Spider-Man 3

User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1222 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. KveldaV.
    May 22, 2007
    6
    I agree with what someone of this board said... this kind of movie should be done for he broad masses or for the fan base... sadly, i feel it doesn't satisfy any of them. As a movielover, i dont need corny and cheesy dialogues, or for the fx to overlap the stoyrline, or predictable plots (i really hate that the Sandman was the "killer" of Ben), or an overthrown of supervillains oneI agree with what someone of this board said... this kind of movie should be done for he broad masses or for the fan base... sadly, i feel it doesn't satisfy any of them. As a movielover, i dont need corny and cheesy dialogues, or for the fx to overlap the stoyrline, or predictable plots (i really hate that the Sandman was the "killer" of Ben), or an overthrown of supervillains one after the another, I appreciate and I'm thankful (as a movielover) for the popcorn kind of movie -as it allows me (is it all the profits come from the tickets or also from the snacks for a movie that lasts over two hours)-, i appreciate the sometimes well executed comedy (honestly, the scene of the dancin' is, as a lack of a better word, amusing), and some action. As a fan, I hated (as much as I like Haden and Grace) the casting for the villains... why don't you make a movie about spidey and venom, the brock's approach to aunt may and the battle in the beach? Venom is really really deep and funny and cinic (please, can anyone hire Todd Mc Farlane as a writer for the next film?)why don't you make a movie about the Harry's obsesion to tell the world who's Spidey, introducing Liz, Raxton and even, Norman jr.? the hatred, the complexity... Is it me or in the movie left a piece of the alien symbiote in Connor's lab? Expand
  2. rajatshukla
    May 3, 2007
    6
    i am one of the biggest spidey fans...saw the premier show on 2 may ... but the movie was not upto my expectations... a lot of money has been spent on special effects(there r bout 7 to 8 fights as there are 3 villans) but its all hooj paoch.. story line is not as good as spidey 1 and 2... ending has been extended.. i think it could have been made much better if concentration was on onlyi am one of the biggest spidey fans...saw the premier show on 2 may ... but the movie was not upto my expectations... a lot of money has been spent on special effects(there r bout 7 to 8 fights as there are 3 villans) but its all hooj paoch.. story line is not as good as spidey 1 and 2... ending has been extended.. i think it could have been made much better if concentration was on only main characters like black spidey and sandman... toby could be seen without his spidey mask in action and hary osborn character is cool as green goblin!! Expand
  3. Jun 25, 2015
    5
    A poor portrayal of Venom, a bland Sandman, and terrible relationship problems with Peter & MJ. Spider-Man 3 is overly stuffed and has a very sloppy story, but I think it's finally growing on me. It's so bad it's good.
  4. Jan 6, 2016
    6
    WHAT I LIKED: The plot has more layers than other Spider Man films, plus it shakes some of the cheesier aspects of the previous ones. The acumilation of everything at the end is great too.
    WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: All the good work with chacters and relationships in Spider Man 2 is undone, and Peter seems to have gone back to his old self. It also felt like 2 films were going on at once for
    WHAT I LIKED: The plot has more layers than other Spider Man films, plus it shakes some of the cheesier aspects of the previous ones. The acumilation of everything at the end is great too.
    WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: All the good work with chacters and relationships in Spider Man 2 is undone, and Peter seems to have gone back to his old self. It also felt like 2 films were going on at once for the most part, and some of the elements of the plot are completely ridiculous. It's great that they explored Parker's inner demons, but the black Spider-Man thing isn't neccessary and feels comical, the damsel in distress ending seems familiar as well...
    VERDICT: The Spider Man universe is starting to feel very samey in tone. Raimi's Spider Man 3 is an okay film, and arguably not as bad as it's generally made out to be, but it is a bit of a mess until the end.
    Expand
  5. ZahidI.
    May 6, 2007
    6
    Along with the corny lines, Harry's $2 costume, the flurry [and rushing] of story lines, one thing disturbed me more than anything else: the depiction of supposedly Spiderman's most feared supervillain, VENOM. First of all, Venom lasted about 15 MIN of the entire 140 min! They don't even refer to him once as "Venom" either! He says "I" instead of "We." And according to the Along with the corny lines, Harry's $2 costume, the flurry [and rushing] of story lines, one thing disturbed me more than anything else: the depiction of supposedly Spiderman's most feared supervillain, VENOM. First of all, Venom lasted about 15 MIN of the entire 140 min! They don't even refer to him once as "Venom" either! He says "I" instead of "We." And according to the 90s cartoon he's supposed to be large, muscular, intimidating. Topher Grace played him, and I guess the directors decided to stick to the Ultimate Spiderman idea. He did a decent job playing Brock. But they should've either dedicated the entire film to one of the villains like Venom, or saved Venom for a 4th Spiderman and introduce him at the end of 3. Venom is the true anti-Spiderman. All these villains and *plotlines* has the audience not caring about the gravity of evilness the villains possess. It makes them look like a joke to viewers. CGI and nice special effects won't save a movie. Once again, Venom's in and out in 15-20. A dude who's supposed to be a big bad bastard, the scariest supervillain. Sam Raimi/Avi Arad/the other directors missed key plotpoints and overlooked a ton of things. They should've thought this one through longer, they had 3 years to do it! Reminds me of how Jay-Z disappointed w/his new album since he didn't spend much time recording/perfecting it. Expand
  6. Jan 13, 2012
    4
    Compared to the other Spider Man movies, this is bad. The history isn't nice as the first movie's and it's way less enjoyable. The enemy: Venom, is the nicest thing of the movie...probably one of the only things nice in it.
  7. YoriD
    May 8, 2007
    5
    BLAAAAAH...went in expecting less after feedback from other people that saw it and it was still worse than i thought...too long...and too long for all the wrong reasons...WTF were those saturday night fever/gi joe/dirty dancing scenes doing in this movie...there was some horrible acting as well...disappointed to say the least...are you sure it was the same director?...i would have seen itBLAAAAAH...went in expecting less after feedback from other people that saw it and it was still worse than i thought...too long...and too long for all the wrong reasons...WTF were those saturday night fever/gi joe/dirty dancing scenes doing in this movie...there was some horrible acting as well...disappointed to say the least...are you sure it was the same director?...i would have seen it no matter what as i fell in love with everything in the previous ones...whoever edited this one should be slowly devoured by venom...or just forced to watch this over and over again til their sanity caves in... :(

    ps fx and action scenes deserve some recognition..only reason i didnt give it a -5
    Expand
  8. Jul 20, 2012
    6
    What the hell was this crap? Sam Raimi, after your masterpiece superhero film, Spider-Man 2 I expected so much more from you. Sure, the movie was funny in some points but the story was downright terrible. Venom had like three minutes of screen time and the Sandman was just lame. The dialogue was cheesy and there was nothing to go on. Spider-Man 3 was one of the biggest disappointments forWhat the hell was this crap? Sam Raimi, after your masterpiece superhero film, Spider-Man 2 I expected so much more from you. Sure, the movie was funny in some points but the story was downright terrible. Venom had like three minutes of screen time and the Sandman was just lame. The dialogue was cheesy and there was nothing to go on. Spider-Man 3 was one of the biggest disappointments for movie-goers and Spidey fans, both. Expand
  9. Mar 6, 2011
    6
    This is the worst Spider-Man movie yet, the stupid story and TERRIBLE plot twist with Sandman was RETARDED!!!! and they completely shafted Venom, even though it's so flawed I still got enjoyment out of this, this will sharply divide fans.
  10. Aug 4, 2013
    6
    Seeing this for the first time in the cinema, I must admit I was impressed, but I also left the feeling with a problem that I couldn't quite put my finger on, and when I watched it again, an again, the problems threw themselves at me to the point where I felt so disappointed, I didn't hate Spider-Man 3, but after such a strong and excellent second outing for our hero, the third tried to goSeeing this for the first time in the cinema, I must admit I was impressed, but I also left the feeling with a problem that I couldn't quite put my finger on, and when I watched it again, an again, the problems threw themselves at me to the point where I felt so disappointed, I didn't hate Spider-Man 3, but after such a strong and excellent second outing for our hero, the third tried to go bigger and bigger to the point where they seemed to lose track of characters, plot lines and an overall sense of enjoyment.
    A relatively unknown and unexplained symbiote crash lands on earth, and this makes for some very interesting changes in the personality of Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), who continues to date the woman he loves, albeit with plenty of speed bumps along the way. Peter also has to deal with his estranged friend Harry, who now has a very ruthless side and his very own alter-ego, someone who causes problems for Spider-Man, but not alone. The film paves the way for not one, not two, but three villains. Just as can be imagined, it becomes messy and confusing with a bewildering and awkward love triangle, a very powerful villain who has a quick backstory and thats it, we have a villain in the form of Venom who could be touted as one of the most famous of foes, but the most underused and wrongly portrayed characters in film, rushed and overblown are a few choice words.
    Its just difficult to heighten any sense of character in these new foes, with a weak script which doesn't explore them with enough depth or gratifying belief that they could even contend with Doc Ock of the second film. They seem more like plot devices to move the story along, and Venom seemed to be used as a oh no, we forgot we had Venom shown earlier, stick him into that scene" type scenario. With this comes the vastly different main characters, who now seem like the kids they should have portrayed in the first film but are coming up late, with the lack of humour definitely apparent.
    But the action and visuals continue to come up top marks, with the birth of Sandman being a particularly impressive scene which one of the limited marvels of the film, some of the action sequences were excellent, many just seemed to help knock up the budget with no relevance at all to the story. There is certainly a different, darker and much more gritty attitude in the third and final instalment of the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire era, but it moves too fast and leaves too many characters out in the cold, adding up to a disappointing and ultimately messy affair.
    Expand
  11. Mar 14, 2013
    5
    Not bad, not good either. It has some really good scenes. It has some really bad scenes. Which genius thought it would be a great idea to cast Topher Grace as Eddie Brock? Eddie Brock/Venom is meant to be the opposite to Parker both physically and mentally. Grace does do a good job at nailing Brock/Venom's mentality but he just does not look the part. Brock/Venom was meant to be muchNot bad, not good either. It has some really good scenes. It has some really bad scenes. Which genius thought it would be a great idea to cast Topher Grace as Eddie Brock? Eddie Brock/Venom is meant to be the opposite to Parker both physically and mentally. Grace does do a good job at nailing Brock/Venom's mentality but he just does not look the part. Brock/Venom was meant to be much bigger. A body builder in comparison to Spider-Man. As to Emo-Peter I think pretty much everyone else has said what is need to be said about this. Thomas Haden Church on the other hand is perhaps the only saving grace of this movie. He was an excellent Sandman. In fact I could even go so far as to say his version is even superior to the one in the comics. Sandman was always just a side character, but Church really did give him some depth and reason. Overall: Spider-Man 3 as a whole isn't terrible but it has just got far, far too many ideas floating about that are just underdeveloped. As if Raimi was trying to please too many people at once. Expand
  12. Mar 3, 2011
    4
    When I saw the poster and trailer of this movie, I was excited to see this movie in theatres. But when I saw it, it wasn't what I expected. I think this was the goofiest Spiderman movie that I wish was fixed. My friends absolutly hated this movie and called it "The Worst Spiderman Movie EVER", it was out of control. I only met one person that actually LOVED this movie, I don't know whatWhen I saw the poster and trailer of this movie, I was excited to see this movie in theatres. But when I saw it, it wasn't what I expected. I think this was the goofiest Spiderman movie that I wish was fixed. My friends absolutly hated this movie and called it "The Worst Spiderman Movie EVER", it was out of control. I only met one person that actually LOVED this movie, I don't know what type of drugs he was taking during the movie. To me, I didn't like it either. The first problem, is that it had too many villians in 1 film (Goblin Jr., Sandman, Venom, and Dark Spiderman). Second, Venom was only on film for about 10 minutes, I have know idea how they can put my favorite villian in the last minutes of the film. Third, Emo Peter, he was just so goofy when he had that black suit, it made Spiderman look like a joke than a badass. Forth, the dance scene, this shouldn't have ever been put in a Spiderman movie at all. I think this was more of a spoof comic book movie, like "Batman and Robin". But others say, "This should not be part of the trilogy, it should't be called Spiderman 3". And suprisingly, I agree to that. If people liked this movie, thats fine. I didn't like it. Expand
  13. Oct 17, 2012
    4
    A clunky, uneven, too villain-filled, disappointing conclusion to The Spiderman Trilogy. That's a shame because the movie looked amazing from all the theatrical shorts and tv trailers. What we got was an over-the-top Tobey Magurie going all emo on us and performing a ridiculous dance scene in a bar later on in the movie. Does that sound like what you'd expect from a movie that has Venom inA clunky, uneven, too villain-filled, disappointing conclusion to The Spiderman Trilogy. That's a shame because the movie looked amazing from all the theatrical shorts and tv trailers. What we got was an over-the-top Tobey Magurie going all emo on us and performing a ridiculous dance scene in a bar later on in the movie. Does that sound like what you'd expect from a movie that has Venom in it?!?!?!

    If it wasn't for the guy who played Eddie Brock, then the film would have been okay to watch. However, the "birth of The Sandman is just an amazing scene and the only memorable part of the movie for me.
    Expand
  14. DaveM
    May 15, 2007
    5
    I'm very disappointed, but at least I know why: too many villains (1 that finally isn't, he's just misunderstood.........), too many plot lines (useless was to involve Sandman in uncle Ben's death), not enough Venom, too much attempted comedy. What saves this movie is the special effects (10/10 for Sandman) but that's not enough seing how good the 2nd Spidey was....
  15. Feb 19, 2011
    4
    Such a disappointing film after the incredible Spider-Man 2. Way too many storylines and way too many villains. The Sandman's storyline was intriguing, and I enjoyed watching James Franco's transformation, but they were buried among a handful of other plots. After this film I guess there was little chance of Raimi saving this franchise making a re-boot necessary. It's a shame because ISuch a disappointing film after the incredible Spider-Man 2. Way too many storylines and way too many villains. The Sandman's storyline was intriguing, and I enjoyed watching James Franco's transformation, but they were buried among a handful of other plots. After this film I guess there was little chance of Raimi saving this franchise making a re-boot necessary. It's a shame because I really enjoyed Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man and the first two films in the series were very promising. Expand
  16. Apr 30, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Definitely the worst of the bunch. The special effects and action scenes are absolutely fantastic in this movie, but that's about it's only redeeming feature. The love scenes throughout this movie just scream awkward and just had me wanting to skip over them. I really can't get over how wrong Kirsten Dunst was for the role of MJ, she doesn't even try to act like Mary Jane, she just gets thrown a couple of script lines that are what you might call Mary Jane Watson's catchphrases. Another problem with this movie, was that there were so many villains, that you didn't feel any emotional connection to any of them. I'll start with the Green Goblin (Harry Osborn), I think one word can describe the major screw-up here "snowboard" or "skateboard" what ever you think best describes his new glider. Seriously, what the hell were they thinking? He didn't even get given the awesome suit that the original Green Goblin had! Now Venom; probably my favourite Spider-man villain ever, he deserved so much more, he should have had a film dedicated to him and not had to share the movie with the Green Goblin AND the Sandman. I didn't have a problem with the actor playing Eddie Brock but his hatred toward's Spider-man just got brushed over and I felt like his hate towards him was irrational.
    If you look at this film on paper it should have been fantastic, but I just feel like something went terribly wrong after the last movie. I think with everything that got put into this one, the movie and it's characters got stretched very thin and it lost what the last two had. Thankgod spider-man is getting a reboot, it definitely needs it after this one.
    Expand
  17. Jul 1, 2011
    5
    Spider-Man 3's problems stem from its bloated and convoluted story. From multiple villains to love triangles to a symbiote-driven personality change, Spider-Man 3 tries to do in one movie what others would try to do in multiple. In choosing to tackle so much, this movie was destined to come up short. Having three villains in any movie, let alone a superhero movie, was always going toSpider-Man 3's problems stem from its bloated and convoluted story. From multiple villains to love triangles to a symbiote-driven personality change, Spider-Man 3 tries to do in one movie what others would try to do in multiple. In choosing to tackle so much, this movie was destined to come up short. Having three villains in any movie, let alone a superhero movie, was always going to result in at least one bad guy getting sidelined. This honor falls onto Venom, a character which Sam Raimi did not want to include and boy does it show. His screen time is short and he always has the air of being unnecessary and out of place. As for Sandman, though he is visually impressive, his entry into the back story feels shoehorned in and unnatural. Dialogue is hampered by occasionally poor acting and the stunting of character growth (Mary Jane is the biggest offender). There is a real lack of an emotional cor to this movie, with each actor appearing to be going through the motions. The exception is Tobey Maquire who seems to enjoy Peter's narcissistic and selfish persona. Action scenes are high quality, entertaining and well realized. The problem is that with a lack of a well-constructed story and genuine emotions, these scenes are often hollow. Expand
  18. Aug 25, 2011
    5
    A really big disappointment and a movie about half as good as Spider-Man 2. There are too many villains and the acting is a huge drop from the first two.
  19. Jan 6, 2014
    5
    Depois do 2° se perdeu literalmente.
  20. Mar 20, 2016
    6
    Spider-Man movie action sequences have come a long way from the first installment, when one of the big moments had Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man dashing into a burning building like some pulp serial hero from the '30s. In Spider-Man 3, the webslinger tumbles and twirls in mid-air, bouncing off walls and fragments of debris as he fights off a trio of villains. There's New Goblin (played bySpider-Man movie action sequences have come a long way from the first installment, when one of the big moments had Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man dashing into a burning building like some pulp serial hero from the '30s. In Spider-Man 3, the webslinger tumbles and twirls in mid-air, bouncing off walls and fragments of debris as he fights off a trio of villains. There's New Goblin (played by James Franco), the bomb-throwing son of Spider-Man's dead nemesis The Green Goblin; Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), a dense ex-con whose molecules can shift and solidify like grains of sand; and Venom (embodied by Maguire and Topher Grace), an alien symbiote that bonds to an organic host and amplifies its strengths and weaknesses. A decade ago, the Batman series ran aground while trying to stuff too many bad guys into too little plot, but Spider-Man 3 works the villains into its story well, giving each at least one boffo fight scene before bringing everyone together for a final battle royale.
    There's a point to the expanded rogue's gallery too. Just as Spider-Man 2 contemplated the perpetual tug between duty and desire, part three ponders what it means to be a hero. As the movie opens, Spider-Man is wildly popular, and Maguire is happily contemplating getting engaged to his girlfriend Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), who's about to make her Broadway debut. Then the troubles start, each tied to—or reflective of—problems Maguire and Dunst have been ignoring. In various ways, they're confronted with fractured relationships, pressing family obligations, and a crippling addiction to danger. Characters that are just like them, only a degree or two different, force them to confront whether they can be the kind of people who deserve to be cheered.

    So Spider-Man 3's action is superb and its theme fairly weighty. Then why does it feel a letdown from its predecessor? Nearly all the blame rests with director Sam Raimi, who's taken the success of some light slapstick moments in Spider-Man 2 as a cue to get even sillier. The result is a handful of sequences—most notably a "Dark Tobey" routine—that send the movie into a tailspin right in the middle. Even worse are any scenes in which Maguire's friends and relations try to have An Important Conversation, and immediately stop the movie cold. Throughout this whole series, Raimi has never handled quiet human moments as well as comic book punch-ups, and in Spider-Man 3—where the subtle distinctions between characters are the whole point of the movie—Raimi can't deliver. On the ground, Spider-Man 3 is dreary. But in the air, it swings.
    Expand
  21. TheLex
    May 4, 2007
    5
    Dissapointing. Bad dialogue. Bad Venom. Weak ending. What a waste of 280+ million.
  22. DanG.
    May 4, 2007
    5
    For one I just thought that the spider man movies were already garbage. The second one was full of cliches and I just couldn't imagine why they made a third... Karl I just want you to know that obviously you should not have gone to see a movie that no one should like regardless and no I havent and will never waste my time going to see trash like this. Thanks for the warning maybe you For one I just thought that the spider man movies were already garbage. The second one was full of cliches and I just couldn't imagine why they made a third... Karl I just want you to know that obviously you should not have gone to see a movie that no one should like regardless and no I havent and will never waste my time going to see trash like this. Thanks for the warning maybe you should heed your own advice... Expand
  23. BillS.
    May 4, 2007
    4
    1 and 2 are much much better. half of it doesnt make sense logically. the special effects have already been done in 1 and 2. but in 3 its over done. and the movie feels like 100 things jammed into 2 hours.
  24. PO.D
    May 5, 2007
    4
    Just walk away Sam, just walk away, and take the cast with you. Or Spider-man will soon turn into the walking dead. And someone lobotomize Avi Arad and Sony executives concerned for press ganging Venom into the movie. 1 villain and plot line too many. And the film isn't even fun, not even with the set-pieces. Sad, real sad. My spider-sense is clearly tingling for the franchise now. Just walk away Sam, just walk away, and take the cast with you. Or Spider-man will soon turn into the walking dead. And someone lobotomize Avi Arad and Sony executives concerned for press ganging Venom into the movie. 1 villain and plot line too many. And the film isn't even fun, not even with the set-pieces. Sad, real sad. My spider-sense is clearly tingling for the franchise now. Batman & Robin it ain't, but there's a faint whiff of X3 and further doom if this be the case. Expand
  25. SteveB.
    May 5, 2007
    6
    After the mansion fight scene between Peter and Harry I hoped it would be more like Burton's Batman instead of Schumacher's Batman. Regardless, it was a fair movie overall. I think that they had a chance to make it a better, grittier film, but with $300 million and change at risk they took the safer route.
  26. Lucasboyd
    May 6, 2007
    5
    First off, the only super-hero franchise to successfully pull off multiple heroes in one film (on the big screen) is X-Men. That said, I must admit I was not happy with this film; it's as if the writers realized something was "magical" in Spider-man 2 and decided to REALLY take it over the top. Corn-ball dialogue (even worse than Star Wars), confusing fight scenes, and even a "group First off, the only super-hero franchise to successfully pull off multiple heroes in one film (on the big screen) is X-Men. That said, I must admit I was not happy with this film; it's as if the writers realized something was "magical" in Spider-man 2 and decided to REALLY take it over the top. Corn-ball dialogue (even worse than Star Wars), confusing fight scenes, and even a "group hug" moment to emphasize "forgiveness" as the "central theme...gimme a break! I got all weepy-eyed at the end, not so much due to the overly dramatic and sappy final scenes, but because I paid over $60.00 bucks for my family and me to see this dreadfully mediocre film; I could have just opurchased a copy of "Command and Conquer" for the XBOX 360 and at least get some replay value, but I digress. This film is a rental! Expand
  27. MattS.
    May 9, 2007
    6
    I enjoyed this film, but ultimately, I found it a disappointment. It is, however, my son's favorite movie of all time, a position previously held by "Night at the Museum".
  28. Jefframone
    May 10, 2007
    4
    WORST. SEQUEL. EVER. God this movie was long. Way too much going on. Tobey McGuire has got to be the worst actor since Ben Affleck to don a superhero costume. This was just a really pathetic attempt. I hope they don't make any more because it's just embarassing.
  29. JazzT.
    May 4, 2007
    5
    A massive disappointment. It's too long. It's too complicated. It's too corny. Half the time it doesn't even take its self seriously, and the acting (for the most part) was LAME. It's like everyone thought they were making a comic book on film instead of a deep, mature film. That said, the movie did have amazing special effects and a few great scenes. Though, I A massive disappointment. It's too long. It's too complicated. It's too corny. Half the time it doesn't even take its self seriously, and the acting (for the most part) was LAME. It's like everyone thought they were making a comic book on film instead of a deep, mature film. That said, the movie did have amazing special effects and a few great scenes. Though, I wish I had never seen this poorly done sequel, especially at a midnight release party. I'm afraid to go back and watch the near masterpiece Spider-Man 2 was, now knowing what lies in Spideys' future. Do your self a favor and rent this one on DVD. Though, if you absolutely have to see this one, leave your expectations for greatness at the door. Expand
  30. DanielH.
    May 4, 2007
    4
    Wow this was the most corny movie i have ever seen. It was like all the actors forgot how to act. I am mad i wasted 2 hours of my time to that horrible movie.
  31. GaborA.
    May 5, 2007
    4
    Scoring this movie is actually fairly challenging. There's really no point in mentioning the first two cuz even though i didnt really like them they were at least attempts at decent movies. On the other hand SM3 can only really be compared to something along the lines of Daredevil. These are super hero movies that are so bad they are laughable. "Laughable" being the key word in that Scoring this movie is actually fairly challenging. There's really no point in mentioning the first two cuz even though i didnt really like them they were at least attempts at decent movies. On the other hand SM3 can only really be compared to something along the lines of Daredevil. These are super hero movies that are so bad they are laughable. "Laughable" being the key word in that sentence. I know its a common reviewers joke/hyperbole to say "I laughed when it was supposed to be dramatic," but theres absolutely no better way to describe this movie. I dont even know if i would recommend this movie to a friend considering it was mind bogglingly terrible yet i laughed twice as hard as i did during Hot Fuzz. Its like Raimi unintentionally almost made Evil Dead 3 instead of spider man. Expand
  32. BigRed
    May 5, 2007
    6
    Who would have thought that I would actually want to leave a Spider-Man movie?
  33. 777
    May 5, 2007
    5
    The basic story line was good and the action was just outstanding but there was so many dumb sceens they should be ashamed.
  34. BenB.
    May 6, 2007
    5
    What a disappointment. This should have been the reinging moment for the franchise... instead all we get is an asinine plot, cardboard characters, and some of the worst dialogue I've heard in quite some time ("I'm the sherrif in these here parts!") Sam Raimi, what have you done?
  35. ReelWorld
    May 7, 2007
    5
    Just caught the film last night and I have mixed emotions. Overall, it was an enjoyable romp for a summer movie, but not without its flaws. The action scenes were very good - albeit a LOT of CG that looked obviously so. The plot was all over the place, and character development was almost non-existent. In a lot of ways, the film reminded me of "X-Men 3" - very rushed, with a storyline Just caught the film last night and I have mixed emotions. Overall, it was an enjoyable romp for a summer movie, but not without its flaws. The action scenes were very good - albeit a LOT of CG that looked obviously so. The plot was all over the place, and character development was almost non-existent. In a lot of ways, the film reminded me of "X-Men 3" - very rushed, with a storyline that jumped between the multiple plot points way too much. The CG effects of Sandman were hit and miss IMO. In some cases - it looked really good - and others not so much. Venom was majorly underused and when he was he looked a lot like that dog Milo from "The Mask" when he sticks the mask on - overexaggerated fangs, and lacking the protruding jaw from the comics - just something didn't look right with him. Add to that the fact that even when in full on fangs and white eyes mode - Venom still speaks with Topher's voice - no effect has been added to it at all - which quite honestly looked really off! In some cases it looked like pre-viz work almost. I knew it would be hard to pull of Venom - but with today's state of the art - I was expecting something different. Acting-wise - well - this is a comic book film, so I'm not looking for next year's potential Best Actor or Actress nominees here...When Peter goes evil mode with the black suit, the scenes are almost too much. I'm not sure what effect Raimi was looking to convey here, but I found much of the time he was just acting plain stupid. Spidey's fights while clad in black are much more brutal - with him not afraid to go beyond what is necessary in the battle - even to the extent of playing dirty. I've long stood by the theory that Dunst can't act and she once again proves it with a 2-dimensional run at MJ. Church, as Sandman, was a throwaway character. They gave him nothing to do except be a stand in for the CG department. Topher as Brock/Venom really didn't have ample time to create anything of a character - another drawback from the loopy storyline. James Franco sways between acting like Willem Dafoe - right down to the squinting left eye thing - to Degrassi mode when he has amnesia. Like I said - I'm not expecting awards here unless they're Razzies. The big huge battle royale has its moments of pure wow factor, offset by Venom's comical appearance. For most of the fight, Topher has the face pulled away, but you do get 4 or 5 really good looks at him in full on symbiote mode. Without ruining anything, the ending was a bit of a let-down. The Stan Lee cameo was a nice touch, and Campbell as the French waiter was funny, but the spidey sense line was right up there with the "Holy rusted metal" schtick. Again, stuff like that really detracted from the film IMO. All in all, I suppose it's a film worth seeing - but if you go in there thinking this is the superhero film to top the likes of "Batman Begins" or the second Spider-Man, you might be disappointed. Worth the price of admission at a matinée, and I look forward to the DVD in November in hopes of some deleted material to fill in some of the gaps and make some sense of the multitude of story arcs. Expand
  36. PatrickC
    May 7, 2007
    6
    This movie looks, visually, great. Too bad the script and lack of good acting make this movie unenjoyable. The film is too long with too little action fights which are the best scenes in the film. The film is a bad addition to a good superhero series.
  37. NickB.
    May 7, 2007
    6
    This movie was ok but so many of the key points of spider man were lost somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd movie for example no spidey senses at all in the 3rd movie he literally gets hit in the back like 14 times without seeing it coming. And it doesn't have a lot of the points from the comic books where the sand man never was this good guy who apologized at the end he was always This movie was ok but so many of the key points of spider man were lost somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd movie for example no spidey senses at all in the 3rd movie he literally gets hit in the back like 14 times without seeing it coming. And it doesn't have a lot of the points from the comic books where the sand man never was this good guy who apologized at the end he was always mean so it was ok but not very good. Expand
  38. RichardR.
    May 7, 2007
    5
    Oh boy, I was so exicted about watching this film. I abandoned the girlfriend, sat down with my oversized portions of snacks and beverages and prepared myself for the webslinging event of the year. This time spiderman had a whole array of problems and bad guys to deal with. There was of course the continuing saga of the murder of his unlce, his friendship with harry and also lets not Oh boy, I was so exicted about watching this film. I abandoned the girlfriend, sat down with my oversized portions of snacks and beverages and prepared myself for the webslinging event of the year. This time spiderman had a whole array of problems and bad guys to deal with. There was of course the continuing saga of the murder of his unlce, his friendship with harry and also lets not forget his efforts to make MJ the only woman in his life. And then there are the bad guys, Sandman, the hobgoblin and Venom. Does it sound like there is too much going going on? Well you would be right. This film did not have the boldness to follow one theme and one bad guy. I would have been happy to have spiderman slug it out with venom, who was extremly under used, and leave it at that. Forgiveness, commitment, vanity and pride were all addressed in this final part of the trilogy and it was hard to figure out what the film was trying to say. The effects of course were amazing and you know where all of the money went into making the film. Its a shame after such a brilliant second part of the trilogy, Spiderman 3 left me wanting more and extremly unsatisfied, maybe I need to see it again.... Expand
  39. ChadS.
    May 8, 2007
    6
    A plot convolution that preceeds the final action set-piece prevents "Spider-Man 3" from soaring to even the modest level of the original(never-mind the near-brilliant second installment) "Spider-Man". The piece of pertinent information that Harry(James Franco) at long last learns is baffling in its tardiness, because you can't figure out the logic behind the teller's A plot convolution that preceeds the final action set-piece prevents "Spider-Man 3" from soaring to even the modest level of the original(never-mind the near-brilliant second installment) "Spider-Man". The piece of pertinent information that Harry(James Franco) at long last learns is baffling in its tardiness, because you can't figure out the logic behind the teller's machinations in needlessly drawing out the long-standing vendetta his employer has against Peter Parker(Tobey Maguire). To spill the beans so late in the trilogy seems like an arbitrary decision on the screenwriter's part to move the story along. It doesn't feel organic. "Spider-Man 3" peaks during Maguire's dance number which smartly deconstructs the movie musical by lifting the veil of narcissism that's inherent in all musical numbers. Parker must have some deep-seated jealousy towards Mary Jane(Kirsten Dunst) and her burgeoning musical career. Since this is apparently the case(Parker never attends another performance), there should be some alteration in Maguire's glowing demeanor throughout Mary Jane's performance of the Broadway show's opening number as an indicator to his threatened ego. Expand
  40. AlexB.
    May 9, 2007
    4
    First let me start by saying that "Spider-Man 3" was three-and-a-half of the most mediocre films I have ever seen crammed into two-and-a-half hours of sub par editing. Second, I'd like to mention that there is something to be said about the fact that the majority of those that seem to be giving this film any positive reviews are those that read negative reviews, first, before First let me start by saying that "Spider-Man 3" was three-and-a-half of the most mediocre films I have ever seen crammed into two-and-a-half hours of sub par editing. Second, I'd like to mention that there is something to be said about the fact that the majority of those that seem to be giving this film any positive reviews are those that read negative reviews, first, before actually seeing the movie. Coincidence! Me thinks not! Benificiaries of lowered expectations! Me thinks so! That said, those of us Spider-Man fanatics (made so by the comic books, and even more so by the solid "Spider-Man" and the superb "Spider-Man 2" films) that caught "S3" on an early screening, expecting to see an exponetial improvement in the third installment, were (*understatement alert*) let down like some many eleviated subway trains without a real hero to stop us from falling! I, however, have something much more thought provoking than throwing my full-headed mask in the ring of what has become a litany of critizism! I have a conspiracy theory! Could it be that an obviously exhausted Sam Raimi, as well as his cast, took a dive! Why, you say? Reason 1: He's tired! Its easier to make a crappy movie than a good one! (Duh!) Reason 2: After the truly "amazing" first sequel, and millions in promo, they knew you couldn't stay away. Plus, contracts are up! So, why not!?!? Reason 3: With a character as complex and likeable as this one, and with the huge fan following Spider-Man has, as well as the many well know, multi-dimensional, interesting roster of rogues that litter the Spider-Man mythology, it had been my assumption from the start that Spider-Man would become the next James Bond, with a seemingly limitless number of sequels. Sequels that, even if they lost some intrigue over the years, would still make only more money than 95% of the competition! Maybe Raimi purposely blew his load with three villians, over-the-top (attempts at) comedy, under-the-bottom dramatic perfomances, and the resolution (Parker forgiving the perp) of the driving force of Spidey's purpose for crime fighting! Maybe Sam and Co. are saying, "Whoever takes over," and someone will (Don't ever underestimate corporate greed. There will be more Spider-Man movies)", is going to have to start from scratch!" So, purely out of ego, they decide to crap in a box, wrap it up in a nice little (well promoted) package, and smear it up on the screen for our spewing (not a typo) pleasure. Bad form Sam! Bad form indeed, good sir! But I'm just saying. . . P.S. Venom was in this movie? Oh, that's right! Nature called! It must have been during those 5 minutes! I knew I shouldn't have washed my hands! I was so looking foward to seeing Venom! (Cricket! Cricket! Cricket!) Expand
  41. BenM.
    May 9, 2007
    6
    I dunno about this one. It's something that felt like overreaching. Like the original "Batman" or "War of the Worlds", some viewers will be fooled into thinking it's a great movie, but it's not. It's a mediocre movie made up of great things, good things and really, really bad things. I HATED Tobey Maguire's performance in this movie. And he made "Spider-Man 2" the I dunno about this one. It's something that felt like overreaching. Like the original "Batman" or "War of the Worlds", some viewers will be fooled into thinking it's a great movie, but it's not. It's a mediocre movie made up of great things, good things and really, really bad things. I HATED Tobey Maguire's performance in this movie. And he made "Spider-Man 2" the great movie it was. My view of the "Spider-Man" series is like a juicy, succulent piece of meat sandwiched between two stale pieces of bread. You tolerate it, but you wish the bread was fresher. Spidey 1: 7/10 Spidey 2: 10/10 Spidey 3: 6/10 Expand
  42. JohnK.
    Jun 7, 2007
    5
    Not an awful movie, but not nearly as good as the first 2 movies. Much sappier, and the ending is way too drawn out and overly emotional. Plus, does every superhero/villain have to take off their mask every time they speak??? I mean, its called a SECRET identity for a reason, but none of these characters seem to know that. Even the action scenes aren't as good as the first 2. Bottom Not an awful movie, but not nearly as good as the first 2 movies. Much sappier, and the ending is way too drawn out and overly emotional. Plus, does every superhero/villain have to take off their mask every time they speak??? I mean, its called a SECRET identity for a reason, but none of these characters seem to know that. Even the action scenes aren't as good as the first 2. Bottom line, I think they tried to do too much. There are so many different stories going on that it just doesn't flow well. If you're one of the 2 or 3 people that haven't seen this yet, I would wait for the DVD. Expand
  43. AdamS
    Jul 9, 2007
    4
    I really enjoyed the first two movies, and I've been an off-and-on fan of the comic book. I found this movie to be one of the most over-done, over-produced, heavy-handed, plot-hole-ridden films I've seen in a long time. The director / producers wanted to put so much action into the movie, it's hard to follow what's happening within the action scenes. They don't I really enjoyed the first two movies, and I've been an off-and-on fan of the comic book. I found this movie to be one of the most over-done, over-produced, heavy-handed, plot-hole-ridden films I've seen in a long time. The director / producers wanted to put so much action into the movie, it's hard to follow what's happening within the action scenes. They don't even look remotely realistic anymore -- how could they, when you have Spidey and the Green Goblin battling high-speed in a 10-foot-wide alleyway, with numerous explosions and things whizzing by and shouted "witty" repartee that's really cheese-tastic? I guess the producers were going for sensory overload, but some of us actually enjoy a decent PLOT. The comedy (if you can call it that) is heavy handed and poorly written; there's a scene where Sam Raimi appears that should have been cut completely as it lasts far too long, is really cheesy and adds nothing to the story. It's almost like it's there for self-gratification and for no other reason. There are glaring plot holes that leave you wondering, why didn't that character say that earlier, before all of this happened? Scenes where Parker is being a B.A. come off as ridiculous. The Moral of the Story isn't worked into the theme, it isn't suggested to you, it's HAMMERED into you, YOU HAVE A CHOICE, DARN IT! And in case you don't catch it the first time, they actually tell you over and over again. The whole thing left me really disappointed and almost offended that the people that made this movie had done this to the franchise. If this is what the series is to become, let McGuire and the others go on to other projects and leave Spidey alone. Expand
  44. EthanR.
    May 10, 2007
    6
    Well first things first. The action scenes in this movie are amazing. But the storyline is mediocre. I personally liked all the things that was going on. But each storyline was pretty bland. I also would like to say that Toby Maguire had a huge double chin in the movie and looked really chubby. This movie had great special effects but it doesnt make up for an average movie. The fan Well first things first. The action scenes in this movie are amazing. But the storyline is mediocre. I personally liked all the things that was going on. But each storyline was pretty bland. I also would like to say that Toby Maguire had a huge double chin in the movie and looked really chubby. This movie had great special effects but it doesnt make up for an average movie. The fan favorite character Venom was awful in the movie with only about 20 minutes of screen time. The only actors I thought were into the movie were Topher Grace (Venom/Eddie Brock), J.K simmons (JJ) and I don't know his name but the new goblin. Average movie overall. I recommend that everyone wait until the dvd to see it! Expand
  45. P.
    May 12, 2007
    4
    Yawn - worst of the series - 2 was pretty good and I had high expectations but overall I felt cheated - Sam Raimi has lost the plot and I agree with the guy who said Tim Burton should do more comic movies.
  46. BretG.
    May 14, 2007
    6
    While delivering what you expect from a Spiderman movie, the film fails to deliver as its predesessors did. The whole time it seems like waiting on Venom to arrive in the series is unbearable. Venom, being a large focal point in the trailers and what not, sees minimal time on the screen and needless to say, it doesnt look like hes going to be in any more Spiderman movies either. While it While delivering what you expect from a Spiderman movie, the film fails to deliver as its predesessors did. The whole time it seems like waiting on Venom to arrive in the series is unbearable. Venom, being a large focal point in the trailers and what not, sees minimal time on the screen and needless to say, it doesnt look like hes going to be in any more Spiderman movies either. While it may be the worst Spiderman movie its not the worst movie ever made. A 6. Lets hope that the Venom movie can make up for this, as long as Raimi isnt working on it. Expand
  47. julainmyles
    May 15, 2007
    5
    good but not as good as it could have been, to quote a friend 'spiderman 3 takes the other two movies and gobbles there balls', i dont feel that strongly against it, but i some of the scenes in the middle like the jazz bar? wtf? the over two films were sensational, this just got over the top emotionally, and the comic parker would never had done that top MJ, the film over all wasgood but not as good as it could have been, to quote a friend 'spiderman 3 takes the other two movies and gobbles there balls', i dont feel that strongly against it, but i some of the scenes in the middle like the jazz bar? wtf? the over two films were sensational, this just got over the top emotionally, and the comic parker would never had done that top MJ, the film over all was alright, but nothing special, i was expecting much much better than that. Expand
  48. BobS.
    May 4, 2007
    5
    Special effects action is too fast to see and in your face (zoomed in). half the movie is an emotional soap opera and i only saw it because i saw 1 and 2
  49. LeeF.
    May 4, 2007
    4
    Mediocre and not enough payoff for sitting through the boring stuff.
  50. TomG.
    May 4, 2007
    5
    This movie was basically all hype. The fight scenes were played very well, but the dialouge was horrible. Toby cant stop smiling can he? Even when he's crying. I really do not recommend this movie.
  51. MitchK.
    May 4, 2007
    5
    [ ***SPOILERS***] If this movie was 1 and a half hours shorter with a new ending, less dialogue and struting/jazz dancing, it would have been great. Sandman's new, yet conceivable, backstory was a good addition to the film and somewhat faithful to the comics. Venom, however, was a little less faithful, although the church scene was very good. And Harry's death sequence was[ ***SPOILERS***] If this movie was 1 and a half hours shorter with a new ending, less dialogue and struting/jazz dancing, it would have been great. Sandman's new, yet conceivable, backstory was a good addition to the film and somewhat faithful to the comics. Venom, however, was a little less faithful, although the church scene was very good. And Harry's death sequence was actually pretty decent and, although it was under different circumstances, Raimi made it faithful to Lee's comics. As usual, Rosemary Harris is amazing as Parker's aunt and makes this ride a little less rocky. She and the incredible action sequences (what few of them there were) saved this movie from being a total abomination. No, what really made this movie bad was Spiderman himself, Tobey Maguire. The things Raimi made the dark, cocky Spiderman do were completely over-the-top. Just brutal! That jazz dancing scene in front of Mary-Jane was God awful. That and the dancing down the street that kept getting worse by the minute. That and the huge cliches at the end that totally ruined it made this one hard to watch all the way through. So, this is my suggestion: Keep the Sandman story, keep the battles between Harry and Peter, get rid of those damn French waitors and Pete's crazy attitude and the jazz dancing and make this a movie really worth watching. Sam Raimi's better than this, Spiderman 2 was awesome with Doc Oc! This one though, jeez. I say this as an average guy going to see an action flick: BRING YOUR GIRLFRIEND!!!! The 3-hour make-out session will be a hell of alot better than Spidey walking down the street giving the guns to the ladies. Seriously, lower your expectations before going in. There are some great effects and action sequences, but overall, I'd wait for the DVD. Expand
  52. Bill
    May 5, 2007
    4
    Very disappointed, although I did like the emo Peter Parker, which my friend and I got a good laugh out of.
  53. TylerDrainville
    May 5, 2007
    5
    By far the worst Spider-Man film yet. They did a very poor job with Spidey's dark side and most of the villains here are shallow and pulled off quite badly. There were more laughs in the movie than "wow" moments, which was not what I was expecting. Very disappointed.
  54. JoeAverage
    May 5, 2007
    4
    ...Nice to see Topher Grace find some work...er, yeah...
  55. LeightonJ.
    May 5, 2007
    5
    This was by far THE worst spidey film released. It took an absolute age to get seriously started and then was over too quickly. That said there wer a couple of funny moments in the film. One thing that made me laugh but maybe shouldn't have done was the way they tried to make Tobey Maguire look mean. The guy is weedy and that is why he works so well as spidey. He looked ridiculous This was by far THE worst spidey film released. It took an absolute age to get seriously started and then was over too quickly. That said there wer a couple of funny moments in the film. One thing that made me laugh but maybe shouldn't have done was the way they tried to make Tobey Maguire look mean. The guy is weedy and that is why he works so well as spidey. He looked ridiculous when he was trying to look cocky. I hope that if they release a fourth that they will have learnt from their mistakes and actually make a film worth watching and more along the lines of the ACTUAL Spidey comics. Expand
  56. RobertM.
    May 6, 2007
    5
    Spiderman 1 - new way Spidey got his powers Spiderman 2 - Doc Ock was great! Spiderman 3 - Spiderman meets Lifetime network; Tobey McGuire dancing in a jazz club? I mean, come on! This movie is quite possibly the worst one of the three. Topher Grace as Venom is weak-he played Eddie Brock just as he played his character from That 70's show - a whining loser. The introduction of the Spiderman 1 - new way Spidey got his powers Spiderman 2 - Doc Ock was great! Spiderman 3 - Spiderman meets Lifetime network; Tobey McGuire dancing in a jazz club? I mean, come on! This movie is quite possibly the worst one of the three. Topher Grace as Venom is weak-he played Eddie Brock just as he played his character from That 70's show - a whining loser. The introduction of the character, Gwen Stacy, is just in case Kirsten Dunst does not return and considering her lack of script, I doubt she will return. Expand
  57. Tonydannie
    May 6, 2007
    4
    What is really sad is that X-men 3 was beter then this. I always said this was going to be the Superman 3 of the series. And just like superman tried to take on the Nuclear weapons in the fourth one. Spider-man will take on the Bush Administration on the next film. For shame.
  58. RobB.
    May 6, 2007
    6
    The drama with MJ almost ruined this movie for me. She is like that annoying Jar Jar Binks character in Star Wars I. She needs a much much smaller role in Spiderman 4 or none at all. The special effects were cool, but some were so fast I could not tell what happened. Overall it was good entertainment and if you liked 1 and 2 then definitely go see this one.
  59. PriyaH.
    May 7, 2007
    6
    The movie is certainly entertaining with its fair share of drama and laughs and should be seen with that intention. If you are hoping for the same depth that was seen in Spiderman 2 you will be disappointed. This movie shows how sequels can go wrong, especially when expectations are so high. In trying to outdo the previous spiderman the makers have gone too big. There is enough material The movie is certainly entertaining with its fair share of drama and laughs and should be seen with that intention. If you are hoping for the same depth that was seen in Spiderman 2 you will be disappointed. This movie shows how sequels can go wrong, especially when expectations are so high. In trying to outdo the previous spiderman the makers have gone too big. There is enough material in the movie for perhaps two more different spidermans to be made, resulting in the storylines not being properly and fully dealt with and being sidelines, lost in the race to fit all the action into a 2 hour 20 minute marathon. The effects have gone too big, the stroy too small with the result that the dialogue is corny and the emotional scenes becoming funny. Expand
  60. AlexL.
    May 8, 2007
    4
    This is a good example of how to completely obliterate a franchise. Admitedly the second film wasn't exactly fantastic (requiring some rather large jumps of the imagination, especially due to the preposterous comic book science). It was however vaguely loveable, sort of like an ugly puppy with crooked eyes and an insufferable habit of repeatedly yapping to attract attention. This This is a good example of how to completely obliterate a franchise. Admitedly the second film wasn't exactly fantastic (requiring some rather large jumps of the imagination, especially due to the preposterous comic book science). It was however vaguely loveable, sort of like an ugly puppy with crooked eyes and an insufferable habit of repeatedly yapping to attract attention. This film however was not loveable on any level. The script writing was poor, the acting was abysmal and the evil (emo) Peter Parker was embarrasing. I did however get a good laugh when the sandman fell into the "open air" de-molecularizer. "Sir there seems to be an increased silicon mass in the de-molecularizer"..."Don't worry it's probably just a bird, it'll fly off when the engine gets started". All I can say it must have been a pretty heavy bird to cause a 16 stone rise in weight. It's been a while since I've been so eager to get out of a cinema. Special fx were good, otherwise this would be a 2. If you're a fan of spiderman I would suggest that you don't do it to yourself! Expand
  61. ShaunL.
    May 9, 2007
    4
    The writing was so horrible it made me want to cry.
  62. StanleyF.
    May 9, 2007
    6
    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 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
  63. ClaudineD.
    Jun 10, 2007
    5
    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.
  64. KrisS.
    Jun 7, 2007
    6
    Good special effects is the highlight of the movie. Peter Parker's venom stage was utterly idiotic and ruined the movie for me.
  65. Sophie
    Jul 31, 2007
    5
    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.
  66. SteveO
    May 7, 2008
    6
    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.
  67. KeithJ
    Nov 30, 2007
    5
    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.
  68. MikeW.
    May 12, 2007
    5
    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 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
  69. DiegoV.
    May 16, 2007
    4
    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!
  70. KenG.
    May 17, 2007
    4
    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.
  71. DesireeC.
    May 22, 2007
    5
    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.
  72. BenjaminR.
    May 4, 2007
    4
    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 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
  73. [Anonymous]
    May 4, 2007
    5
    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.
  74. GregD.
    May 4, 2007
    5
    A huge disappointment. Some parts were extremely corny, at that is extremely disheartenly as the first two were wonderful films.
  75. JamesR.
    May 4, 2007
    5
    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...
  76. PaulT.
    May 4, 2007
    6
    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.
  77. KenC.
    May 4, 2007
    5
    Playstation 2 is to Playstation 3 as Spider-Man 2 is to Spider-Man 3: highly anticipated, completely overdone, and definitely disappointing.
  78. ShabbirK.
    May 4, 2007
    4
    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.
  79. Jmon
    May 4, 2007
    5
    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 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
  80. SatyamC.
    May 5, 2007
    5
    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.
  81. KenR.
    May 6, 2007
    5
    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 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
  82. Wolfiefish
    May 6, 2007
    5
    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)
  83. KirkD.
    May 6, 2007
    4
    What hurts the most about this movie is the failure to meet expectations. Don
  84. RayM.
    May 7, 2007
    5
    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).
  85. AaronN.
    May 7, 2007
    4
    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. 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 edittingThere 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
  86. AlL
    May 8, 2007
    4
    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, 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
  87. AlanJ.
    May 9, 2007
    6
    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.
  88. PhilO.
    Jun 8, 2007
    5
    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 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
  89. JasonE.
    Aug 13, 2007
    6
    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 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
  90. scottwhetton
    Aug 19, 2007
    6
    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 aGood 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
  91. DevonC
    May 29, 2008
    4
    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.
  92. ljh
    Jul 15, 2009
    6
    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 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
  93. PhoebeT.
    May 16, 2007
    6
    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 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
  94. AlexT.
    May 19, 2007
    4
    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 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
  95. Drew
    May 24, 2007
    4
    I specifically went for Venom. I got it...in the last 10 minutes. What a tornado of sappiness and terrible acting.
  96. Nik
    May 26, 2007
    6
    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 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
  97. TomB
    May 26, 2007
    4
    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.
  98. AdamA.
    May 27, 2007
    5
    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?
  99. May 9, 2014
    4
    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 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 haveSpider-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
  100. Dec 16, 2011
    6
    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 (the music, sound effects, ect.) were okay. The costumes were great and the special effects are outstanding with true Spidey battles. But like the otherA 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
Metascore
59

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 40
  2. Negative: 2 out of 40
  1. The wow factor works overtime with state-of-the-art effects sequences that often are as beautiful as they are astonishing.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    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.
  3. 75
    Overly long and complicated, it's packed with crowd-pleasing moments and satisfactorily wraps up the trilogy - without quite capturing the magic of the first two installments.