Metascore
59

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 973 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 40
  2. Negative: 2 out of 40
  1. With nifty new villains, a revived Green Goblin, plus $300 million worth of aerial special effects, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 is definitely good to go.
  2. 80
    The good news about Spider-Man 3 is that it's more of the same -- except better.
  3. 75
    There are delicious bits aplenty in Spider-Man 3 for those who care to notice.
  4. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    63
    This incarnation of Spider Man seems to forget that its source material was a comic book that wanted to transcend its genre. This is a movie that's content to be pretty good within its genre, with the main distinction of being much bigger than any of its competition.
  5. 60
    Still smart, still exciting and still action-packed. It's just a shame to note that, after promising greatness, all Spider-Man 3 delivers is satisfaction.
  6. Though aspects of it are entertaining, the presence of all these mismatched pieces give Spider-Man 3 an ungainly, cumbersome feeling, as if its plot elements were the product of competing contractors who never saw the need to cooperate on a coherent final product.
  7. "Spider-Man 2" was a textbook example of how to make a sequel: Deepen it, make it funnier, give it more heart and come up with a strong villain and a good story. Spider Man 3, by contrast, shows how not to make a sequel.

See all 40 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Oct 7, 2010
    10
    To be honest, I didn't what was so bad about this movie! I've heard complaints about Venom, too many villains, etc. Well, whatever! I don'tTo be honest, I didn't what was so bad about this movie! I've heard complaints about Venom, too many villains, etc. Well, whatever! I don't care for any of that! As long as I'm entertained, that's all that matters for me! Expand
  2. Iamnotacritic
    May 4, 2007
    10
    I loved this movie more than any other spider-man movie or maybe even any other comic book movie or maybe even my children. kthx go see it i I loved this movie more than any other spider-man movie or maybe even any other comic book movie or maybe even my children. kthx go see it i like spider-man. Expand
  3. AnonymousMC
    Nov 24, 2007
    8
    Compared to predecessors, Spidey three is a little choppy, but that doesn't prevent it from being entertaining. the "bad" peter is anCompared to predecessors, Spidey three is a little choppy, but that doesn't prevent it from being entertaining. the "bad" peter is an absolute blast to watch, from his more outspoken behavioral qualities to his ferocious spidey fighting. Sandman's an awesome villain, and the arc with the three friends was wrapped up nicely. Expand
  4. BenM.
    May 9, 2007
    6
    I dunno about this one. It's something that felt like overreaching. Like the original "Batman" or "War of the Worlds", some viewers will 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
  5. Jan 13, 2012
    4
    Compared to the other Spider Man movies, this is bad. The history isn't nice as the first movie's and it's way less enjoyable. The enemy: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. Collapse
  6. PrestonJ.
    May 17, 2007
    3
    While production values were great and the visual effects were at peak performance (especially with the sand man), the rest of the films While production values were great and the visual effects were at peak performance (especially with the sand man), the rest of the films aspects crumbled. The action shots were done too tightly leaving the fights undecernable as apposed to the many wide shots used in previous films so you could actually whatch the action happening. The script was waaaaaay too cheesy (even for a Spider-man film). The villians were used as cheap excuses to add action as opposed to further plot and there were far too many of them. As a result none were developed into their full potential as an actual nemisis (as Vemon was in the comics and the animated series as well as the Green Goblin). By trying to sell to the family audience these charcters end up being side thoughts as opposed to the harrowing evil they were originally. Then there are the overlylong silly sequences (such as a elaborate swing dance section in which it feels as though Mr. Raimi was auditioning for Chicago 2 rather than making a real movie) as well as Bruce Campells return as comedic relief. All in all the movie had some decent parts but Tobey McGuire is not a virsital enough actor, the script was an exercise in silliness, the directing was sloppy and undecernable at times, and nothing was developed enough to make you care about what was happening to the characters. Expand
  7. Enrique
    May 4, 2007
    0
    A big, resounding bomb!

See all 449 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Broadway Review: Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark

    Broadway Review: Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark Image
    Published: June 15, 2011
    After setting Broadway records with 183 preview performances and a budget topping $70 million, the U2-scored musical based on the Spider-Man movies and comics officially opened this week. How does the final version compare to the one that critics panned in February?