Columbia Pictures | Release Date: May 4, 2007
6.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1274 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
728
Mixed:
308
Negative:
238
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
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
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
6
TheQuietGamerMar 6, 2011
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.
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
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
5
marcmyworksDec 2, 2013
This film tried to hard to be everything all at once. Much like X-Men: The Last Stand, there are too many characters and not enough time to fully develop them. I was happy for the inclusion of Venom as a villain, but as he was a secondaryThis film tried to hard to be everything all at once. Much like X-Men: The Last Stand, there are too many characters and not enough time to fully develop them. I was happy for the inclusion of Venom as a villain, but as he was a secondary character, he wasn't as fun or interesting as he should have been. 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
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
StevenFAug 4, 2013
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 theSeeing 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
Rox22Mar 14, 2013
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 bothNot 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
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
5
OfficialNov 11, 2013
Okay, I'm gonna say that "Spider-Man 3" is just disappointing. It's a complete mess. The story was under-plotted, has too many plot holes, does not have the emotional satisfaction as "Spider-Man 2", and was just really bad. The only positiveOkay, I'm gonna say that "Spider-Man 3" is just disappointing. It's a complete mess. The story was under-plotted, has too many plot holes, does not have the emotional satisfaction as "Spider-Man 2", and was just really bad. The only positive thing I can say about this film is the action and the visuals. Expand
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
aadityamudharApr 18, 2016
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 fxI 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 obsession 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
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
6
FuturedirectorMar 18, 2016
Talking about Peter Parker's relationship with May Jane, Sandman's revenge, Venom's fall, Edward Brock's vengeance and Harry Osborn's situation with his father and its the relationship with Spiderman, Spiderman III is one of the most hatedTalking about Peter Parker's relationship with May Jane, Sandman's revenge, Venom's fall, Edward Brock's vengeance and Harry Osborn's situation with his father and its the relationship with Spiderman, Spiderman III is one of the most hated films ever, with not enough action and more stupid attitudes of Peter Parker and almost more thriller than love than the originals. 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
5
Iky009Jan 6, 2014
Depois do 2° se perdeu literalmente.Depois do 2° se perdeu literalmente. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
FreedomFightersNov 7, 2016
Look, this tends to happen: a threequel ends up far worse than the fantastic predecessor. Blame it on sequelitis, blame it on overstuffing, blame it on standards, but regardless, threequels aren't often very good. Case in point, "Spider-ManLook, this tends to happen: a threequel ends up far worse than the fantastic predecessor. Blame it on sequelitis, blame it on overstuffing, blame it on standards, but regardless, threequels aren't often very good. Case in point, "Spider-Man 3." Sure, it's still pretty to the eyes and features some intense action, but it's clear that Sam Raimi was pushing too much into the film: too many villains, plot lines and lore contradictions, poor characterization, and...the awful dance scene. Overall, I'm very torn about what to think of "Spider-Man 3." It's not BAD, but it's not GOOD, and I honestly have no idea who to recommend this, too. I guess I can say if your curiosity is piqued, give it a go. Otherwise, just ignore it. That's the best I've got for you. 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
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
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
BarneyOnMTJan 6, 2016
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
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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
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
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
5
ThatCooperGuyJun 25, 2015
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
Cinemassacre94Mar 20, 2016
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, theSpider-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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
JawsPapi87Aug 25, 2011
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
5
AaronWasserman1Apr 11, 2016
I don't hate this movie, when it came out, it was my favorite Spider-Man movie, but as time went on I realized it is very flawed. It has an overly crowded narrative and events that play out don't get the full amount of time to really makeI don't hate this movie, when it came out, it was my favorite Spider-Man movie, but as time went on I realized it is very flawed. It has an overly crowded narrative and events that play out don't get the full amount of time to really make sense, The biggest problem is this movie tried to do too much and gets a lot wrong, but... it does get a lot right, the effects are the best in any Spider-man movie, some of the best superhero fights, and some good performances and interesting ideas that don't get to play out, but are there. 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
5
WiesyJan 17, 2013
I expected more action. The two other movies are great.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ImUnavailableJul 1, 2011
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 choosingSpider-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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
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
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
waronassermanMay 2, 2015
I dont hate this movie as much as most but it was a huge let down. It had so much potential to be one of the greatest movies! but its a shame it turned out how it did, still with having things to love
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
4
billrullerMar 3, 2011
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 thisWhen 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
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
Tall_But_ShortJul 20, 2012
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 ofWhat 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
PixarloverOct 17, 2012
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 allA 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
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
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
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
4
AJackson729Feb 19, 2011
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 handfulSuch 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
Nero97Jan 13, 2012
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.
6 of 12 users found this helpful66
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
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
5
DralenApr 30, 2011
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
5
cowbell31Jun 22, 2012
People usually pick on Spider-Man 3 by saying that "Venom was portrayed terribly", or "Spider-Man was a sissy". But what was really wrong with this movie was that everything felt fake. NY didn't seem like NY. Peter didn't act like Peter.People usually pick on Spider-Man 3 by saying that "Venom was portrayed terribly", or "Spider-Man was a sissy". But what was really wrong with this movie was that everything felt fake. NY didn't seem like NY. Peter didn't act like Peter. Spider-Man didn't act like a Spider-Man. And Sandman was meant to be the villain of the film but was wedge to work with Venom. Basically to much went on. Too many villains, and too many moments repeated from the previous movies. Expand
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
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
5
notchlover69Aug 27, 2014
This movie isn't great and it's not horrible. In the end it's just a disappointing sequel to Spider-Man 2. They didn't spend much time with Venom or Sandman as they felt very rushed and didn't have enough character development.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MicrOxydeNov 4, 2016
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's was hard to follow after the brilliant Spiderman 2, and so Spiderman 3's negative points were exaggerated.
The movie suffers from "special" choices made by the director Sam Raimi (you know wat scene I'm talking about) and from the supervillain's origin stories that are just messy. Plus, a keen eye can unravel some pretty big plot holes (how did Sandman and Eddie knew to kidnap Mary Jane, none of them knew her or knew that she was Peter's girlfriend).
Plus, the love story between MJ and Peter is again messy and unbalanced. The character's development is (you guessed it!) messy. Harry Osborn (James Franco) goes from being a villain to being a friend to again being a villain and he finishes by dying a hero. I'm not against that kind of character but you absolutely need a spot-on development for that character.
But the movie has it's moments, the combat scenes are fantastic, seeing a supervillain team up is just plain awesome and good ol' J. Jonah Jameson (portrayed by J.K. Simmons) steals every scene is in.
In my mind, he movie is messy, but it's not as bad as people say. The negative points are compensated by the positive points and the movie is enjoyable.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TheLexMay 4, 2007
Dissapointing. Bad dialogue. Bad Venom. Weak ending. What a waste of 280+ million.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DanG.May 4, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BillS.May 4, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PO.DMay 5, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SteveB.May 5, 2007
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, 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
LucasboydMay 6, 2007
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" 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MattS.May 9, 2007
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".
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JefframoneMay 10, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
rajatshuklaMay 3, 2007
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..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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JazzT.May 4, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DanielH.May 4, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
GaborA.May 5, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BigRedMay 5, 2007
Who would have thought that I would actually want to leave a Spider-Man movie?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
777May 5, 2007
The basic story line was good and the action was just outstanding but there was so many dumb sceens they should be ashamed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BenB.May 6, 2007
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 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? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ReelWorldMay 7, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PatrickCMay 7, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
NickB.May 7, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RichardR.May 7, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChadS.May 8, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AlexB.May 9, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BenM.May 9, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JohnK.Jun 7, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AdamSJul 9, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
EthanR.May 10, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
P.May 12, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BretG.May 14, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
julainmylesMay 15, 2007
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? thegood 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BobS.May 4, 2007
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LeeF.May 4, 2007
Mediocre and not enough payoff for sitting through the boring stuff.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
TomG.May 4, 2007
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MitchK.May 4, 2007
[ ***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[ ***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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BillMay 5, 2007
Very disappointed, although I did like the emo Peter Parker, which my friend and I got a good laugh out of.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
TylerDrainvilleMay 5, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JoeAverageMay 5, 2007
...Nice to see Topher Grace find some work...er, yeah...
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
LeightonJ.May 5, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ZahidI.May 6, 2007
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
5
RobertM.May 6, 2007
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TonydannieMay 6, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RobB.May 6, 2007
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PriyaH.May 7, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AlexL.May 8, 2007
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
YoriDMay 8, 2007
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 doingBLAAAAAH...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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
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