Spider-Man 3 (2007) User Reviews

Not As Bad As People Say.

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 25 August 2013]

Third and last(?) film in this trilogy isn't as good as the first two, mainly because the plot is overly contrived, but I still found this to be very entertaining and filled with good action and character development.

Plot has Peter Parker's romance with Mary Jane threatened by the simultaneous arrival of Super-villains Sandman(Thomas Haden Church, good performance) and mysterious alien black goo that latches onto Peter and develops his dark side, which nearly wrecks his life, and rival reporter Topher Grace, who also comes into contact with the alien menace, and becomes Venom.

Large scale action climax is still satisfying and fitting, with Peter and Mary Jane back on the path to mutual happiness in a bright future together...I hope, since the planned Part IV was scrapped unfortunately...A shame.

Awesome End to an Epic Trilogy

[ivo-cobra8 · 7/10 · 6 December 2012]

I am fan of Spider - Man since my whole childhood, i been watching series of the cartoons. The third installment of Spider - Man franchise is darker than the first two movies were but still dose not ruined and dose get a job don well!! Before i start writing review about this movie , i wanna talk about the new movie The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) the new movie of Spider - Man is awfully horrible boring and wrong. It truly disappointed me. I have been watching the new movie on DVD than i went watching Spider - Man 3 on DVD this movie i am writing a review about it, i only saw this movie once and the first time i didn't give it 10 stars i was actually bored by this film and disappointed about Harry as the villain and that he died Marry Jane broke up with Peter and he become dark but the movie was still enjoyable after i saw how awful badly the new spider - man is i went watching this movie and you know what? It was million times better than the new amazing Spider - crap was. Sam Raimi's trilogy was much much better than Marc Webb's movie is, Webb's movie is awful. I watched the first original movie Spider - Man back in 2003 when my mom bought me original video cassette that was before DVDs and Blu Rays were on this world and i absolutely loved it. When in 2004 was released Spider - Man 2 i bought video cassette right away. Sequel to this movie was supremely good, but it did not compare to the first movie. Then after my huge expectations for, "Spider - Man 3", Sam Raimi blew my expectations to the dust. Will the same happen with the 3rd and last film, "Spider - Man 3"? Quite simply, Yes! In 2005 when i hear about the third and last movie of Spider - Man that they where shooting i knew that Tobey Maguire had problems in his personal life and how media was judging him, i step on his side right away and this movie did made an awesome job in 2007. About The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) that movie was really shocking and completely different than Sam Raimi's trilogy was. The only good thing in that movie was The Lizard aka Dr. Curt Connors but the whole movie was really true disappointment and insult for every true Spider - Man fan. A lot of people were criticizing and judging this movie but in my opinion this movie is well made. Think before you judge an threw away a gold of movie and see the new movie and you will see the difference. This movie is a million times much better.Andrew Garfield really isn't for the role of Peter Parker as Spider - Man i hear that they are planing new movie another sequel for The Amazing Spider-Man? Please god no! The third and last movie of Sam Raimi's trilogy is an epic conclusion to an amazing awesome super hero. I will rather watch this movie than the new spider - crap movie. I am not buying the new movie no thank you. I watch awhile ago Spider - Man 2 and it was so great movie i really loved it. Today i order it Spider - Man 1 and 3 original DVD it will come tomorrow i don't have these two movies on DVD. I am also giving a higher rank for this movie than the new one. Just one thing how come this movie got only 6.3 stars while the new movie got 7? that make no sense to me. A great ride from Sam Raimi thank you! 10 out of 10 Stars!

The film contains a fine cast of talented actors. Tobey Maguire, of course still makes as a great Spider - Man . James Franco is fantastic, as he always is. He gives such a powerful performance, he really ought to be considered for an Oscar nomination.Topher Grace as Venom/Eddie Brock is utterly terrifying, at times, and completely ominous.. Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson is a scene stealer. She is completely engrossing and awesome. Thomas Haden Church as Sandman/Flint Marko is terrific. Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy is brilliant much, much better than Emma Stone is. Actress Bryce is also beautiful,pretty hot. At last and least Rosemary Harris as aunt May Parker was terrific and fabulous outstanding in her performance. Sally Field got a poor script and she barely talks in Amazing Spider - Man. Everyone is so great, the dynamic scenes between the actors and actresses are so well done, so well written, and so well directed. Spider - Man 3 is emotionally riveting and amazing to view.

In conclusion, this film is a gorgeous reminder that great writing and direction can enhance any movie-going experience, even superhero movies, which are usually thought of as mindless entertainment. 10/10

A Solid Film For a Comic Fan

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 17 April 2011]

This film has received a bad rap from many people. I feel I have to defend it. While I am not big on special effects and CGI, I will set those aside for the moment.

Anyone who grew up reading Spider-Man should know that putting 40 years of comic history into a movie (or 3) is a hard task. But I feel like they succeeded here. Venom comes across pretty accurately considering how much they had to truncate it, and the Sandman is decent despite some interesting modifications.

The biggest problem I had with this film is that if they do not make a fourth, they leave open too many plot lines. And, as far as I know, no such film is in the works. But that is more an issue of the studio, I think.

I enjoyed this movie

[0U · 24 February 2020]

And of course the rumor of three good movies in the franchise was not true. We have two incredible movies and then we have this one. It's definitely the lesser of the three and that says a lot, because its predecessors we're fantastic. The movie struggles to find out what it's really about and we get a movie filled with too many villains that doesn't get enough screentime, and maybe some of them shouldn't have had any at all. The acting is a little edgy this time around, but I think that's because of the script and the constant rewriting of it. It bugs me a little, because this could have easily been the definitive "Spider-Man" if Raimi had just removed some things from the movie and maybe added a couple of more good lines to the script.

BEST effects, yet WORST movie

[Norway1 · 6/10 · 7 May 2007]

I enjoyed Spider-Man 3 quite a lot. However, there were so many problems with it that I ended up only "liking" it instead of loving it like the first two films.

Let me get to the pros vs the cons:

THE GOOD

The Effects: Birth of Sandman is the coolest effect on any film I can remember. Amazing! The fight scenes were also incredibly well realized.

The Humor: J.Jonah.Jameson had some hilarious moments - especially his first scene. Bruce Campbell plays a waiter (Maitre D really) in a French restaurant, and it is probably the best scene in the whole movie! Peter dancing!

The Action: The first Sandman vs Spidey scene was very exciting. Maybe the best battle sequence from all three films. CGI-Venom looked great in the whole four-minutes of screen time he got. All the fight-scenes were EXCELLENT, well choreographed and exciting.

The Acting: James Franco has improved much as Harry. Gwen Stacey was much better used than I expected. (And she was beautiful!) Thomas Haden Church was perfect for Sandman! Topher Grace did a fine job as Brock, not so great as Venom.

I guess that is a good intro for...

THE BAD

Venom has WAY too little screen time. His story was too rushed. Sandman is made to look like a good guy, then bad, and at some points we're not sure what to think. Do we feel sorry for him? Fear him? The filmmakers couldn't decide, and it shows.

The Costumes: Harry's mask was just ridiculous! Seeing Brock's face in the Venom suit looked stupid. And the Dark Spidey suit wasn't "alive" enough. It just looked like a suit, not a living organism.

The Score (music): Some parts were OK but some parts were SO bad it ruined the scene! An example is the over-scoring of the first Dark-Spidey scene (where he's hanging upside down looking at himself in a building window). It was painfully bad, screaming out for the audience to be amazed. Like holding up an applause sign. Tacky. Then there were plenty of similar moments, mostly in other action scenes.

American Cheese: Spidey landing in front of a HUGE, randomly placed, waving American flag. The camera panning back from a crying MJ and Peter atop a huge building, to make sure we see a sunset in the background, etc. Manipulative tripe.

The evil-dudes team-up in the end was very contrived. I didn't buy it. How Spidey deals with Sandman in the end was also quite silly. Not cool at all.

The biggest problem is trying to squeeze too much into one film. Spider-Man 3 should have been about Sandman and Harry/Goblin. Venom should have been held back for the next one. The fourth film could have been all about Venom, giving him more screen time and the treatment he deserves.

I know this was Sam Raimi's original plan (not to include Venom in this film) but Avi Arad convinced him to add Venom into the story, for the fans, since everybody loves Venom.

Too bad Sam didn't follow his plan. I doubt he'll come back for more now. Let's just hope he gets to make The Hobbit (unless by some miracle Peter Jackson gets to do it after all).

Thanks for reading! :)

Spider-Man 3 is adequate, but adequate just isn't enough.

[thecowardlylorin · 6/10 · 5 May 2007]

My feelings after watching the third film are somewhere in the neighborhood of satisfied, but that feeling is fairly disappointing. Satisfied more or less means adequate and to follow a sequel that I consider excellent with a film that's only adequate is a certainly a step down. Positively, Spider-Man 3 does reasonably well at maintaining a feeling similar to that of the first two films. I never felt like I wasn't seeing the same world or characters and that's important to me. Continuity in tone really helps hold a series together. The Matrix Reloaded never felt to me like I was witnessing the continuation of the story and world presented in the first installment. The scenery and characters felt like weak and dull recreations and that really bugged me. The New-York of Spider-Man 3 is about the same as before, as is Peter's apartment, The Daily Bugle offices, etc. Peter, Harry, Mary Jane, Aunt May, etc. also carry over well and it's easy to jump back into their lives. Where it doesn't feel like its predecessors is in its pacing and scope. The film tries to tell a lot of story for one film, much more than either the previous installments. This makes it messy. If you took Spider-Man 1 and 2's stories, wove them together and compressed them into one 2 hour film, you'd have a mess pretty similar to Spider-Man 3. A lot of this has to do with poor exposition and the decision to include three villains. In good exposition, events lead to other events and it all seems to flow naturally. Some films end up feeling like a story wasn't really even written, but instead a series of well-crafted scenes that don't necessarily fit well together. A bunch of smaller scenes are then written to connect those scenes. These scenes can feel very forced because they often rely heavily on coincidence. The Matrix Reloaded is full of these contrived scenes and so is Spider-Man 3. They're frustrating because they act like speed bumps where the plot suddenly feels awkward and my enjoyment of the film drops. One scene sticks out particularly in Spider-Man 3 as too awkward. Venom, one of the super-villains, is swinging through alleyways when he is ambushed by the Sandman, another villain. Venom proposes they team to get Spider-Man together, Sandman agrees, end scene. This scene is needed to set up the final, huge battle of the film but just seems poorly worked in. For one it's very short, and two the characters don't know each other and have completely different motives for being villains. That the two would decide that quickly to become partners after coincidentally running into each other is just sloppy to watch.

Despite how it seems, I didn't hate the film. I was just disappointed in its flow as a narrative and thought it aimed much higher than it should have in terms of what to include plot wise. Regardless though, many scenes were very enjoyable to watch and I don't just mean action scenes. The Daily Bugle scenes, as always, were great and funny. The addition of Topher Grace as Peter's photographer rival, Eddie Brock, was great casting. His line delivery works perfectly with his character's sleazy personality and his scenes with Peter are some of the best. The character Harry Osborne returns and becomes one of the film's three villains: a new Green Goblin that takes over where the Goblin of the first film left off. Harry and Peter's relationship is probably the most interesting part of the story. Their struggle between being friends and enemies makes for some tense moments. One of my favorite scenes in the film is a verbal confrontation in a diner between Peter and Harry. Playing off Peter's presumption that he and Harry are back on good terms, Harry orchestrates a bit of nasty drama that sticks a knife in Pete's love life. He has Peter meet him in a diner just to drive the knife in a little further. As Pete storms out, Harry is awash in sadistic joy with himself before making a fast and creepy exit. Harry is really the best handled villain of the film. Not only as the Green Goblin Jr. fighting Spider-Man in the sky much the way his father did, but as Harry, Peter's estranged friend, using their friendship as a pretty sharp weapon against him. The villain I could have done without was the Sandman. His character was interesting but his place in the film as a main character seemed unnecessary and forced. He's an escaped convict running from the police who accidentally falls into a big science experiment and becomes the Sandman. He is also apparently the actual killer of Peter's uncle Ben thus giving Peter motivation to go after him. This reworking of the first film's story seems very far fetched and unnecessary. The computer effects used to create Sandman are terrific as is the performance by Thomas Hayden-Church, but I think the film would have improved without him. More time could then have been given to the conflicts with Harry and Eddie and likewise Goblin and Venom. Venom is particularly nice because he's the only villain not the product of some crazy experiment gone wrong. His creation is almost entirely Peter's fault. Venom acts as a slimy toothy grinning anti-Spider-Man, who hates Spider-Man on a personal level after Eddie Brock loses his job and girlfriend and holds Peter responsible. Two villains definitely would've been enough for one film, especially two villains that feel wronged by Peter personally, not just Peter as Spider-Man. I don't really want them to continue this series, but since it seems like they may anyway, I hope some lesson is learned with number three that less really can be more. If the time that was spent awkwardly packing too many stories into one film was instead spent working on one good story so that it flowed naturally, Spider-Man 3 could have excelled the way number two did.

Enjoyable, but the weakest of the series

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 16 January 2010]

By all means, Spider-Man 3 is not a bad movie, but the many flaws with the film make it the weakest of the series. But it is still enjoyable, however I did think the first two were better in terms of plot, characterisation and pacing. Well, there are a lot of good things. Out of the three films, this one is the best visually. The look of the whole film is mind blowing, with splendid special effects, brilliantly choreographed fight sequences and spectacular set pieces. The music is excellent, and the direction was efficient enough.

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

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

All in all, it certainly wasn't bad. As a matter of fact it was enjoyable. But it could've been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I'm so sorry, Spidey...

[streetcar1951 · 5/10 · 6 May 2007]

As I was walking down the stairs and out of the theater, I was trying as hard as I could to pull a smile out of my face. My friends tensely asked if I liked it, I said "Yes, of course!!" They nodded weakly in response. On the way home, I kept thinking to myself. "You liked it! C'mon! It's Spiderman!" Now, it's two days later, the euphoria of waiting for Spidey to come out has subsided, and I've begun to look at this flick a bit more (shall I say it?) critically.

It's plain to see that Sam Raimi is a fantastic director. He knows when to do what and realizes that he is making a superhero movie, which is why the Spider-man movies have done so well. It's not like the recent Batman and Superman who try to hide the fact that they're just fun superhero films. Raimi knows his material and embraces it. The effects were astounding as usual. Spiderman's one-on-one fight with the Sandman and the crane scene being the major highlights. I thought these features would outbalance the weaker spots of the film, but unfortunately they did not.

As far as acting goes, I'm surprised to say that Topher Grace stole the show. I remember how outraged everyone was when he was chosen, but obviously someone knew what they were doing when they let him on as Venom. James Franco and Kirsten Dunst played their usual selves (I can't help but think of Dunst dreaming of getting back to work with Sofia Coppola while doing these films). However, Tobey Maguire REALLY disappointed me. I've always thought he was so great at Spidey, which is undeniable in the first two films and even in this one...when he has his red suit on. Maguire is a one note actor, at least as far as Spidey goes. He just could not pull off the black suit; he wasn't good at being bad. Then came the horrific bridge scene with MJ. Along with most other people I've talked to, my entire theater erupted in laughter when he started crying. It was just...sad...and not in the way the writers intended it.

Speaking of the writing, I hate to be beating a dead horse, but c'mon: 3 villains, Sandman's background, trouble with MJ, Harry's changing attitudes, 2 different Spidermans, competition at the Bugle, Gwen Stacy, etc. It was just WAY TOO MUCH! Even if you had four hours, it's just too much to cram into the audience in one sitting. The great thing about Spiderman 2 (the best of the trilogy) is how focused it was. You had the inner struggle, the villain and his relationship with MJ. There it was! Beautifully filmed and written. From the first 15 minutes of Spiderman 3, I knew that all these parallel story lines were going to crash within the next two hours. The sequence that shows how far they've fallen from part two is the whole emo/hair in the eyes/eyeliner/oh so cool "bad" Spiderman scenes. The first few minutes of this was funny in the same way that the "Raindrops are Falling on my Head" scene in part two was great, but this time they stretched a good thing way too far. This whole sequence is what sticks in my mind and refuses to let me think that the film was just as great as the rest.

I tried to like it! I really did! I just can't fool myself any longer. Some critics like Peter Travers for Rolling Stone are saying that we can let this one slide because it's Spiderman, but I couldn't disagree more. Spiderman 3 missed the mark and, deep down inside, we all know it.

The meme culture

[Ch4ndler_B1ng · 8/10 · 21 December 2021]

This movie is hilarious. On release, most things were cringe and nowadays people would probably consider this a genius work of art. The whole "Emo Peter" thing has made some real comedic gold and "give me rent" "You'll get your rent when you fix this da** door!!" As an actual movie, not so great, Venom wasn't done well and some acting was pretty poor... it does have one really emotional scene when Harry Osborne dies (oopS minor spoilerS) Kirsten Dunst's MJ is really whiny, the whole damsel in distress thing really got on my nerve sometimes, like get it together woman! I guess you could look at Spider Man 3 as a dark comedy kind of like Evil Dead 2 (another Sam Raimi movie). It is by far the most fun Spider Man movie, I was fully entertained throughout its entire run time even if it wasn't flawless or the best spiderman movie. If you hate this movie remember what a wise emo Peter once said "Want forgiveness? Get religion."

Some great action sequences are lost in a film who's script tries to do too much and be all things to all people

[dbborroughs · 6/10 · 6 May 2007]

Add my voice to those underwhelmed by the latest edition of the Spiderman franchise. While it does contain some of the best action sequences I've ever seen, it is far from the best film ever made.

The problem with the film is that there is simply too much going on. First off you have the Peter/MJ relationship bumping along, add to that the Peter/Harry story line still playing out, plus we have the addition of the Sandman story and coming in in the final half hour is the addition of Venom. Its too much for the movie to handle, the result of which it all feels half baked. Very few of the characters get the proper amount of time to develop with the worst offender is Eddie Brock and Venom who get zero and so seem to belong in another movie (Venom looks great which makes his under use seem even worse). The real proof the film has too much going on was that there are a couple of times where the plot is moved along by sudden out of left field revelations. The only one I"ll reveal, because its in the trailer, is that Sandman killed Uncle Ben in the first film. Had the film been better plotted the revelation wouldn't have been necessary, nor would any of the others.

There are some bright spots, the majority of the Sandman material is sterling, with the first appearance of Sandman in the sand pit almost perfect, and the sequence that makes up his first battle with Spidey one of the greatest things I've ever seen put on film. The Sandman sequences alone make it worth slogging through the ups and downs of the rest of the movie.

Is it a bad movie? No, just a disappointing one. Its clear that this could have and should have been the best in the series (and maybe the best film of the year) had all of the right pieces been put in place, indeed the final sequences in the film probably would have reduced most audiences to tears had they gotten the rest of the film right.

As I said the film is worth seeing at some point, just don't feel the need to run out with everyone else. Was it worth fighting the crowds the first weekend to see? Not really, but it is worth seeing. Hopefully they'll take a break before they make the next one, maybe they'll make the one that this movie should have been

Perfect example of trying to fit TOO much into a movie

[paulbutterworth1978 · 2/10 · 1 May 2007]

OK, I'm a HUGE fan of Spiderman...Liked the first movie, LOVED the second flick and was dying to see the third one. And since I live in Korea, I was able to see the movie tonight (SM3 opened in Asia 3 days before it opens in North America). I'm sad to say, I was let down by the third film.

The biggest issue by far is the fact that there are FAR too many story lines going on at once. The movie feels very bogged down and not nearly enough time is given for proper character development.

In this movie, there is Spiderman, Mary Jane, Gwen Stacey, "New" Goblin Venom and Sandman. Each character is given the bare amount of time for development.

I'm assuming that since most of the cast is non-committal to returning for a fourth movie, the filmmakers decided to throw as many stories into this movie in case it was the end. It really takes away from the movie as a whole.

The other big issue I have is the very forced sense of humor the movie tries to take. From a very lame riff on John Travolta's walk from "Saturday night fever" to watching Peter Parker dance to jazz music, a lot of the humor feels like it's was written for a SNL sketch.

There is a very poor ending involving Spiderman and Sandman that defies logic.

I sincerely hope this is NOT the last Spiderman film, because if it is, it's certainly not the best way for the series to end. None of the magic and originality of the second film are here. I hope that a decision is made to do a fourth film and I hope if a fourth film is made, the filmmakers decide to go back to what made the second film so special.

** out of *****

My favourite movie in this trilogy in terms of sheer enjoyment

[kristianlepka · 8/10 · 14 December 2021]

Yes, Spider Man 2 had a better story, but this is having none of that. This is pure camp and I love every second of it. The lines emo Peter says are legendary, all the things at that point just go instantaneously from 0 to a 100. The fights are actually really good too, I can't see why people view this film so badly? Maybe because it just isn't as serious as the previous ones, but that doesn't have to mean it's bad. I laughed from start to finish and therefore it's much more memorable than Spider Man 1 and 2.

Strong third outing, but doesn't quite match the brilliance of Spider-Man 2

[space_base · 7/10 · 22 April 2007]

While it does at times tiptoe on the line of being an epic and brilliant work of cinema, SPIDER-MAN 3 is also a big case of overkill. There's way too much going on, and it just seems to keep on coming.

After a somewhat shaky series of opening scenes (with that voice-over narration by Maguire still being as lame as always), the movie quickly finds its balance. It isn't until the symbiote subplot (involving the black Spidey suit) gets into full swing that things become a little too hectic. Director Sam Raimi pulls off an incredible feat by making the never-ending onslaught of subplots balance as well as they do, but the pieces still don't fit to the extent that you'd hope. There's enough plot here for two or three different movies, with plenty of obstacles for Peter to overcome and an ample amount of baddies for him to fight. But in putting the four main plot lines together (i.e., revenge against Sandman, Peter's relationship with Harry, the symbiote suit/Venom, and problems with MJ), the whole experience becomes overwhelming. There's not nearly enough time to absorb all the intertwining threads, no matter how hard the filmmakers obviously try to make it work.

That's not to say this is a bad movie. Far from it. In fact, despite its shortcomings, this picture still marks one of the most fun times I've had at the movies. It wasn't even until after I left the screening that I started to realize how many problems it had. I bet a large percentage of moviegoers will feel the same, being so taken aback by the constant action sequences and stream of story lines that they never even get a chance to notice the film's problems. That's the good news. Bad news is, there's no way these issues will go unnoticed upon repeat viewings. While SPIDER-MAN 2 seems to just keep getting better with each consecutive viewing, I see this one coming up short. It's still less problematic than the first film (which already feels a bit dated), but it just can't compete with the damn near flawless second.

One of the few complaints I had with SPIDEY 2 was the "raindrops are falling on my head" sequence. It was silly and awkward, not fitting well with the rest of the film's style... Well, this sequel tops it. After the symbiote takes over Parker, there's a lengthy montage sequence of him (now turned emo) strutting down the street, dancing around and pelvic thrusting at women. It's basically him hopping about to music while looking like a jackass. And it gets worse. He goes with Gwen Stacy (a hot but disappointingly extraneous character) to a club, where MJ is currently working, and basically reenacts the scene from ANCHORMAN where Will Ferrell starts randomly playing the trumpet and hopping across tables. There are slight differences, of course; this one involves a piano and groovy dance moves. But the outcome is the same, leaving audience member's mouths agape at the uncomfortable hilarity. They really should've saved that scene for the DVD outtakes. Then it'd at least be fitting.

Fortunately, the whole movie isn't plagued by scenes like these. It's only rarely that things start getting ridiculous or cheesy to the point where you can't help but roll your eyes. The other problem comes in the way of bits of awkward dialog and rushed character development. There's about an 80% hit rate where everything in the script is as smooth as can be, but that last 20% block does hurt the a few vital aspects of the storytelling. Particularly when it comes to fleshing out character motives and emotional conflicts (something that was given almost complete focus in the first two movies).

At least the action sequences stand strong as some of the most spectacular since... well, SPIDER-MAN 2. They take full advantage of the characters' abilities and surroundings, and then fuse the two together to create a number of downright breathtaking moments. The CGI isn't quite flawless yet, but it's still a visual feast for the eyes. The only disappointment is the use of Venom. He does get some time to shine in the movie's third act (or possibly ninth, taking into account how many different stories overlap), but Topher Grace removes all of the character's menace. It really hurts me to write that, considering how wonderfully handled everything was concerning Brock's character before that point. But alas, despite Grace's strong and amiable efforts, his voice is just too awkward coming out of Venom's mouth. And all they needed was some slight voice alteration to fix the problem. Drats.

SPIDER-MAN 3 may not be a flawless endeavor, but it's certainly epic. Raimi and company reach for the stars, and instead end up making it halfway across the universe. It's one bumpy and crazy ride getting there, but when things go well, they go really damn well. And while some movie trilogies end on a note that make you yearn for one last installment to redeem the series (I'm looking at you, X3!), we should be so lucky to get a conclusive finish to the SPIDER-MAN series. Almost brings a tear to my eye.

Big-Budget Special-Effects Extravaganza, Out Of Focus

[HalRagland · 5/10 · 6 May 2007]

"Spider-Man 3" comes really close to being as difficult to follow as an "X-Men" movie. Well, maybe not that close since an "X-Men" movie requires the viewer to try to follow the lives of at least a dozen different characters. But I think it was a mistake for the makers to have Spidey contend with three different villains in one film. Unlike the two superior predecessors, it felt like they were trying to cram three movies into one with "Spider-Man 3".

I was most disappointed with the use, or misuse, of the Harry Osborne/Green Goblin character. We know that Harry must become the Green Goblin if he is going to have the ability to take on his super hero nemesis Peter Parker/Spider-Man. The makers of "Spider-Man 3" waste no time in picking up where "Spider-Man 2" left off. Not only does the movie not allow the viewer to observe Harry's transformation into the Green Goblin, but Harry doesn't even dress appropriately for his role. He wears a black uniform and never becomes the public menace his father did. I was looking forward to the Daily Bugle covers about the return of the menace of the Green Goblin. Instead Harry's campaign of revenge against Peter is quickly side tracked by a bout with amnesia after suffering a blow to the head in a fall during his first fight with Peter. After all, the film needs to introduce two more villains, Sandman and Venom, before it ends.

Whereas, in the first two films the viewer really gets to know the Norman Osborn and Otto Octavius characters, in "Spider-Man 3" the length of time devoted to the villains amounts to a movie short. Along the way Peter Parker must also contend with his dark side and his troubles in his relationship with his love Mary Jane Watson. Meanwhile, the landlord's daughter, Ursula, is back to amuse viewers once again with her adolescent crush on Pete. Add to all this the time needed to develop the Sandman and Venom villains, plus Gwen Stacy, and I was left wondering exactly what the movie is about.

"Spider-Man 3" is big budget extravaganza that is out of focus in the areas of character and plot development. While it has its laugh inducing comic moments and the best special effects sequences money can buy, it has little else to offer. While I really wanted to see the first two movies again, because I enjoyed the transformation of the main characters into super heroes and villains, it feels like the only reason to see "Spider-Man 3" is to check out the special effects again. If there are more Spider-Man films made, and there is no reason to believe there won't be given the money involved in releasing another film, then I would hope that the makers would simplify the story once again and do what made the first two films so enjoyable to watch.

some good things but it never comes together

[Special-K88 · 8 May 2007]

Third entry has Peter Parker and alter ego Spider-Man fighting what could possibly be the greatest battle of his life. The intrepid Parker is on top of the world as N.Y.C. citizens have finally come to appreciate all of his heroic deeds, but more importantly he's found a stable relationship with Mary Jane Watson. His seemingly perfect existence comes to an abrupt halt when he learns that his uncle's real killer is still at large, acquires a rival at the Daily Bugle, and best friend-turned-bitter adversary Harry Osborn comes seeking revenge. Peter also bonds with an unusual black symbiote that unleashes a darker side of him and threatens to destroy everything he holds dear. Some effective moments of intense, exciting action and superior special effects are undermined by overlength, and juxtaposed against moments of corny, unintentionally funny human drama. The ingredients for a success are there, including a good cast and some interesting subplots, but they can't overcome a leaden script which chooses to revel in its mawkish material rather than flesh out its characters or tell a coherent story. Watchable, but never as engaging or spectacular as its predecessors. **½

Fans! - Don't let your expectations run away with you! Sit back and enjoy!

[mstomaso · 7/10 · 13 May 2007]

Venom, Green Goblin 3 and Sandman.

Spiderman 3 reworks these three epic story arcs into a single feature length film. Impossible? Well... some of the reviewers here on IMDb seem to agree. I, however, do not. I went into this film with some trepidation and reasonable expectations. The Venom saga has been, since it first appeared in print, one of my all-time favorite multiple issue story arcs in comics. How this story could be made into a film following in the somewhat less weighty footsteps of Spiderman and Spiderman 2 was hard to imagine. The film did justice to the story-line - keeping almost all of its dark thematic content, while modifying its plot points and reducing its heavy depressive tone in order to keep the film entertaining and fast-paced. But don't expect this to be the same lengthy exploration that the comics provide.

Sam and Ivan Raimi can add this to their long list of satisfying films.

Briefly, Spiderman is having his normal share of growing pains. His love for MJ is now matched by his self-absorption and his addiction to heroism. Of course Harry still wants to kill him to avenge his father's death, and somewhere out there is his uncle's killer - who is about to become The Sandman. Just as things really start to fall apart, his costume turns black and develops a sinister aspect. He becomes more powerful, more ruthless, and a more conflicted being than the hero he had been. And Peter even dons black eye liner and a decidedly emo haircut. Unlike most recent comic book adaptations on the big screen, the story (to this point) offers plenty of room for humor, which Raimi could never pass up. J. J. Jameson and Bruce Campbell's excellent cameo are pure comedic relief from the somewhat heavy subject matter that seems immanent throughout this film. You'll laugh... you'll cry... You'll fall in love, if you can handle a new take on the classic Venom tale, with some worthwhile additions.

Things go from bad but kind of funny to worse and pretty serious. The film explores emotions more than any superhero film I have thus far seen - with the possible exception of the original Punisher. It nicely studies Spidey's humanity, ego, fallibility, and his previously unexplored dark side, and forces our hero to confront all three both symbolically and physically in order to redeem himself.

Tobey Maguire turns in his best Spidey performance yet, and is excellently supported by Kirsten Dunst and Rosemary Harris. James Franco turns in a great interpretation of Harry - much needed for this story-line. This cinematography is more wide-open and hyperbolic than the previous Raimi Spiderman films - as one would expect given the storyline. It is not surprising that the film went a little beyond the pale in terms of special effects - again unavoidable given the subject matter. But the CGI did become a little distracting towards the end.

I have read a lot of disappointed reviews of this film, but honestly, I found much to praise and very little to complain about. Highly recommended especially for Venom fans.

The worst of a great trilogy but that's not all bad

[Tyson14 · 7/10 · 2 August 2014]

I didn't care much for this movie after the first viewing. I thought it was hammed up and bloated with special effects that are hallmarks for most summer releases. However, after watching it a few more times the movie has grown on me to the point that I think this was, while not a great masterpiece, a very good film.

Sure, there are plot holes and characters that aren't truly developed or fleshed out. Some scenes are down right ridiculous (the night time experiment that spawns Sandman). Yes, some of the CGI borders on cartoonish - the fight between Sandman and Spiderman in the subway comes to mind. And there are clichés, like the old damsel-in-distress scenarios that Mary Jane continually finds herself in. But this is a superhero flick and it's not supposed to be completely realistic. So like Steve Winwood says, just roll with it.

What makes this movie rewatchable is the acting and the overall theme of forgiveness as it pertains to Peter Parker and Spiderman. Tobey Maguire, Thomas Haden Church, and of course J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson rise above the hokiness and give great performances. Even James Franco delivers - he just plays a great jerk. And Rosemary Harris makes the best of her limited role as Aunt May and gives a high quality performance. Kirsten Dunst is the weak link again I don't know I just don't like her in these films.

The final scene between Spiderman and Sandman was very touching and done so well. In the end, Peter learns how to truly forgive, an act that releases his heart from all of the pain he's been carrying around since his Uncle was murdered. Although I despised this final scene on the first viewing, thinking it was a little too tidy and contrived, I now realize that this was the culmination of the trilogy that finally rounds out who Spiderman truly is. The dark, vengeful corner of Peter's heart which the Symbiote latched onto was exposed and destroyed by the love he demonstrated after Sandman's confession. Peter saw what he would have become - Venom - if he did not confront his hatred and then let it go. This final installment in the series is a fine capstone. In all, one of the better superhero and summer blockbuster movies I've ever seen.

Could be so much better...

[D_R_Cran · 6/10 · 4 May 2007]

This film had the hallmarkings of a great! After the first two films literally set the character scenes and the hopeful return of the goblin this film could have been fantastic!

Sadly however by slipping in some terrible and cheesy dialogue, an over-abundance of new characters and then trying to take on one of the greatest characters from the comics and cartoons the film comes out with an average marking!

Firstly I have to say I enjoyed this film, it was fun, the special effects were fantastic and the fight scenes therefore played out very well.

This film did however destroyed any character building made by the previous two and results in a serious lack of cohesion to the other two and because of this cannot be placed within the same league.

Sandmand and the new goblin both admirable foes and both shown well, however venom could have been so much more and came across far too weak as far as I am concerned and seemed to be slipped on the back of an average film to try and boost ratings. I am not one for cliffhangers in large franchises, I mean the only reason I didn't see the 3rd matrix film was because the cliffhanger was pointless and the second film killed off any point of a third, however a full venom film would have made sense due to its sheer fantastic reasoning and design, even introducing the character carnage would have been fantastic, but he seems rushed in this film, and thats not the way to win over die hard fans and new fans the like!

Anyway, I appear to be ranting, I would recommend you watch this film, its fun, its got great action and the Bruce Campbell cameo was fantastic, however do not watch this thinking you are going to get the same quality and attention to detail as the first two films, watch it like X-Men 3, as this is just what it is, a good trilogy spoilt by the lack of development and the need to force as many characters in at once. Oh and by the way, if you love over the top American patriotism, then this is definitely the film for you!

A Let Down.

[imajestr · 3/10 · 4 May 2007]

There are some things that work really well, like the goofy comedy that's also present in the other movies. The movie starts off nicely with a great looking action sequence that implies how great the rest of it could be. The special effects are fantastic. Unfortunately, the movie is so convoluted that anything like a coherent plot is lost, as well as any significant character development further than Harry, Mary Jane or Peter himself.

Peter's "transformation" into a darker self when he dons the dark suit is laughable. You're not sure whether you're watching a comedy, a drama, or a purposefully ridiculous B movie. Peter's actions are so over the top that you just want to laugh at the script rather than WITH it.

The main villains get only a short amount of screen time, and by the "big" ending you're just wondering when Dawson's Creek is going to end and when Spiderman 3 will begin. 90% of the film consists of Peter Parker walking around, crying, and making a fool of himself in various over-the-top ways. Perhaps I went in with too many expectations, such as the possibility of an atmosphere to the film that would fit with what was happening.

As a fan of the old cartoon, and a real fan of Venom, I was incredibly let down by the amount of time spent on his character, as well as the fact that Topher Grace is essentially Eric from That 70's Show, and I don't mean that it's the same actor. He's the same scrawny, sarcastic joker that he always plays, which, if you're familiar with the comic or the cartoon, Eddie Brock was NOT. Even if you've never heard of Venom or aren't a big fan, the villain has a total of about fifteen minutes on screen and isn't very exciting, nor is anything about him explained. He's simply suddenly THERE, as if thrown into the movie only to get butts in the seats. So feels the entire movie. It all seems like filler, even as the end credits start.

There was a point about halfway through the movie that I simply gave up trying to justify the movie, and realized that it was just plain bad. They tried to do too much, and by having so many villains, weren't able to make a single one very deep. And the whole "inner conflict" theme is a joke. Literally. Peter's "dark side" is more comedy than anything else.

I recommend waiting for this to come out on video and giving it a rent if you're really that much of a fan. Overall, it's a big let down considering the expectations and hype surrounding it.

The world was not ready for this in 2007.

[James0987 · 10/10 · 22 December 2021]

Is this a great movie? No not really, but it is a very enjoyable movie to watch that has been memed to all hell for good reason. There are a lot of interesting directing choices in this film but I've never seen anything else's like it.

10/10 would watch again.

Well...er...I liked it!

[SteakSalad_101 · 7/10 · 5 May 2007]

This is going to be a difficult review to write, but I shall try my best. I waited for Spidey 3 for a hell of a long time. Long, long time. I bought my tickets to see it in IMAX two and a half weeks before it opened. Slowly and even more slowly, the weeks went by alongside tons of schoolwork that only led me closer to the anticipated night.

Well, it's half past midnight and I just got home from seeing it. First of all, let's look at the good side of the movie. The special effects were ASTOUNDING. They were incredibly realistic (even if it IS a comic book movie!) and experiencing the amazingly choreographed fight scenes in IMAX was well worth the extra five bucks per ticket. Sam Raimi's directing has also greatly improved, as he was able to balance somewhat of a minor interlocking storyline between three villains and still manage to keep the movie on its feet. I felt the length of the movie (roughly 2 1/2 hours) was perfect--long enough to keep you entertained, and short enough to keep you from not going bored out of your mind. Raimi and the writers even pack some HYSTERICAL humour into the film, with a classic cameo from Bruce Campbell as the Maitre'd of a French restaurant, plus many other laugh-out-loud hilarious scenes. Plus, my favorite part of the good points, is that Spider-Man 3 is a fun, fun, FUN popcorn movie. Lots of fun. Sometimes you look up at the screen and wonder "what in the hell was that?" But it's all good, cause overall, it's lots of fun and you end up not caring if the story makes sense or not. (It does, don't worry) The storyline is much more darker, complex, and mature than the first two movies, and it doesn't seem "Spider-Man" ish, which a lot of people were definitely NOT expecting. I think this is why a lot of people didn't like it. Now the iffy parts. The acting was OK. Yes, just OK. Not good, DEFINITELY not great--just OK. Tobey Maguire had me believing that he had improved from Spider-Man 2 but when we got to the scene with him and MJ on the bridge--oh my, the entire audience was gasping for air because we were all laughing so hard at his terrible fake-crying. Kirstin Dunst's acting skills never really annoy me; I think she's a great actress and while she's certainly not as good as many other actresses in Hollywood, she does a fine "B" job in Spider-Man 3 that works for the movie. I felt James Franco needed some variety, though, as throughout all three Spider-Man films he seems to be acting the same. And, surprisingly, Topher Grace was a lot of fun to watch! It'll be hard to watch That 70s Show again without thinking of Venom! Yet, out of all the performances, Thomas Haden Church comes out on top with a very serious portrayal of Sandman. He blew me away! (pun intended!) I didn't have a huge problem with the corniness of the movie. Yes, I know, the scene with Peter going emo and then gyrating his hips in front of a suit store had me raising my eyebrows, but it was a funny element to the storyline. Sure, we could've done without it, but they got some laughs and that's what counts. There were one or two scenes (particularly MJ and Peter on the bridge) that made me want to get up and leave, but they're over quickly.

The part that bothered me the most, though, is that the "strange black entity" that bonds with Peter--the symbiote--had no real significance in the story whatsoever. It kinda just...happened. There was no backbone to the symbiote story, nothing about it was explained at all, and it just kinda attached itself to Peter's motorbike and then possessed him. It felt very random and, even though it was the whole movie storyline, very out-of-place. This bothered me a LOT.

Overall: worth the trip, and if you get a chance, see it in IMAX. It's FAR from great, but it's a good film, and I liked it better than the first Spider-Man. A very nice kick-off to the summer movie season. Well done, Mr. Raimi!

Shocking!

[shrek311 · 4/10 · 4 May 2007]

What is there to say about this movie? After the light-hearted yet great action-packed first two movies, what were we to expect for the third movie? Apparently the movie was marketed as the "darkest" of the three, seemed to promise more action, especially when combining three villains from the comic books.

But as a loyal fan, I went to the theater to see the movie. Bought the tickets multiple days in advance and waited to see what has been hyped up for so long. And the reviews and critics were right. The movie tries to do too much and in the end disappoints.

First, the movie fails to fully introduce any of the new characters, and for most of the first half is quite scatter brained and moves from sequence to sequence, failing to bring any of these stories really together.

Despite the poor development, the worst part of the movie was the cheesiness. Yes, we all know this is a comic adaptation. Yes, we all know comic books are cheesy. But not to this extent. For moments, I had actually believed we were sitting in the wrong theater, watching some horrible chick flick. There were moments in the movie that seemed out of ordinary, random, like chosen scenes from SNL making parodies of itself. As funny as this may sound, it made it difficult to continue watching the movie. We were constantly reminded of Tobey Maguire and James Franco's inexperience as actors. Neither of whom could pull of the cheesiness or light-hearted fun.

The movie writers completely moved away from what the first two movies set up. And even worse, they deceived the movie-goer with the trailers. You enter the theater expecting more action, some darker events, but perhaps the same light-hearted comic book fun. Yet, you get less action, less plot development, "dark" events that are impossible to take seriously and will just laugh at instead, and over-sapped cheesiness that puts "Scary Movie," "Not Another Teen Movie," and "Can't Hardly Wait" to shame. For a movie that was portrayed in the trailers as "the darkest of the three," it earned the most laughters, mockeries, disappointments and walk-outs I've seen in a Spiderman screening.

It was honestly difficult to sit through this movie. I am a comic book junky, and even for me, it was nearly unbearable. Very disappointed in the way they chose to finish the series.

Spiderman Into Darkness

[OMTR · 10/10 · 5 January 2020]

The third and final episode of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy is just as perfect as the first two parts. Spidey and his loved ones plunge into darkness, go the distance, and make real friendship and love triumph in the end. Because "With great power comes great responsibility", and "Whatever comes our way, whatever battle we have raging inside of us, we always have a choice. It is our choices that makes us who we are, and we always have a choice to do what's right ~ Let love and forgiveness reign."

When will Hollywood LEARN?!

[Jack_Acid · 7/10 · 5 May 2007]

*** SPOILERS *** As a die-hard Spider-Man fan, I enjoyed this film. As a film critic, there's a lot to be desired.

The action and effects are easily the best in the series. Some of the most stunning effects I have seen. Unfortunately, the acting and dialogue is probably the worst.

The Good: I appreciate what elements Sam Raimi brings to this film from the comic, specifically, the Venom symbiote. It's a gutsy move to include it, because it's a stretch for the casual Spider-Man fan to digest an alien coming down and taking over Peter Parker (& Brock), but hey, it's true to the comic.

I also loved the Sandman action sequences, good use of his powers. But making him the gunman of Peter's uncle Ben was a little over the top for me, especially given the ending. To Raimi's defense, at least they give you SOME reason to understand the Sandman's motivations. I was really hoping Venom would be better utilized but he was more of a one-hit wonder character than anything substantial. He's more used as a device to demonstrate the alien's power over people.

In the end, the action sequences are wonderful and thrilling and found myself wanting to rewind and watch is slow motion more than once.

The Bad: Much of the dialogue is forced, failing to flow nearly as easily or believably as 1 or 2. Tobey Maguire seems far less comfortable with the character in this film, which is surprising and unfortunate. Too many homage scenes too, where the writers felt they should give EVERY character that's been in any of the first films at least 5-10 minutes of screen time (like the landlord and his daughter.) This was a huge complaint I had about Pirates II...give us substance instead of what you THINK we want to see more of.

Also, there's times where scenes are so unbelievable from a HUMAN standpoint, you almost can't believe the scene was ever approved. Case in point - in one scene, Gwen Stacy barely clings to a damaged building, dangling 30 stories up. Below are her father and boyfriend watching from the street. One would think they would be panic stricken, especially the father. Instead, both as docile as two strangers watching the evening news. They are so blase in fact, that Brock (Stacey's BF) takes the opportunity to tell the her father that he's been dating her. Meanwhile, she's seconds from death. I felt more panic from the extra in Spider-Man 1 where she's waiting to see if her baby is rescued from a burning building.

And my biggest issue should not be news to Hollywood - GOOD MOVIES DO NOT NEED TO BE 2.5 HOURS LONG! This movie could have EASILY dropped 30-40 minutes and been a great film. They spend WAY too long on needless scene after needless scene (the part where Parker shows up with Stacy at the Jazz club could have been a 5 minute scene; instead, it's dragged on for 15 minutes and it's not even a good scene.) What's worse, many of these unnecessary scenes are redundant - how many dramatic scenes do we need to illustrate the tension between Parker and MJ? I didn't count, but it seemed like 20 when there only needed to be maybe 3.

In the end, despite my complaints, I did enjoy the film. It's a must-see on the big screen given its effects and cinematography. If there is a SM4, let's hope for a less contrived and convoluted script.

Absolutely dire (some minor spoilers in this review)

[Althandir · 2/10 · 8 May 2007]

I'm sure my opinion on this film will create minor disturbance among the Spiderman hardcore, however, never before have I felt so compelled to write a review on a film.

I accept that it is very possible my opinion is attracted more towards the negative due to the fairly high standard set by the previous instalments of the Spiderman trilogy but it must be stated that this film is terrible.

I will begin this review with the one positive (though it in turn brings round a negative). As mentioned by other writers, the visual effects are brilliant. They are so good in fact that it pains me to mention them; I think truly brilliant visual effects are achieved when they need not be mentioned because they should blend so brilliantly with the live action that it enables the viewer/reviewer to concentrate on more important aspects (plot, characterisation etc). However, given that the effects are the only positive to draw from an otherwise dire motion picture, I feel it necessary to mention that full credit should be given to the CGI team.

And now, onto the bad. Truly I am stumped as to where to begin so please forgive the lack of logical order in my critique. Firstly, the script and plot are absolutely awful. Lack lustre attempts at making the dialogue seem believable and natural fail miserably and add to an experience that ranges from the cringe worthy to the unwatchable. Seconding this, I beg the question, what on earth has happened to Tobey Maguire's understanding of the role of Peter Parker? Evidentally it has disappeared along with his acting ability because this performance is painful to watch. The same can be said for James Franco; please understand that a wooden plank would probably have achieved a similar result as this almost unwatchable portrayal of Harry Osbourne. This is a cynics debate, but why on earth are these people getting paid so much for being so terrifyingly miserable at their profession??? It seems that too much has been taken on in this film - we have three villains (one of which eventually becomes a good guy) and the stories for each of these protagonists could easily have made enough subject matter for one film each. The decision to blend all these into the same story was ill advised, badly planned, not thought through and executed humiliatingly badly. The greatest character in the Spiderman story save the hero himself is Venom - why then is 15 minutes of this film given to him???? In fact it is for this reason alone that I did not walk out of the auditorium after 45 mins, constantly finding myself under the misguided impression that the addition of Venom would make what was in front of me watchable. It did not.

There are some truly terrible scenes of 'comedy' in this film. I cannot begin to fathom why it seemed a sensible idea to have so many funny scenes in a film dominated by three major bad guys!! True, even in the bleakest films, comic relief is required and that is all well and good...if the comic relief is actually FUNNY and not a pain to watch.

Much of my time in the cinema during this film was spent with my head in my hands. I really cannot stress enough what a terrible disappointment this film is. I almost wish to recommend it just so that people can see and believe how utterly shambolic this is. There are moments watchable material; J K Simmons continues his fantastic understanding of his character and the restaurant scene with Bruce Campbell is brilliant. But otherwise, this is a film that should be avoided at all costs. I have heard rumours of Raimi potentially being responsible for a 'The Hobbit' film - if these turn out to be true I will cry.

Without doubt the worst film I have seen since 'Be Cool'.