2,305 reviews
Not As Bad As People Say.
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.
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.
- AaronCapenBanner
- Aug 24, 2013
- Permalink
Awesome End to an Epic Trilogy
- ivo-cobra8
- Dec 5, 2012
- Permalink
A Solid Film For a Comic Fan
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.
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
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
Spider-Man 3 is adequate, but adequate just isn't enough.
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.
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.
- thecowardlylorin
- May 4, 2007
- Permalink
Enjoyable, but the weakest of the series
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
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
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jan 15, 2010
- Permalink
I'm so sorry, Spidey...
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.
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.
- streetcar1951
- May 5, 2007
- Permalink
The meme culture
- Ch4ndler_B1ng
- Dec 20, 2021
- Permalink
Some great action sequences are lost in a film who's script tries to do too much and be all things to all people
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
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
- dbborroughs
- May 5, 2007
- Permalink
A Let Down.
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.
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.
My favourite movie in this trilogy in terms of sheer enjoyment
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.
- kristianlepka
- Dec 13, 2021
- Permalink
Strong third outing, but doesn't quite match the brilliance of Spider-Man 2
- space_base
- Apr 21, 2007
- Permalink
Big-Budget Special-Effects Extravaganza, Out Of Focus
"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.
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.
- HalRagland
- May 5, 2007
- Permalink
some good things but it never comes together
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
- Special-K88
- May 7, 2007
- Permalink
Fans! - Don't let your expectations run away with you! Sit back and enjoy!
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.
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
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.
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...
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!
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!
Perfect example of trying to fit TOO much into a movie
- paulbutterworth1978
- Apr 30, 2007
- Permalink
The world was not ready for this in 2007.
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.
10/10 would watch again.
Well...er...I liked it!
- SteakSalad_101
- May 4, 2007
- Permalink
Shocking!
Spiderman Into Darkness
*A Swing and a Miss*
Spider-Man 3 is often considered the black sheep of the original trilogy. While it boasts some visually impressive moments and retains the charm of its predecessors, it's ultimately a film burdened by an overstuffed plot, uneven tone, and questionable character choices.
The film introduces a trio of antagonists: Sandman, Venom, and the New Goblin (Harry Osborn). While Thomas Haden Church delivers a sympathetic portrayal of Sandman, the other villains feel underutilized. Venom, in particular, is a missed opportunity, reduced to a one-note, overly aggressive character.
A central plot point involves Peter Parker coming into possession of a black alien symbiote, which transforms him into a cocky, arrogant version of Spider-Man. This drastic character shift feels jarring and inconsistent with the established character. The dance sequence, while memorable for its absurdity, ultimately detracts from the film's overall tone.
The romantic tension between Peter, Mary Jane, and Harry Osborn becomes increasingly convoluted. The introduction of a rival photographer, Eddie Brock, adds unnecessary complexity to the love triangle.
The film's climax is chaotic and underwhelming. While there are visually impressive moments, the resolution of the various plot threads feels rushed and unsatisfying. The final confrontation with Sandman is particularly underwhelming, given the character's tragic backstory.
Despite its flaws, Spider-Man 3 isn't without its redeeming qualities. The visual effects are impressive, particularly the Sandman and Venom designs. The film also features some memorable action sequences, and there are moments of genuine humor and emotion.
Spider-Man 3 is a disappointing conclusion to the original trilogy. Spider-Man 3 had the potential to be a powerful exploration of the dark side of heroism. Unfortunately, it's bogged down by excessive plot points, inconsistent character development, and a rushed climax. While the film boasts some visually striking sequences, it ultimately fails to live up to the promise of its predecessors.
The film introduces a trio of antagonists: Sandman, Venom, and the New Goblin (Harry Osborn). While Thomas Haden Church delivers a sympathetic portrayal of Sandman, the other villains feel underutilized. Venom, in particular, is a missed opportunity, reduced to a one-note, overly aggressive character.
A central plot point involves Peter Parker coming into possession of a black alien symbiote, which transforms him into a cocky, arrogant version of Spider-Man. This drastic character shift feels jarring and inconsistent with the established character. The dance sequence, while memorable for its absurdity, ultimately detracts from the film's overall tone.
The romantic tension between Peter, Mary Jane, and Harry Osborn becomes increasingly convoluted. The introduction of a rival photographer, Eddie Brock, adds unnecessary complexity to the love triangle.
The film's climax is chaotic and underwhelming. While there are visually impressive moments, the resolution of the various plot threads feels rushed and unsatisfying. The final confrontation with Sandman is particularly underwhelming, given the character's tragic backstory.
Despite its flaws, Spider-Man 3 isn't without its redeeming qualities. The visual effects are impressive, particularly the Sandman and Venom designs. The film also features some memorable action sequences, and there are moments of genuine humor and emotion.
Spider-Man 3 is a disappointing conclusion to the original trilogy. Spider-Man 3 had the potential to be a powerful exploration of the dark side of heroism. Unfortunately, it's bogged down by excessive plot points, inconsistent character development, and a rushed climax. While the film boasts some visually striking sequences, it ultimately fails to live up to the promise of its predecessors.
- chiragrathod19
- Aug 5, 2024
- Permalink
5.5/10
Now this is a quick and sometimes a not understandable film. Venom ruined it by being silly, and it is a bad movie.
CGI It had some poor CGI in the film so that did not help this film at all. And the CGI could of been a lot better.
Film in general, I feel like the acting can be a little forced at times and I think it has to much stuff going on at once. And it does make me have mixed feelings for this movie
did it ruin the Trilogy
Yes at times it did ruin the first 2 films completely. So overall I give it a 5/10
CGI It had some poor CGI in the film so that did not help this film at all. And the CGI could of been a lot better.
Film in general, I feel like the acting can be a little forced at times and I think it has to much stuff going on at once. And it does make me have mixed feelings for this movie
did it ruin the Trilogy
Yes at times it did ruin the first 2 films completely. So overall I give it a 5/10
- rohanumpleby
- Aug 30, 2019
- Permalink