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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Not the best, but good

[omni-nolan · 7/10 · 5 October 2023]

The final part of the trilogy about the adventures of Spider-Man turned out to be much weaker than the first two parts. In this part, the writers and director tried to pay attention to the inner, dark world of Peter Parker and at the same time made a huge number of enemies, so that the plot threads got mixed up and it was not possible to show the potential of the characters in full. But first things first:

The first is the hero. Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man, is having a good time, his girlfriend is performing on Broadway, and city officials are giving him the key to the city. Everything is fine, criminals are even afraid to go outside. And the hero has no doubt whether he should be an ordinary man or a super hero, he can combine everything.

Secondly, the villains. As mentioned above, there were too many of them. It is clear that Harry Osborn has not gone anywhere and his revenge has not cooled either, this is the strongest aspect of the plot, the theme of friendship and hatred, the director and screenwriters did not miss it and presented it as it should. Venom is the best villain in the history of Spider-Man. But the screen time of the main villain is too limited. Flint Marco is an escaped prisoner who killed Uncle Ben, this character is not that superfluous, he is connected with the plot, he was not poorly included, they made his story well, but there was already too many plotlines going on at once.

Third is the film itself. Spider-Man 3 is a good film, but there are just too many storylines, too many events and characters, all of this is very difficult to comprehend, and especially to convey in two hours of screen time. From the point of view of pure entertainment, there are no complaints, as before, this is a well-made movie, with a lot of beautiful special effects. Still, it's a worthy conclusion to the trilogy.

Good but not as the previous ones

[chera_khalid · 7/10 · 26 September 2023]

"Spider-Man 3" swings into action with a 7/10 rating, and I have to say, it was just okay. Tobey Maguire's portrayal of Peter Parker remains solid, and the film editing keeps the story moving at a brisk pace, although it juggles multiple plotlines. The film's strength lies in its exploration of the consequences of power and vengeance, with the symbiote-infused Peter Parker providing an intriguing character arc. However, it falters with a somewhat cluttered narrative, too many villains, and occasional tonal shifts. The music adds to the film's emotional depth, and the cinematography captures the kinetic energy of Spidey's web-slinging with flair. "Spider-Man 3" may not reach the heights of its predecessors, but it's an okay installment that explores the dark side of heroism while providing moments of web-slinging excitement for fans.

If Sony did not interfere with Sam Raimi's take on how this movie was going to go, then this would have topped the 1st 2 Spider-Man films in Tobey Magurie's Spider-Man trilogy

[pjhbdfs · 6/10 · 22 November 2021]

Let me start off by saying, that if there was no studio interference with this movie, and Sam would've gotten the creative freedom he deserved, then this would've been the best Spider-Man film to top the 1st 2 films of Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man trilogy. I enjoyed this film, but I would love to see a different version of this film is Sam decides to release a directors cut of Spider-Man 3. Either way I enjoyed this entire trilogy but if Sony didn't interfere with Sam's work, then this would've been the best out of Spider-Man 1 and 2.

It could have been better....

[iheityahu · 7/10 · 9 May 2007]

I've just seen it, and I have to say that it's very entertaining, and it seems to me that although it's very good, it could have been better, but then again so could a lot of other good films. As soon as it came out the comic book nerds started whining about how Sam Raimi did something wrong and whatnot. The truth is that someone will always find something wrong or different from the comics, and it could have been... but it isn't!! So stop whining and enjoy it.

It's very good (gave it 8/10), filled with cgi and fast-paced action, along with a decent script and dialogue. Maybe not as good as the first two, it has weak spots like several plot holes and insufficient character development. Casting was great, with Thomas Haden Church as Sandman and Topher Grace as Venom, along with the original cast. The acting was great, sometimes awkward, a great cameo from Bruce Campbell, and a great job from Raimi. It's what someone should expect from a summer blockbuster, and even more, something to expect from a Spider-Man like movie.

Definitely a Surprise Disappointment

[carpediem18 · 6/10 · 4 May 2007]

Alright, I will admit that seeing it in IMAX at midnight was definitely worth the $16 I paid for it because the CGI and fight scenes were just amazing. So I guess this movie is worth seeing once on the big screen. But I am not going to buy it.

Why? Because Spider-Man 2 was an amazing film and although it had those random cheesy scenes of slow-motion and stuff, it still was amazing and had wonderful plot and Alfred Molina really brought some depth to his character. But in the end, Spider-Man 3 lacks those qualities. It lacks strong plot that really brings this movie together cohesively. Instead, the film is really just a mess of stuff happening. It was overkill in every region of the film: too many characters, too many villains, too many dramatic shifts, too many unexplained scenes that didn't fit into what was going on, and by far, too much weird creepy stuff.

What I mean is that Tobey Maguire's character is supposed to be influenced by the symbiote like it influences Brock to become Venom, but in the end, Tobey Maguire can't play evil or bad so much as just creepy. And although the film really seemed to be going for realistic unlike the first two (less campy comic stuff and more dramatic feeling), it still ended up with the one sequence in the middle of the film which was just UNNECESSARY!!!! You will know what it is when you see it.

Furthermore, as far as the acting goes, Tobey Maguire didn't do much for me. He seemed to finally show the fact that he really just wasn't right for the role in the end. Surely he fills the costume out right, but when he's walking around as Peter Parker, he really doesn't fit the role. In this film, James Franco is truly the scene-stealer and best actor of the film! They finally gave him screen time as he is in it quite a bit. I loved him and he definitely made the movie worthwhile in the end. Kirsten Dunst also surprised by playing MJ as a much more mature MJ and less like a damsel in distress all the time. She really did a good job. And she sings, and she actually sings well!!! It was a shock, I thought it was someone else but you can tell that it's her voice! It's a total shock! And also, Thomas Haden Church as Sandman was a very good choice, but unfortunately he just totally was not given enough screen time. Again, too many villains to focus on so Sandman and Eddie Brock as Venom become little more than appearances for the ending battle. Venom was done well and Topher Grace really did a good job, but again, lack of screen time. Also, Bryce Dallas Howard appears for about ten minutes and does a decent job with what little she was given. Unfortunately, although I think she's going to be an amazing actress in the future, her role in this film made me angry because all it did was make Spider-Man/Peter Parker very unlikable.

All in all, this film lacks direction and story and is just a webbing of random connected scenes and events and ideas that were thrown together. Extreme deviation from the comics is present in this film and I think the deviation is definitely bad because it makes the film too predictable and too sentimental and gooey. Oh, and this is perhaps the most pro-United States propaganda film I have seen in recent years! Beware the scene when Spider-Man is seen in front of a giant American flag: you will laugh your butt off it is so obnoxious.

Very little to say which makes me wonder...

[cj_685 · 6/10 · 9 June 2007]

Firstly, i was really wondering whether to give Spider-Man 3 a 6 or a 7 out of 10, and then i realised that i couldn't really remember much about it so came to the conclusion it couldn't have been that worthy of the 7! I went to see this and was looking forward to it mainly because it was the first BIG movie of the year, excluding the few reasonably big earners that emerged! Unfortunately, this film really is a let down, especially if you were to be a huge fan or really enjoyed the first two films! The major problems were the storyline, the feeble attempt at trying to include comedy in it, and to be honest, the acting isn't that great! I also think they tried to put too much into it instead of making it more of a classic superhero film! I don't really think there was enough action in the film and therefore it didn't use the characters to their full potential, especially Sandman! Wasted in my opinion because they could have done so much more! The big budget obviously still allowed them to make the film look good with the special effects, but unfortunately the visual was actually the best bit about the black suit and the whole 'good Spidey vs. evil Spidey'! Now, this does sound like a bad review but all it is really is meaning to say that they had so much they could have done, and they just didn't hit the mark! But hey, it's made a shed-load in the box-office already so... !! I would buy Spider-Man 3 on DVD but i certainly wouldn't rush out to get it, and would probably wait for it to come down in the sale!

disappointing

[s33a2d17 · 6/10 · 1 May 2007]

I've always been a Spider-man fan.. I got the comics when I was a kid (sold then later (bangs head against the wall)) and I've seen and bought the previous two movies. But after seeing this for the first time, my first impression is that I am not going to buy this one.

There is the obvious criticism about the black suit, of course, and how Peter gets it (don't worry, won't spoil it for you), but that's a detail, really, as the way he got it in the comics would take not just an entire movie, but a whole range of characters we haven't seen on screen before, so there is no way they could make that work. The solution they chose is fine, albeit somewhat unimaginative.

I've wondered why I felt disappointed when I left the theater. Part of my disappointment lies in the fact that apparently for Spider-man 3, better had to mean: more. More action, more enemies, more Bang. And I disagree with that. So much is dealt with in this episode, that nothing gets much depth. Or rather: it doesn't come together as a movie. There's no glue, and when the dust settles in the end, we're not left with much.

Another issue was credibility. At several points during the movie I shook my head in disbelief and asked myself: why does this happen? What's the motivation, the reasoning behind it? That question applied to the actions of at least 4 characters. Getting from A to B in a movie can be necessary, but do take some care as to how you pull it off! I'll go see it again, see if perhaps I'm just having a bad day. I mean: there's some good stuff in there as well, and the scene in the jazz club is awesome. There's enough for me to tell you you should probably go see this if you're a Spidey fan, but I didn't feel the spark.

For now: 6 out of 10 - I'm disappointed.

Thought it was great

[rainbowsheeps · 8/10 · 5 May 2007]

Let me start by saying I see some reasons why fan boys are upset, and some of the issues people had problems with. Yes, it packed a ton of things into it, but it made it feel more like an event. I have read comics in my life, mainly Spider-Man and Batman comics... I'm familiar with the original comics origin story of Venom and all of these characters before they hit movie screens, but I still can't understand some of the hatred and criticism that the film got. There are issues, which I'll list below, but the film has a strong emotional core with its characters that shines through here.

The dramatic elements, according to many reviewers and critics are done poorly here, but that's not the case. It's easy to feel the hurt Peter feels when MJ has to break some horrible news to him, you see his anger when he realizes Marko's connection to his murdered uncle, Ben, and the roller coaster that is Harry throughout the film even lets you sympathize with his position because you see, for the first time since the first film and done even better here, a more "innocent" side to Harry, though it doesn't last long.

Also, I did read plenty of online reviews prior to viewing and many of them gave me the feeling that the only way Peter's anger and 'dark side' is shown is through a dance number in a jazz club, which is not the case at all. You see Peter going overboard and saying and doing hurtful things all throughout the mid-section of the film, causing problems for himself and other characters and fully descending deeper and deeper into his own vengeance and anger. A lot of this part of the film is lightened with comedic elements, which is true. There is indeed a dance number, but there's a point to it and plays into a more emotionally charged scene later on. If you've read anything about tonal shifts or the film being called a "mess", I'd say don't believe it. It's done with class and maturity to make it a bit more fun, yet it doesn't take away from the more emotional and mature scenes that come prior and afterward.

Of the fight scenes, all were done well. Sandman's scenes throughout are usually the most beautiful and interesting, while Venom is done quite well too. One thing I did sorely miss was the use of the plural speech from Venom. A "We're not Brock... we are Venom!" line might have been nice. Its a minor grievance though, and all of the action scenes are done quite well, specifically the first and last.

The film is flawed, yes, but it's also quite fun. This is a small list of issues that are present throughout the film that are result of mostly lazy scriptwriting/storytelling, but didn't ruin the movie, at least for me.

Issues: - Harry's Amnesia: Amnesia always feels like lazy writing, in almost every case (except maybe Memento). In this case, it's fairly weak but its forgivable as it allows you to see a side of Harry that hasn't been seen in a long while. It opens him up to more feelings and truly allows for sympathy when things go bad for him, and particularly the end. So, to me, it was quite forgivable as I saw why they used it.

• Suit's Introduction: Yeah, the odds of the meteor crashing right next to Parker, a.k.a. Spider-Man are quite slim. The comic origin is out, of course, but perhaps tying Jameson's astronaut son from the second film by having his ship be attacked by the suit and need rescue from Spidey would have been a better way to incorporate the suit... it would have allowed for another action sequence, tie in MJ's ex-boyfriend and tied the symbiote in a little more neatly. However, perhaps such a sequence would put the budget or time limit too high.

• Butler: He mostly kept his mouth shut through the first two films, but in this one he delivers an important message to one of the characters that changes the course of the film. It's slightly forgivable because he's given a more humanized part in this film, but it's still a display of some lazy writing.

Aside from those issues, I disagreed with many of the other critiques that I've read. I don't find the comic aspects disheartening, they were done well, but from the reviews I thought it would be light on the serious and dramatic content of the films, ie, I wouldn't be emotionally invested in the characters this time around. That turned out to be false though, at least it was for me. The special effects were great, the action was great, the acting was great... but what really holds this film and makes it all feel worth it is the emotional attachment to its characters and the way it builds your feelings for them. All of these characters are flawed, some very seriously, but you care about what happens to them all and brings the first two films full-circle in terms of pretty much everything. It wraps up what's been done in the previous two and does some of those things even better.

Great! But Not In Comparison To It's Predecessors

[deepfrieddodo · 7/10 · 4 January 2022]

Easily the worst of the original trilogy, Spider-Man 3 is still a very enjoyable film!

Whereas in the previous two the casting was faultless, the third not so much. Haden does make an excellent Marko/Sandman and plays his role well, but others do not. Grace isn't the most intimidating actor they could have gone for for Venom, making a very evil character a bit limp. Even the previously great Franco is transformed into something disappointing. Not only did they bypass Hobgoblin for the 'New Goblin', but giving him a snowboard glider (etc.) just showed that they were trying way too hard to make him cool. Howard as Gwen Stacy isn't too inspiring either, thankfully Simmons as Jameson is continued brilliance.

It is ambitious in the introduction of three villains, perhaps only faulted by none of them particularly interlinking. Scenes do jump about a lot as each arc is continued. The Sandman arc is great though, and perfectly supported by the soundtrack. However Venom is not given nearly enough time, but that's probably a good thing, as it looks and sounds terrible.

In comparison to the previous two Spider-Man installments, there seemed to be a backwards step in CGI action. Plus camera shots at times were poor, the type of things that take you out from the story.

Known more for the subsequent memes than iconic scenes, badboy Peter Parker will always be infamous but utterly enjoyable.