topher and Bruce being notable exceptions). some truly cringe inducing scenes w/ Toby strutting down the streets of NYC. they spent a quarter of a billion dollars on a movie but didn't bother buying a decent script.. too many villians each poorly developed. * the editting was horrendous, the movie felt an hour too long. See it at the cheap theater :( Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AlLMay 8, 2007
My first reaction was 'not as good as the first or second spidey movies'. Then I watched them again and realised that they were never that good to begin with, and this one is no better. Everything that was cheesy, annoying or My first reaction was 'not as good as the first or second spidey movies'. Then I watched them again and realised that they were never that good to begin with, and this one is no better. Everything that was cheesy, annoying or nonsensical about the previous outings were repeated AND enhanced in this one- here's a few of my favourites: 1- Aunt May will always tell a long, meandering and wholly pointless anecdote about the past before making an utterly redundant point. 2- People who become warped super-villains will always blame Spiderman for everything, instead of realising that their predicament is their own stupid fault. 3. Peter Parker is a supremely confident super-athlete ONLY with his spider-suit on. While in street-clothes, and without a full-face mask to obscure his vision, he will become a totally hapless prat-falling doe-eyed goofball. 4- Mary-Jane handles disappointments, minor setbacks and commitment issues like a four-year old. 5- Harry Osborne is a brainless weepy idiot, who wouldn't know genuine affection if he was xxxxxxx xxx from behind. 6- Despite the fact that Peter Parker's secret identity is his most precious asset, he'll pull his mask off before, during or after a fight in front of others at least twice in each movie. 7. New York Police Officers and Firemen are happy to stand idly spectating while a vigilante makes them look stupid. 8- None of the award-winning journalists who work with Peter Parker are smart enough to even wonder how he gets aerial panoramic shots of Spiderman spot-fighting crime at least seven times a week. 9- Mary-Jane will still scream wide-eyed at the ground for minutes at a time despite being hung from something steel a mile up about 6 times now, but boy can she catch herself in a fall, and 10- Bruce Campbell is the most criminally overlooked actor of all time. Further, it also seems that the Osborne's butler is so senile that he doesn't notice the friction between Harry and his best friend until they have a fight which destroys an entire wing of the Osborne mansion, we as an audience are so utterly cow-eyed stupid we need TWO (badly-acted) news anchors spouting purile exposition to tell us that the hero is in trouble while he's being pounded by a 12-story sand golem, action sequences that are so kinetic you can't tell what's going on are now compulsory by law, and most incredible of all, Alien symbiotes have a unique property that causes the most stultifyingly unlikely coincidences to occur in their immediate vicinity ALL THE TIME. 3 of these 4 stars are for the scene where the sandman is reborn. Genuinely touching stuff. The rest- meh. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AlanJ.May 9, 2007
Great special effects. Interesting characters and storyline, but characters and story lines were fully developed. Overall, the movie was a bit on the long side.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PhilO.Jun 8, 2007
Spidey 3 provides mesmerizing special effects; however, that is its only saving grace. Audiences will be inundated with an esoteric and complicated storyline, partly because of the addition of three new villains, which are not sufficiently Spidey 3 provides mesmerizing special effects; however, that is its only saving grace. Audiences will be inundated with an esoteric and complicated storyline, partly because of the addition of three new villains, which are not sufficiently delved into and which thereby dilutes their dangerous dispositions. This strategy employed by the writers and producers makes Spidey 3 eerily similar to the disastrous Batman movies that had two or three major villains vying for the hero's demise. In the midst of its overlong plot and storyline, S3 is nonetheless basic, rough and unprocessed. Unfortunately, S3 gets tangled up in its own web. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JasonE.Aug 13, 2007
I yearn for the day that sequels prefer scaling back in lieu of the Overstuff. Villain on top of villain - tone change outside of tone change - poor Mary Jane is regarded with the same nonchalance...bouncing to and from the same 2 men. Raimi I yearn for the day that sequels prefer scaling back in lieu of the Overstuff. Villain on top of villain - tone change outside of tone change - poor Mary Jane is regarded with the same nonchalance...bouncing to and from the same 2 men. Raimi invests 15 minutes into the Sandman's backstory then drops him as a character til Venom requires a tag partner. One moment Tobey's got roid rage, the next he's strutting like Tony Manero from Flatbush. Poor flick requires a valium. Thankfully, admist all the schizo ambitions, there are pleasures. The menace of the 'venom' is both well-realized as a possessory and malicious source. Tobey glides through the material with his usual effusive ease. Villainy is far more suited to Topher's lizard eyes...and the special effects, especially the disintegrating grains of the Sandman. If only there was some tonal coherence and a singular commitment. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
scottwhettonAug 19, 2007
Good story and good action but all to crammed in to a mess. All that could of been fixed, if they just took the time in the story telling and made two movies out of this one. This would of aload for more action and story instead of a mess.Good story and good action but all to crammed in to a mess. All that could of been fixed, if they just took the time in the story telling and made two movies out of this one. This would of aload for more action and story instead of a mess. What was done with venom was harable! They should of had a whole movie devoted to that badie. Instead they move hime aside as fast as he comes. Its a shame they could of ended up with a clissic movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DevonCMay 29, 2008
Spider-man 3 is very disappointing. Raimi did so well with the first two. But look at this crap, it deserves no awards. It has one really good scene, which I will not identify, but every other scene was either off, cheesy, bizarre, over the Spider-man 3 is very disappointing. Raimi did so well with the first two. But look at this crap, it deserves no awards. It has one really good scene, which I will not identify, but every other scene was either off, cheesy, bizarre, over the top, weak, or just simply bad or stupid. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ljhJul 15, 2009
The action sequences in this film are pretty impressive, and the narrative works well too. But there are some moments that are just cringe-worthy. When a film actually includes the line 'he seems to have appeared from no where, just The action sequences in this film are pretty impressive, and the narrative works well too. But there are some moments that are just cringe-worthy. When a film actually includes the line 'he seems to have appeared from no where, just when all hope seemed lost', that's when it makes you want to gag. Plus watching a talented actor like Toby McGuire being wasted on trying to portray a 'badass' Spidey is just embarrassing. What makes this point worse is that when Harry (another central character) goes through his evil phase as the new Goblin, it's a lot more convincing and interesting. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I didn;t enjoy the film, it just took the whole 'cheesey' factor way too far. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PhoebeT.May 16, 2007
Spiderman 3 didn't hold a candle with the previous spiderman movies... Although it's not a really bad movie but after watching the previous two it's kinda obvious that you should be expecting something more from the third Spiderman 3 didn't hold a candle with the previous spiderman movies... Although it's not a really bad movie but after watching the previous two it's kinda obvious that you should be expecting something more from the third installment. Alas, it certainly was lacking. Some parts of the movie were certainly dragging but as usual the fighting scenes were great. But I hated it when they too fast to fully enjoy them. Maybe the wrong thing they did is putting all 3 villains in the movie. The characters of venom and sandman were cetainly lacking in the development part of the film. The writers should have done is maybe have sandman & green goblin as the villain for the movie maybe a hint of venom at the end so that they will give something for the audience to think about. Or maybe only have venom as the villain, he certainly enough for a problem for Sipderman. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AlexT.May 19, 2007
Bleh. One big sob-fest sandwiched between predictable action scenes. The worst thing is that if you've seen the cinematic trailers, you know the basic plot of the film to a T. Venom is severly underused, Sandman is severely overused, Bleh. One big sob-fest sandwiched between predictable action scenes. The worst thing is that if you've seen the cinematic trailers, you know the basic plot of the film to a T. Venom is severly underused, Sandman is severely overused, and any attempt of coherence falls flat. And whoever thought it would be a good idea to set a fight scene between two of the main characters in the trilogy to an upbeat piece of jazz percussion should be fired. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DrewMay 24, 2007
I specifically went for Venom. I got it...in the last 10 minutes. What a tornado of sappiness and terrible acting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
NikMay 26, 2007
There's some top-notch action here; but the filmmakers tried a little to hard to pack a punch with the third Spider-Man film that they end up just making a huge mess out of things. They put too mucyh into it, and didn't focus There's some top-notch action here; but the filmmakers tried a little to hard to pack a punch with the third Spider-Man film that they end up just making a huge mess out of things. They put too mucyh into it, and didn't focus enough on the good parts of the plot. Not to mention a few disrespects towards the original Spider-Man comics that comic book nerds are sure not to be too happy about. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TomBMay 26, 2007
I could write a long synopsis of this movie, but I won't. When those two kids yell "awesome" and "wicked cool" when the giant Sandman goes down, it was corny, poorly acted and stupid beyond belief. Which pretty much sums up this movie. I could write a long synopsis of this movie, but I won't. When those two kids yell "awesome" and "wicked cool" when the giant Sandman goes down, it was corny, poorly acted and stupid beyond belief. Which pretty much sums up this movie. Sam Raimi should be blackballed from Hollywood. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AdamA.May 27, 2007
The movie wasn't that bad until the ending, which left an awful taste in my mouth. What is it with hollywood writers that they can make a decent movie and destroy it with a cheesy, slapshod, horribly written ending?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JacobMay 9, 2014
Spider-Man 3 is a disappointment for me. With X-Men 3: The Last Stand it was a different director but this is the same team. There are so many great ideas in here for a Spider-Man movie but the decision to use all of them at once rather thanSpider-Man 3 is a disappointment for me. With X-Men 3: The Last Stand it was a different director but this is the same team. There are so many great ideas in here for a Spider-Man movie but the decision to use all of them at once rather than just use one or two results in a messy movie that lacks any sort of real focus and some elements of the film are not as fleshed out as they could have been or as much as I would have liked to have been. So many great ideas were in this movie that I was excited to see through various trailers and ads such as Gwen Stacy and the Black Suit and their handling was not what I wanted at all. But even with a messy story the film still could have been decent or mediocre but the film his hurt by some bad writing. The film spends excessive time on a poorly written romance and makes Peter unlikeable resulting in some parts of this film that are painful to watch. This is hard for me because I love Spider-Man and really want to like this movie but I love Spider-Man so much that I’m willing to get upset when a film about him is done wrong. It is so disappointing especially considering how good of a job Raimi did on the first two. Its sad because you can see the sparks of brilliance yet the execution is sloppy. If you are interested in seeing this film check out as its not all bad as there are some cool action scenes and this film has a mixed reaction with everyone having their own variations of how much they like it. However, lower your expectations as this a poorly put together film from someone who is capable of making good movies. The pieces are there I just wish they were put together properly. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
cajun67Jan 23, 2021
Just finished watching it for the third time. This film has great moments, but overall just not a great script. The most confounding thing about the plot is that, despite being together for years at this point, Peter seems to have confidedJust finished watching it for the third time. This film has great moments, but overall just not a great script. The most confounding thing about the plot is that, despite being together for years at this point, Peter seems to have confided very little to her about his life as Spider-Man. Mary Jane doesn't even seem to know any details about the Green Goblin, who kidnapped her and tried to throw her off a bridge in the first film. So when Harry shows up for revenge, Peter is still not talking about what's going on, and it creates a dangerous situation for them both. Pete and MJ just don't have a very close relationship. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Jdude1006Dec 16, 2011
A good movie, not great, not brilliant, a good movie, a good Spider Man movie! The introduction to Venom, the black suited Spidey, and Sandman were all great. The actors did an "alright" job at portraying the characters, and all of that (theA good movie, not great, not brilliant, a good movie, a good Spider Man movie! The introduction to Venom, the black suited Spidey, and Sandman were all great. The actors did an "alright" job at portraying the characters, and all of that (the music, sound effects, ect.) were okay. The costumes were great and the special effects are outstanding with true Spidey battles. But like the other two movies, there isn't much screen time of Spider man as there should be, along with too many story lines (for one movie) and a failed love triangle attempt, this movie leaves me with mixed feelings. But it's still worth watching and buying the DVD when released. Go Spidey, Go... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
drlowdonApr 22, 2014
The final movie in the trilogy, while not as bad as some make out, is certainly the weakest. Much of the action and comedy is still there but by pitting Spider-Man against three enemies (rather just one as in the first two movies) the filmThe final movie in the trilogy, while not as bad as some make out, is certainly the weakest. Much of the action and comedy is still there but by pitting Spider-Man against three enemies (rather just one as in the first two movies) the film loses its focus. Each of the enemies back stories are developed in too much detail and the web-slinger comes close to being a guest in his own movie that is arguably trying to be too ambitious. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
jos95Jul 16, 2012
I loved the first two, but this was a HUGE disappointment. The action and the visual effects were the best in the series, but the acting was soooo unconvincing and many of the sub-plots in this movie were just cliched and silly. The jazz clubI loved the first two, but this was a HUGE disappointment. The action and the visual effects were the best in the series, but the acting was soooo unconvincing and many of the sub-plots in this movie were just cliched and silly. The jazz club has to be one of the stupidest scenes I've ever watched. Venom had so much possibility for Spider-Man 4 (before Sony scrapped it) they shouldn't have killed him off! I wanted Spider-Man 4 to be better, but Sony seemed to think that a reboot would be better than a sequel that made up for the atrocities of this film. PATHETIC! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
DoctorWhoDec 5, 2011
Sloppy writing, poor editing and underused characters and poor development pull this Spidey sequel into the dirt.

While it tries to do the simple, and deliver what fans have come to expect rom a Spidey movie, the film fails to deliver
Sloppy writing, poor editing and underused characters and poor development pull this Spidey sequel into the dirt.

While it tries to do the simple, and deliver what fans have come to expect rom a Spidey movie, the film fails to deliver anything truly engaging. The film makes a fuss of introducing three villains for Spider-man to defeat. However it feels like director Sam Rami had a good idea for three more Spider-man movies but was convinced to shove all of the plots into one movie. As a result the entire film suffers. The plot that suffers the most is the Venom storyline. Venom is the movie's villain and only appears fully in the final hal hour of the movie. As a result, he goes under developed and does the same evil plot every Spidey villain has done, kidnap Mary Jane and lure Spidey into a trap. It hasn't worked for the villains in the last two movies and drains the movie's final showdown of any drama. Speaking of the end, this is where all of the plots come together and are resolved, messily. In the midst of the chaos, Peter gets colosure with best pal Harry and manages to forgive baddie Flint Marko for the death of his uncle. Oh, and he manages to kill defeat Venom and sort his relationship issues with Mary Jane. This movie had real promise and falls flat down on it's face. Oh Spidey, you really tangled this one up. The Reboot can't come soon enough.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
fanguychrisJun 3, 2012
While it definitely has a lot of flaws, I don't think Spider-Man 3 is the abomination that a lot of people say it is. I'll talk about the good stuff first. Firstly the film looks amazing, the special effects are the best out of all of theWhile it definitely has a lot of flaws, I don't think Spider-Man 3 is the abomination that a lot of people say it is. I'll talk about the good stuff first. Firstly the film looks amazing, the special effects are the best out of all of the three films. The web action looks awesome, Sandman looks awesome and Venom looks brilliant! People complain that he wasn't bulky enough but I thought he was fine. The only exception to the great special effects is the scene when Harry attacks Peter near the start of the film, its quite obvious that the makers had trouble animating the web swinging action when Peter is not wearing his suit. Another good thing about this film is that in some scenes it really does nail to darker tone that the film was going for, when Peter first gets the black suit it leads to some great and intense moments...now the bad stuff. It's obvious that this film cannot decide on a tone. At some points it's going for a really dark tone but in others it seems to be trying to make you laugh, or trying to be dark but failing and making us laugh when we shouldn't be. The acting isn't too bad but there's nothing special and the writing, while still better than Spider-Man 1, it has some cheesy and cheap lines and it makes some characters react to things in unrealistic ways. There's a lot in this film, so it does feel a bit bloated from time to time, especially in the ending. The ending to me felt like they makers were just having to tie up the loose ends one by one and it didn't feel natural. I could go on but I don't think I need to. This film can be enjoyable in some parts but you just cannot ignore all of its flaws. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Chris_DKJul 9, 2012
Personally I think Spider-Man 3 wraps up everything nicely. It is a great movie to end the Raimi series of Spider-Man with New Goblin, Venom and Sandman. The script and storyline is good, though the movie is not as good as it's predecessorsPersonally I think Spider-Man 3 wraps up everything nicely. It is a great movie to end the Raimi series of Spider-Man with New Goblin, Venom and Sandman. The script and storyline is good, though the movie is not as good as it's predecessors due to the amount of villains the movie is trying to handle and the bloopers. The ending was also a misfire, I expected more from it, perhaps a speech from Peter about his life as Spider-Man. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
JairPazJul 19, 2012
This third installment of Sam Raimi, Spider-Man is a real waste of money, of course with respect to director Sam Raimi, but unlike Spider-Man 2, this does not have good story, not a good enemy, as in my opinion venom should have a very goodThis third installment of Sam Raimi, Spider-Man is a real waste of money, of course with respect to director Sam Raimi, but unlike Spider-Man 2, this does not have good story, not a good enemy, as in my opinion venom should have a very good job and not just out and about when it will end the movie, I say that if sam Raimi does not make the same mistake, what you can do is, first, not much to emocionarce special effects, since what is in each one, Spiderman 3 has very good special effects, with a budget that spent 250 million dollars, is to have well thought out story, and if not found leave behind that and find another thing, as does the genius of nolan, which in its delivery of Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, has had a very good story, apart from very good enemies.

Well in conclusion, Spider-Man 3 is a waste of money to have gone to see a film like this to the movies, and that now is not very cheap to say.
My calificasion for Spiderman 3, Sam Raimi is 4/10.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
btzneb92Aug 12, 2012
A major disappointment, mostly from the fact that it completely contradicts the first two movies. One of the biggest reasons why Spider-Man is one of the most appealing superheroes is because of his self-sacrificing nature. The shift thatA major disappointment, mostly from the fact that it completely contradicts the first two movies. One of the biggest reasons why Spider-Man is one of the most appealing superheroes is because of his self-sacrificing nature. The shift that suddenly he becomes "Mr. Big Shot" in this movie feels not only inconsistent, but it feels like we missed watching a Spider-Man movie that took place between "2" and "3". Not to mention that there's just simply too much crammed into this. Venom has no place in this movie whatsoever, and the revenge storyline between Peter and the Sandman was just so poorly handled. Boo. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
oblique15Feb 9, 2013
Weakest of the three by far! I don`t know how dancing makes Venom look bad ass. I was really disappointed in this movie when I watched it. I hate Superman movies, and this movie moved into Superman company for me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
A film you really wish possessed as good of a second half as it did a first half. Spider-Man 3 almost crashes and burns.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SuperheroMoviesAug 5, 2013
The film plummets from the success of the masterpiece its predecessor was, but Spider-Man 3 still manages to entertain with humor and an emotional story, even if it had a bloated running time and lacked the memorability of Spider-Man 2.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
RayzorMooseNov 13, 2013
Spider-Man 3 gets exterminated.
The film begins sound until trying to do too much all at once. The first mistake is attempting to introduce two new villains along with an already iconic one, and it completely collapses when Peter Parker
Spider-Man 3 gets exterminated.
The film begins sound until trying to do too much all at once. The first mistake is attempting to introduce two new villains along with an already iconic one, and it completely collapses when Peter Parker nearly becomes a villain himself. The movie gets lost and doesn't find its way back home.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AGarcia732May 1, 2014
I will always love Spider-Man, he was the first childhood superhero that I loved and grew up with. When I watched Spider-Man 3 the first time on DVD, I thought it was a great movie and the best of the trilogy. I even thought it was the bestI will always love Spider-Man, he was the first childhood superhero that I loved and grew up with. When I watched Spider-Man 3 the first time on DVD, I thought it was a great movie and the best of the trilogy. I even thought it was the best movie ever. (Keep in mind I was a kid, like 8 or 9 years old.) Then later on when I heard that people said that it had too many villains and too many subplots, I thought they were crazy. Then, I re-watched it a year or two later and saw it as a well-experienced movie viewer.

The reason why Spider-Man 3 wasn't the best it could have been was because, in my opinion, it didn't take itself seriously and felt a bit silly. (Emo-Peter Parker and him dancing all over NY with his stupid hair style? The effects of the black symbiote made him a "finger-snapping hipster" at worst, nothing else. Oh my god, those scenes for me ruined the movie more than the villains. Everytime I rewatch the movie, I skip those scenes. Really, what were they thinking?) The movie didn't feel too overwhelming or overstuffed to me...or maybe it was. I think most of the characters could've been expanded upon and developed better and fleshed out more (Venom/Eddie Brock, The New Green Goblin/Harry, Peter Parker, Mary Jane, Aunt May, etc).
The visual effects, in some scenes, withstood the test of time better than the previous films. In other scenes though, the CGI felt a bit sloppy and crude (Venom and the symbiote and Harry and his glider). The music and soundtrack feel dramatic and iconic, throughout the whole movie it just adds to the experience. "The Birth of Sandman" scene was one of my favorite scenes from the film. It also combines the best of the film's music and CGI. Venom, the most complained about villain, wasn't too bad but his character development was rushed. Venom, with his rich story/background and the loads of good source material, should have been better. Topher Grace didn't look as muscular or evil or charismatic (depending on which iteration/version) as he should've been. Harry and Sandman were both fine though. Sandman was really great.

Spider-Man 3 was too rushed. Sam Raimi didn't want to include Venom and Gwen Stacy, that was the idea of Avi Arad and the executives at Sony/Columbia. The production, the crew, and the director were rushed and that affected the overall product. Spider-Man 3 could've been the best Spider-Man movie of the Sam Raimi trilogy, maybe the best of both trilogies, but it just messed up. I wonder what would've happened if Sam Raimi didn't listen to everyone suggesting ideas; maybe things would've turned out better. What would've happened if we had a Spider-Man 4? 5? 6?

Many people compare The Amazing Spider-Man 2 to Spider-Man 3, but the only similarity is that they each have three villains. Spider-Man 3 had Eddie Brock, who became villain at the last part of the film, and Harry Osborn, who became a hero at the last part of the film. And Sandman just leaves, and tells Spider-Man he's sorry. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has Rhino, who only a villain for 10-15 minutes. It also has Harry Osborn (again?) and Electro. Both of the latter are added in nicely and not squeezed in.

Spider-Man 3 is OK. The conclusion of the trilogy should have been better, but I'm satisfied enough with what we got.

If you want to read more of my in-depth reviews about movies and TV shows, please click on my name or on "All this user's reviews". Please read them and like them, I'd appreciate it. I put real effort into these reviews. I've also reviewed the other films in the original Sam Raimi trilogy, and the two films in the new reboot.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
diogomendesDec 31, 2014
Despite its overstretched plot, "Spider-Man 3" is not as bad as the audience make it out to be, for the movie still dazzles when it comes to action and CGI.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
BronsonApr 28, 2014
The highly anticipated follow up in Sam Raimi's masterful series ups the ante with 3 villains and the introduction of the black suit. The villains showcased in this movie are Sandman played by Thomas Hayden Church, New Green Goblin potrayedThe highly anticipated follow up in Sam Raimi's masterful series ups the ante with 3 villains and the introduction of the black suit. The villains showcased in this movie are Sandman played by Thomas Hayden Church, New Green Goblin potrayed by James Franco and finally Venom played by Topher Grace. On paper this sounds amazing but in reality.... it wasn't. Too many plot points plague this movie and it turns into a mess story wise. Luckily the action makes up for it to not make it a total disaster but by far the weakest movie of Raimi's trilogy and probably the weakest Spidey film to date. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SpiderPlayerMay 17, 2015
The film is good, but not to compare with the last two, the film has plenty of action, but has some script failures, and the relationship between Mary Jane and Peter Parker was not so good, the film has some villains and none of them was veryThe film is good, but not to compare with the last two, the film has plenty of action, but has some script failures, and the relationship between Mary Jane and Peter Parker was not so good, the film has some villains and none of them was very interesting. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JohnMasterLAug 7, 2015
Spider-Man 3 es decepcionante. El final de la trilogía de Sam Raimi parece una novela cursi y mediocre. La historia es confusa, demasiadas historias, demasiados villanos, demasiados personajes, hacen que esta tercera parte sea incomprensible.Spider-Man 3 es decepcionante. El final de la trilogía de Sam Raimi parece una novela cursi y mediocre. La historia es confusa, demasiadas historias, demasiados villanos, demasiados personajes, hacen que esta tercera parte sea incomprensible. Sin mencionar que Spider-Man 3 cuenta con varios momentos cursis y ridículos, la transformación de "Peter bueno a un Peter malo" deja mucho que desear, el resultado final es un Peter emo que sabe bailar y tocar el piano. Ridícula, Cursi y decepcionante. Imaginemos que esta tercera parte no existe, quedémonos solo con Spider-Man y Spider-Man 2. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
BernolsvenJan 26, 2015
[Portuguese] O jeito do Homem-Aranha agir ao entrar em contato com a simbiose foi no mínimo estranho e constrangedor até pra quem ta vendo. A Gwen Stacy totalmente modificada e o Venom magrelo misturado com mais dois vilões (não precisava de[Portuguese] O jeito do Homem-Aranha agir ao entrar em contato com a simbiose foi no mínimo estranho e constrangedor até pra quem ta vendo. A Gwen Stacy totalmente modificada e o Venom magrelo misturado com mais dois vilões (não precisava de tudo isso mas ok) tornaram esse filme somente legal, e já estava na hora de acabar as sequências deste Homem-Aranha. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MrMovieBuffMay 18, 2017
While I don't necessarily hate 'Spider-Man 3' like everybody else, it is a movie that can be summed up in a few simple words; Overcrowded, dark, exciting, messy and just overall big. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is still living happilyWhile I don't necessarily hate 'Spider-Man 3' like everybody else, it is a movie that can be summed up in a few simple words; Overcrowded, dark, exciting, messy and just overall big. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is still living happily between being the hero that is Spider-Man, while enjoying his relationship with Mary-Jane (Kirsten Dunst), now that she knows he's Spider-Man. However, his best friend, Harry (James Franco) is unhappy discovering his secret since he thinks it was Peter that deliberately killed his father. We meet a convict named Flint (Thomas Haden Church) who has recently escaped and tries his best to make his sick daughter feel better by trying to get some money any way he can. He later becomes "The Sandman" through some very strange origin. Of course, the third enemy of Peter just so happens to be Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) who also takes pictures of Spider-Man for the Daily Bugle. They become competitive in regards to who gets the staff job. Peter later becomes exposed to some strange black symbiote substance that gives him more power, but affects his personality and how he feels to his loved ones. His relationship with Mary-Jane starts fading as she accuses him of being an inattentive boyfriend, and always putting his Spider-Man duties first. Things go down quickly as well when Peter finds out that it was Flint who really killed his Uncle Ben, and that Peter becomes angry knowing that he may have killed the wrong guy before. The movie still does an impressive job with the action and the story is as tight as ever, but what makes it fall short of the first two would be the overabundance of characters and sub-plots, which does make the movie lose focus from time to time. 'Spider-Man 2' (2004) clearly set the bar so high for the franchise, that director Sam Raimi found himself becoming overworked. It is hard to make a better sequel to a great predecessor, but all in all, 'Spider-Man 3' is not a bad movie, just a rather miscalculated one. A movie that should have only at least had two villains maximum, the Venom character was shoehorned at the last minute, but the action scenes are still as spectacular as they can be. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MovieManiac83Apr 22, 2015
The Spider-Man series, which debuted in 2002 and continued in 2004 and 2007, represents the first superhero cycle to complete a trilogy with the same primary cast and production team it had at the beginning. If nothing else, that assuresThe Spider-Man series, which debuted in 2002 and continued in 2004 and 2007, represents the first superhero cycle to complete a trilogy with the same primary cast and production team it had at the beginning. If nothing else, that assures viewers of a certain degree of continuity. However, while it could be argued that Spider-Man 2 had too little plot for its substantial running length, the opposite could be said of Spider-Man 3. It's really two movies crammed into one, the first of which is a lot better than the second. Spider-Man 3 starts out strong but before it finishes, many viewers will desperately wish it had called it quits an hour earlier.

One has to consider that the film's problems - and they are numerous - may be the product of the franchise's runaway popularity. In each of the first two films, director Sam Raimi was careful to limit the villain count to one (unless one counts Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson, brilliantly played by J.K. Simmons). Here, it triples, and the focus on the bad guys limits the amount of time we have for the soap opera that is Peter Parker's life. Expectations for this movie were sky-high and one wonders whether the pressure to fulfill them caused the director to overreach his grasp and miss the point that bigger and louder do not always equate to better.

The film's setup is effective and feels like a continuation of the previous Spider-Man stories. The most kinetic action scene is the first one, as Harry and Peter tussle through the streets of New York. Although Sandman's introduction is lame, Thomas Haden Church plays the character so movingly that might have been possible to ignore this plot device if it was the only weak one in the movie (which it isn't). The most glaring stumbling block is Venom. He's one bad guy too many. Not only is the creature poorly realized but its introduction into the story causes everything to be crowded, rushed, and overlong. Spider-Man 3 feels like it should end around the 1:40 mark, but like the Energizer Bunny on a rampage, it keeps going.

The climactic battle is a disaster. It's not exciting and it requires two contrivances too excruciating to ignore (one involves a butler that would make Alfred look dumb; the other involves Sandman's eventual fate). It's unforgivable that the film's last action scene should be so vastly inferior to the first one. The special effects aren't even all that impressive. There are several instances in which it's all-too-obvious that Spider-Man and his nemeses are computer generated. This is sloppier than anything in either Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2.

There are also unnecessary characters. I guess Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) has been added as a nod to comic book fans, but she serves no purpose other than to make us wonder whether Mary Jane is still an interesting character. Her father (James Cromwell) is equally underused. Bruce Campbell gets a nice extended cameo, but why do his scenes seem like Monty Python outtakes? And, as I have already mentioned, everything about Venom is a mistake. At the very least this villain deserved its own movie rather than being awkwardly shoehorned into a film that starts out being about Peter, Harry, and Sandman.

Audience reaction to the film at the midnight opening screening was negative, bordering on hostile, meaning that the core group of fans did not like what they were seeing. It's easy to understand their displeasure. Compared to the other two movies in the series, this one is a misfire. It's for completists only, and even they are likely to feel let down. Spider-Man and the first sequel were breezy adventures - easy and fun to sit through. Spider-Man 3 is a chore. The effective moments require a lot patience to uncover and some of what has to be shifted to get to them is not worth the effort. People love trilogies because it's said that good things come in threes, but this series would have looked better and felt more satisfying had the filmmakers stopped at two.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
UrbanlistenerApr 17, 2016
Oh what a shame to waste such a great opportunity, such a stellar cast and such potential on an incredibly underwhelming film like this. This movie had so much going for it, the first two installments were home runs, amazing films, they hadOh what a shame to waste such a great opportunity, such a stellar cast and such potential on an incredibly underwhelming film like this. This movie had so much going for it, the first two installments were home runs, amazing films, they had everything to make a great ending to Raimi's trilogy. But Sony has a tendency to rush things with their movies and also rush directors in the wrong ways because the want more and more money. They were so concerned with making more money that they pushed the director to shovel in unnecessary sub-plots and villains that no one asked for and just discombobulated everything and ruined the movie. There is still some good about it, Tobey Maguire still nails it as Spiderman, except the dancing scene, so does the cast from the previous ones, there is great action scenes, the black Spiderman aspect is interesting but not developed enough and the sandman is a pretty good villain with a decent character development. But the Harry becoming the new goblin, the Gwen Stacy love triangle and Venom being shoehorned in with an awful casting choice for him aspects were so incredibly bad and unnecessary, they confused everything and made this potentially great film a complete mess. I give it a passing grade despite all these negative points, simply because of spiderman, the cast from the previous ones, the great action scenes it had and most of all the potential it had, the little sparkles of greatness that showed up once in a while. All of these positives made this mess worthwhile, just to see Tobey Maguire as Spiderman one last time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TheDude-Jul 21, 2015
Spiderman 3 may have great action and special effects but the film is just so flawed the amount of plot holes, unlikable characters, multitude of plot points creating an incoherent story, illogical character action and motivation, rushedSpiderman 3 may have great action and special effects but the film is just so flawed the amount of plot holes, unlikable characters, multitude of plot points creating an incoherent story, illogical character action and motivation, rushed villain origins, to many characters and villains, miscast, character arcs ruined from the second film,emo Peter and just a complete lack of any logic.
5/10
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
CineAutoctonoJul 21, 2015
The movie was good but a scene left me a bit bitter about how little modal and ridiculous action Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker with many egos as always but you spend too TCO than other films and could not face two enemies at once which is theThe movie was good but a scene left me a bit bitter about how little modal and ridiculous action Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker with many egos as always but you spend too TCO than other films and could not face two enemies at once which is the least important. But the good deed will always remain. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
kyle20ellisMar 17, 2022
By all means, Spider-Man 3 is not a bad movie, but the many flaws with the film make it the weakest of the series. But it is still enjoyable, however I did think the first two were better in terms of plot, characterisation and pacing. Well,By all means, Spider-Man 3 is not a bad movie, but the many flaws with the film make it the weakest of the series. But it is still enjoyable, however I did think the first two were better in terms of plot, characterisation and pacing. Well, there are a lot of good things. Out of the three films, this one is the best visually. The look of the whole film is mind blowing, with splendid special effects, brilliantly choreographed fight sequences and spectacular set pieces. The music is excellent, and the direction was efficient enough.

And the acting is very good, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are appealing as Peter and Mary-Jane and Rosemary Harris sparkles as Auntie May. Topher Grace is great as Brock but underused as Venom, but as Sandman Thomas Haden Church was note perfect and the best developed of the villains. James Franco is an improvement as Harry, and Bryce Dallas Howard is delightfully photogenic as Gwen Stacey. I loved JK Simmons as Jameson, in all three Spider-Man movies he stole every scene he appeared in.

However, there are a number of things that made it inferior to the first two. Basically and most importantly, and this was a similar problem I had with Pirates of the Caribbean:At World's End, it all felt a bit bloated. Two reasons made it so. One was too many characters. Primarily the villains, here, we get not one but three villains. While they were well performed, the character development of the villains felt rushed. Venom especially had way too little screen time as a result, and the final showdown between them felt a tad on the contrived side. Whereas you felt the menace of the Green Goblin and the tragedy of Dr Octopuss you are not always sure what to think here. Second, the plot as result to cramming too much in particularly with the idea of Spider-Man turning bad was rather convoluted, and was further disadvantaged by some surprisingly stodgy pacing. Other flaws were that the scripting lacked freshness and authenticity and the film was a bit too long.

All in all, it certainly wasn't bad. As a matter of fact it was enjoyable. But it could've been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
EpicLadySpongeJan 22, 2016
It's not such a bad movie and in fact not the worst movie in 2007 because I already know what movie took that spot. This third installment is not as bad as you wanted it to be.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
AgentVenom117Feb 21, 2016
This is basically The Amazing Spider-Man 2 before TASM 2 it's what happens when a studio takes control away from the people making the movie and its a shame that this was the follow up to the greatest Spider-Man adaptation on film. But if youThis is basically The Amazing Spider-Man 2 before TASM 2 it's what happens when a studio takes control away from the people making the movie and its a shame that this was the follow up to the greatest Spider-Man adaptation on film. But if you want to laugh and have a good time with friends i'd say this would be a perfect film to watch in a so bad its good film party. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ReelViews94Mar 23, 2016
The three main recurring characters get stuck in a rut and the same can be said of the film itself in “Spider-Man 3.” After the significant improvement of the second installment over the first, new entry reps a roughly equivalent dip inThe three main recurring characters get stuck in a rut and the same can be said of the film itself in “Spider-Man 3.” After the significant improvement of the second installment over the first, new entry reps a roughly equivalent dip in quality and enjoyment, with Spidey now giving off the faint odor of running on fumes.

A sense of strain envelops the proceedings this time around. One can feel the effort required to suit up one more time, come up with fresh variations on a winning formula and inject urgency into a format that basically needs to be repeated and, due to audience expectations, can’t be toyed with or deepened very much.

Big problem with third Spideyis the script, the very same element that elevated the second yarn. Four years back, vet scenarist Alvin Sargent, with a story assist from Michael Chabon, enriched the premise from all angles — emotion, humor and villainy. This time, the magic has eluded Sargent and the Raimi brothers, director Sam and co-writer Ivan, the result being a story that would have provenmore satisfactory for a late ’60s cartoon-hero TV show than for a new-century blockbuster.

At the outset, everything is so hunky-dory that New York City looks like Pleasantville. Thanks to Spider-Man, crime is virtually non-existent, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) is a burgeoning musical theater star, and Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), still studying science at college, is dorkier than ever.

But evil begins to reassert itself on several fronts. As Peter and Mary Jane gaze at the stars from their spider-web hammock overlooking the city, a modest “War of the Worlds”-like meteor crashes nearby and emits a gooey black silk that slithers and slides of its own accord.

A hard-outside/soft-inside criminal (Thomas Haden Church), who turns out to have been responsible for the murder of Peter’s beloved Uncle Ben, escapes from prison and, through a process that defies comprehension but is undeniably eye-catching, turns into a shape-changer named Sandman who can blow through the caverns of Manhattan or become a giant hulk with fearsome pummeling power.

And then there is Harry Osborn (James Franco), who, still blaming Spider-Man for the death of his father, decides to emulate the great green one by engineering a new designer Goblin outfit and flying board and taking to the skies to avenge his old man.

Peter acquires yet another adversary in the person of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), an aggressive street photographer who vies with Peter to capture the revelatory shot that will reveal Spider-Man for who he really is, a coup that will land the winner a full-time job from editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) at the Daily Bugle. The rivalry turns into outright war when Eddie morphs into one more Marvel supervillain, the fanged Venom, whose skills eerily match those of Spidey.

Early going is enlivened by a couple high-wire action sequences, a Goblin attack and especially a vertigo-inducing scene in which an out-of-control construction crane demolishes part of a nearby skyscraper, sending platinum blonde Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard), a classmate of Peter’s, heading toward the pavement, only to be saved at the last second by guess who.

But the dramatic temperature is brought way down by Mary Jane, who’s become a real drag. Fired, in a poor scene, from her Broadway play, she pathetically begs for attention, becomes petulant when Spidey plants a public kiss on Gwen after saving her, then seeks solace from Harry.

In all his dealings with her, Peter still acts like the prim, naive high school kid he was when first seen in the series five years ago, as if he hadn’t learned anything through all his subsequent trials. Scripting of the many domestic scenes between Peter and women, specifically Mary Jane and Rosemary Harris’ Aunt May, is very dull and unimaginative.

Script’s one big idea is to have Peter/Spidey explore his “dark side,” a gambit of tiresome psychological value but with the obvious side benefits of temporarily suspending his goody two-shoes personality and giving him a new, black costume. All the ploy really amounts to is an interlude in which Peter struts around Gotham with a trendy new haircut ogling women and humiliating Mary Jane with some aggressive nightclub antics.

Given the setup, Spider-Man in the end has to contend with multiple villains in a gigantic action climax that, unfortunately, is too reminiscent of the first film’s Roosevelt Island episode thanks to the similar imperilment of Mary Jane. Still, Sandman is a strange and visually interesting baddie endowed by Church with a melancholy undercurrent.

Grace, who could plausibly have played Spider-Man himself, provides a spark with something extra as Spidey’s first major adversary his own age.

Technically, pic is fully on a par with the previous entries, which means the visual effects will have fans wide-eyed throughout.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
FilmClubMar 27, 2016
The three main recurring characters get stuck in a rut and the same can be said of the film itself in “Spider-Man 3.” After the significant improvement of the second installment over the first, new entry reps a roughly equivalent dip inThe three main recurring characters get stuck in a rut and the same can be said of the film itself in “Spider-Man 3.” After the significant improvement of the second installment over the first, new entry reps a roughly equivalent dip in quality and enjoyment, with Spidey now giving off the faint odor of running on fumes.

A sense of strain envelops the proceedings this time around. One can feel the effort required to suit up one more time, come up with fresh variations on a winning formula and inject urgency into a format that basically needs to be repeated and, due to audience expectations, can’t be toyed with or deepened very much.

Big problem with third Spideyis the script, the very same element that elevated the second yarn. Four years back, vet scenarist Alvin Sargent, with a story assist from Michael Chabon, enriched the premise from all angles — emotion, humor and villainy. This time, the magic has eluded Sargent and the Raimi brothers, director Sam and co-writer Ivan, the result being a story that would have provenmore satisfactory for a late ’60s cartoon-hero TV show than for a new-century blockbuster.

At the outset, everything is so hunky-dory that New York City looks like Pleasantville. Thanks to Spider-Man, crime is virtually non-existent, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) is a burgeoning musical theater star, and Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), still studying science at college, is dorkier than ever.

But evil begins to reassert itself on several fronts. As Peter and Mary Jane gaze at the stars from their spider-web hammock overlooking the city, a modest “War of the Worlds”-like meteor crashes nearby and emits a gooey black silk that slithers and slides of its own accord.

A hard-outside/soft-inside criminal (Thomas Haden Church), who turns out to have been responsible for the murder of Peter’s beloved Uncle Ben, escapes from prison and, through a process that defies comprehension but is undeniably eye-catching, turns into a shape-changer named Sandman who can blow through the caverns of Manhattan or become a giant hulk with fearsome pummeling power.

And then there is Harry Osborn (James Franco), who, still blaming Spider-Man for the death of his father, decides to emulate the great green one by engineering a new designer Goblin outfit and flying board and taking to the skies to avenge his old man.

Peter acquires yet another adversary in the person of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), an aggressive street photographer who vies with Peter to capture the revelatory shot that will reveal Spider-Man for who he really is, a coup that will land the winner a full-time job from editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) at the Daily Bugle. The rivalry turns into outright war when Eddie morphs into one more Marvel supervillain, the fanged Venom, whose skills eerily match those of Spidey.

Early going is enlivened by a couple high-wire action sequences, a Goblin attack and especially a vertigo-inducing scene in which an out-of-control construction crane demolishes part of a nearby skyscraper, sending platinum blonde Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard), a classmate of Peter’s, heading toward the pavement, only to be saved at the last second by guess who.

But the dramatic temperature is brought way down by Mary Jane, who’s become a real drag. Fired, in a poor scene, from her Broadway play, she pathetically begs for attention, becomes petulant when Spidey plants a public kiss on Gwen after saving her, then seeks solace from Harry.

In all his dealings with her, Peter still acts like the prim, naive high school kid he was when first seen in the series five years ago, as if he hadn’t learned anything through all his subsequent trials. Scripting of the many domestic scenes between Peter and women, specifically Mary Jane and Rosemary Harris’ Aunt May, is very dull and unimaginative.

Script’s one big idea is to have Peter/Spidey explore his “dark side,” a gambit of tiresome psychological value but with the obvious side benefits of temporarily suspending his goody two-shoes personality and giving him a new, black costume. All the ploy really amounts to is an interlude in which Peter struts around Gotham with a trendy new haircut ogling women and humiliating Mary Jane with some aggressive nightclub antics.

Given the setup, Spider-Man in the end has to contend with multiple villains in a gigantic action climax that, unfortunately, is too reminiscent of the first film’s Roosevelt Island episode thanks to the similar imperilment of Mary Jane. Still, Sandman is a strange and visually interesting baddie endowed by Church with a melancholy undercurrent.

Grace, who could plausibly have played Spider-Man himself, provides a spark with something extra as Spidey’s first major adversary his own age.

Technically, pic is fully on a par with the previous entries, which means the visual effects will have fans wide-eyed throughout.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Aaron_WassermanJun 1, 2016
I don't hate this movie as much as most people, but I don't like it. It is extremely crowded and ruins some of the great characters the trilogy was building up and gives them lazy drama to further the story. But when this movie shines, itI don't hate this movie as much as most people, but I don't like it. It is extremely crowded and ruins some of the great characters the trilogy was building up and gives them lazy drama to further the story. But when this movie shines, it really shines. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
CoreGamer1408Apr 18, 2023
I liked the Sandman stuff for sure, but bully Maguire so did not work. Though it did add a lot of unintentional comedy. Venom seemed to be tacked on? This movie had a lot of heart even if it was trying to juggle alot of character arcs. TheI liked the Sandman stuff for sure, but bully Maguire so did not work. Though it did add a lot of unintentional comedy. Venom seemed to be tacked on? This movie had a lot of heart even if it was trying to juggle alot of character arcs. The ending still hits me in the feels for sure. To crammed, to rushed with not enough time for all the characters to breath. This could and should of been set over two movies maybe? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
geewahJan 30, 2021
Even with a runtime of 2 1/4 hours, it still feels like they are trying to squeeze too much in. The screenplay needed to be tighter to avoid this at times unstructured, convoluted mess.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
YemkaMay 2, 2021
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Неплохой фильм но... Могли сделать больше венома и его лицо, вроде там на плакатах основной злодей это Веном но в итоге Песочный Человек. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Aboodash56Aug 12, 2021
Spider-Man 3 is without a doubt one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen. First off, I like how delves into the themes of forgiveness and revenge, as we see Peter getting swallowed by his own pride and how it leads to his descentSpider-Man 3 is without a doubt one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen. First off, I like how delves into the themes of forgiveness and revenge, as we see Peter getting swallowed by his own pride and how it leads to his descent into darkness. I also love how handled some of the character arcs in the film, especially the conflict between Peter, MJ and Harry, which was built around the the first two films. I love the performances by the cast, especially Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and Thomas Hayden Church. The special effects are well-done for the most part and the action sequences are more high-octane than ever. However, you can tell this movie is plagued with studio interference, as the movie tries to juggle different storylines and multiple villains and none of them are fleshed out properly and it ends up being messy. Topher Grace was fine as Eddie Brock, but I didn't like how they handled Venom. Peter's turn into evil is played for laughs and it's poorly done. Overall, Spider-Man 3 may not be the worst superhero ever, but it's a major disappointment that doesn't quite live up to the first two films. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
FLInfiniteJul 7, 2021
"I don't like sand. It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere."

- Anakin Skywalker
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
NickTheCritickApr 24, 2022
Life is wonderful for Peter Parker: he loves, reciprocated, Mary Jane Watson, he is idolized by the population and the press, no villain seems to resist him. Things change when a parasite emerges from a meteorite that has fallen near New YorkLife is wonderful for Peter Parker: he loves, reciprocated, Mary Jane Watson, he is idolized by the population and the press, no villain seems to resist him. Things change when a parasite emerges from a meteorite that has fallen near New York and sneaks into his costume: the unwelcome guest has the ability to delve into the soul of the hero and make him show his worst side.
A film that never blooms, the worst of the entire trilogy and one of Raimi's worst.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ChanekeCholoDec 13, 2021
The visual effects are awful in every way, I guess Sam Raimi has some great ideas to the action scenes, but he didn't find a good way to made it. The script barely shows us some great moments like the past films, but in general it's less ofThe visual effects are awful in every way, I guess Sam Raimi has some great ideas to the action scenes, but he didn't find a good way to made it. The script barely shows us some great moments like the past films, but in general it's less of heart.
About the villains, the only one who we can save is Sandman, I think he is the best of the film at first, but at the end show up something what detracts development to that character, Harry Osborn was OK and Venom totally wasted.
It adds great elements to the story like Gwen Stacy or moment like the hardest scenes between Mary Jean and Peter Parker, obviously the advices of Aunt May and that's it.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Kostas_SpirouDec 29, 2021
I enjoyed it, I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad movie, in fact I liked it for the most part, but there's a lot of wasted potential.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
jamesfhallMar 8, 2022
Spider-man 3 is a bloated, pretentious mess of a film, but it is absolutely entertaining and a good example of a guilty pleasure movie
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Rickniks38May 8, 2022
As we all know this film is the worse out of the 3 in the Raimi trilogy but it's far from being a bad movie it's just not good or great like the other films were. I wish to see the original cut of this movie before Sony began interfering andAs we all know this film is the worse out of the 3 in the Raimi trilogy but it's far from being a bad movie it's just not good or great like the other films were. I wish to see the original cut of this movie before Sony began interfering and pressing Raimi to add Venom into the movie despite him not knowing the character that well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
sanadalsalt9Feb 11, 2023
cringy but better than the previous versions of the movie.. but still less than i expected.. !!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Fixer84Mar 15, 2023
Even at that time, Sony demonstrated all its efficiency, literally going to demolish and dismantle a saga that could and still had to say a lot with choices that were nothing short of wicked and senseless impositions on the director. Raimi'sEven at that time, Sony demonstrated all its efficiency, literally going to demolish and dismantle a saga that could and still had to say a lot with choices that were nothing short of wicked and senseless impositions on the director. Raimi's direction saved the film from insufficiency but the regret remains. And a Spider-Man 4 never made. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
PasquiMay 10, 2023
I loved the first two films, but this one was almost painful to watch for many reasons, but the main one is one of the charachters: Mary Jane. She is such a bad charachter, she literally ruins the film! Apart from the lack of depth given toI loved the first two films, but this one was almost painful to watch for many reasons, but the main one is one of the charachters: Mary Jane. She is such a bad charachter, she literally ruins the film! Apart from the lack of depth given to Venom and some other issues, it was enjoyable overall. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Burmun-B2010Aug 15, 2023
The worst movie of Spiderman. I never thought that the most popular character in the world (and especially myself) would have a movie like this. However, it is never as bad as garbage like Catwoman and Steel.
But the main villain is his
The worst movie of Spiderman. I never thought that the most popular character in the world (and especially myself) would have a movie like this. However, it is never as bad as garbage like Catwoman and Steel.
But the main villain is his biggest problem. After the arrival of the symbiote and the black suit, the movie goes astray. Why? Because the script for Venom was not written! Venom was imposed on Sam Raimi.
Sandman has also tried to become a great villain, but more like Frankenstein, pity over motivation.
Peter Parker's behavior under the influence of the symbiote is disgusting. That is, they could show an aggressive Peter, but what he is delivering falls in the middle of the street!
The performance of all the actors is great (except Tofer Grace, damn it!) That is, Tobey Maguire, who is practically the star of the movie. James Franco is a head and neck higher than the previous times. And with his own death at the end of the movie, he showed a heroic sacrifice. Likewise, Kirsten Dunst, J.K. Simmons, Rosemary Harris, etc. are all excellent. But the script did not give any of them a chance.
In general, this is the most disappointing comic book movie. Because the previous two works were great and this one had the ability to become a real masterpiece. But alas...
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews