Spider-Man 3 (2007)



Critic Consensus: Though there are more characters and plotlines, and the action sequences still dazzle, Spider-Man 3 nonetheless isn't quite as refined as the first two.

Movie Info

Your friendly neighborhood web-slinger is back, only this time his sunny outlook has become partially overcast in the third chapter of director Sam Raimi's Spider-Man saga. Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco return to reprise their roles from the previous two installments, with Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, and Bryce Dallas Howard making their first appearances in the series as Flint Marko (aka Sandman), Eddie Brock (aka Venom), and Gwen Stacy, respectively. Peter Parker … More

Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Genre: Action & Adventure, Mystery & Suspense, Science Fiction & Fantasy
Directed By:
Written By: Alvin Sargent, Ivan Raimi, Sam Raimi
In Theaters:
On DVD: Oct 30, 2007
Box Office: $336.5M
Sony Pictures - Official Site


as Peter Parker/Spider-...

as Mary Jane Watson

as Harry Osborn/New Gob...

as Flint Marko/Sandman

as Eddie Brock/Venom

as Aunt May Parker

as J. Jonah Jameson

as Captain Stacy

as Emma Marko

as Dr. Curt Connors

as Betty Brant

as Maitre d'

as Girl With Camera

as Boy at the Final Bat...

as Boy at the Final Bat...

as Norman Osborne/Green...

as Girl At The Final Ba...

as Jazz Club Musician

as Jazz Club Musician

as Jazz Club Musician

as Jazz Club Musician

as Jazz Club Musician

as Joseph `Robbie' Robe...

as Play Producer

as Jazz Club Manager

as Precinct Detective

as Crane Operator

as New Jersey State Pol...

as New Jersey State Pol...

as ICU Nurse

as Emergency Room Docto...

as Crane Disaster Radio...

as Cop At Crane Disaste...

as Kid In Times Square

as Mary Jane's Replacem...

as Kid In Times Square

as Boy at Key to the Ci...

as Councilwoman

as Policeman at Sand Tr...

as Armored Car Driver

as Newsstand Patron No....

as Newsstand Patron No....

as Newsstand Patron No....

as Congratulatory Woman...

as Test Site Technician

as Coffee Shop Waitress

as Jazz Club Waitress

as Hoffman

as Test Site Technician...

as Policeman at Sand Tr...

as Jazz Club Musician

as Penny Marko

as Man In Times Square

as Crane Disaster Radio...

as Dennis Carradine/Car...

as Flash Thompson

as Kid in Times Square

as Kid In Times Square

as Councilwoman

as Kid In Times Square

as Kid In Times Square

as Woman Outside Theate...

as Armoured Car Driver

as Police Detective

as Philip Watson

as Test Site Technician...

as Test Site Technician...

as Test Site Technician...

as Test Site Technician...

as Uncle Ben Parker

as Mr. Ditkovitch

as Ursual

as Houseman

as Mrs. Stacy

as Photographer

as Jazz Club Bouncer

as Play Director

as Jazz Club Musician

as Anchorman

as Jennifer Dugan

as Test Site Technician

as Dr. Otto Octavius AK...

as Rosalie Octavius

as John Jameson

as Mr. Aziz

as Felicia Hardy

as Mr. Jacks
Show More Cast

News & Interviews for Spider-Man 3

Friend Ratings

No Friends? Inconceivable! Log in to see what your friends have to say.


Critic Reviews for Spider-Man 3

All Critics (246) | Top Critics (52)

At 141 minutes, this supe-opera is seriously overextended, with four distinct subplots and way too much hand-wringing over things like the heroine's singing career.

Full Review… | October 18, 2008
Top Critic

Too many villains, too many pale plot strands, too many romantic misunderstandings, too many conversations, too many street crowds looking high into the air and shouting "oooh!" this way, then swiveling and shouting "aaah!" that way.

Full Review… | November 16, 2007
Chicago Sun-Times
Top Critic

Bored. Bored witless.

Full Review… | July 13, 2015
At the Movies (Australia)

Spider-Man 3 is the longest film in the series so far, and perhaps it tries to pack in rather too much. But it's intelligently directed by Sam Raimi and, with all those eye-popping set pieces, it's certainly never boring.

Full Review… | July 13, 2015
At the Movies (Australia)

The breeziness that was so refreshing in the other episodes has been largely replaced by the kind of misery and moping that we can get from any old superhero.

Full Review… | July 13, 2015
New Statesman

If only good intentions were enough. The newest film in the series offers us more of the same - and indeed, it offers us too much more.

Full Review… | April 21, 2014

Audience Reviews for Spider-Man 3


So I think the main number one big ginormous flaw in this movie is the fact they use too many villains and plots, I'm sure we can all agree on this. Way back in 1992 a certain young Mr Tim Burton had free reign to create the sequel for his smash hit 'Batman'. In doing so he stuck in two main villains alongside his own creation...The Penguin, Catwoman and Max Shreck. This seemed to start a massive trend that has continued to this day! Following on from this initial idea many or most superhero flicks seem to have at least two villains as standard, sometimes more! and this is where this film implodes.

First villain is Venom, now this alien creature crashes to Earth in or on meteorite out of nowhere and that's it, we get nothing more on it at all. No idea where its come from, how, why, what its intentions are, why its doing what its doing etc...its just there and you gotta accept it. Whether or not the comics give us this information I don't know (although I'm sure they do), but here in this film its a solid mystery for anyone who isn't a comic fanboy, myself included. So back story and the way this character is played out in the film is new to me, I have no idea if its correct alongside the source material, all I know is how this thing looks and it did seem well created to me. The CGI was decent and seemed to capture Venom's appearance well although why it would alter Spider-Man's spider logo seems daft, it infects his outfit and body, why would it alter the logo?

Second villain was the Sandman who I know was bumped up from a minor comic position to a major role revolving around Parker's uncle. Now again whether or not this was the right way to go if you're a fanboy I don't know, as for the rest of us I felt the story arc did work pretty well and developed the Sandman into something other than just a common baddie. This character now had a good solid family arc combined with an emotional connection to Parker which did feel a little forced admittedly, like a clear after thought, but it managed to hold together. I also liked the visual design for this guy, he had a distinctly old fashioned feel about him, like a criminal from the 40's. The characters musical theme really pushed that vibe if you ask me, a very Bogart-esque tune. I liked his outfit too, again it had a very old fashioned look about it, like something Gene Kelly would wear.

The final villain squeezed into the film was Harry Osborn as the next Green Goblin, following on from his fathers work. Now I had no problem with this character being here because he's been here since the beginning and it felt right that this story arc should happen. Unfortunately along with the other two villains it all felt so convoluted and tight for space that the poor old Goblin was reduced to sporadic appearances. Well they all were really, Venom especially so, that thing vanished for half the flick. The Goblin gets conveniently injured right at the start, after a horrendously bad CGI battle in the sky with Spidey, and we don't see him again for ages. Its the same spiel as before with this character, just replace Dafoe with Franco, same action sequences, new outfit that's all (looks worse too). So in that sense it seemed weak but you knew he had to be there, if anything they should of dropped Venom as that really seemed crowbarred in, jostling for any kind of screen time.

The other problem I had with this film other than the multitude of villains was the relationship between Parker and Mary Jane. Oh my balls this got annoying, first they're together, then they're not, then they get back together again, then Mary Jane sluts around with Osborn, then Parker again, plus you've got Gwen Stacy in there too...holy ribbons of snot!! I got so fed up of seeing Parker and Mary Jane fighting whining and crying Jesus. Plus the fact Mary Jane gets fired from her stage show after one performance seemed a bit ridiculous and is obviously done to crank up the annoying emotional relationship issues. Then you've got all that crap where Parker goes to the dark side due to the Venom alien. Parker as a dark character apparently translates to a lame looking emo hairstyle, a bit of goth eye shadow and then acting like 'The Mask' in a nightclub, what an embarrassing mess that was!

I must admit to being disappointed with the effects this time also, is it me or do the effects actually get worse after the first film? Seeing Spidey swinging from rooftop to rooftop is still sweet, Venom was cool and the Sandman had some great effects in places but the action sequences became very hard to follow with fast moving terrible looking CGI. As I already said the initial fight between Osborn and Spidey was awful looking, but the big finale was just a shambles of shoddy CGI and greenscreen, a lot of it looked very obvious to me. Also not so sure why or how the Sandman is able to grow to such massive proportions or fly, how does sand enable that?? and he kinda looked like a big lump of poo.

I honestly think this is the most over stuffed flick I've seen for some time (or ever), it really is so overloaded and overly long. Stands to reason this effects the film negatively which is a shame seeing as this franchise hasn't been too bad. The best bit in this film for me was probably the amusing cameo from Bruce Campbell (again!) doing his best snappy snooty French maitre d'. Seems incredible to say that I know but it was a fun little scene, everything else was a mess frankly...apart from the odd visual moment.

There are huge periods where characters disappear from the film entirely so other sub plots can continue (Sandman and Venom), Osborn and Parker end up fighting over Mary Jane instead of Osborn's dead father, Osborn's butler is a horrible Alfred rip off, the guy acting in the role is dreadful plus he only now in this film tells Harry about how his father was really killed!! And lastly even though the Sandman's story arc worked OK and has a good heart it did feel like they were trying to rewrite the original film. So definitely ambitious and not a total complete disaster but clearly one bad guy would have worked out better, we now all know Venom was only stuck in there to maximise the audience due to the characters popularity. I understand that but really they should have known better...well I say that but this is Hollywood,

Phil Hubbs

Super Reviewer


Harry loses his memory after attacking Peter and their friendship is seemingly restored leaving him free to hunt down the man truly responsible for Uncle Ben's death. However things are complicated by his transformation into The Sandman and the appearance of an alien creature that enhances Peter's negative emotions. There's actually a pretty decent sequel hidden inside the bloated, episodic mess that is Spider-man 3. Sam Raimi's presence at the helm is marred by his inability to resist the keys to the SFX toy shop but the cast are still likable, the comic relief (and JK Simmons in particular) is still funny and there's plenty of pacey action to maintain the attention. The big problem is with the script which relies far too much on contrivance and totally implausible coincidence. The most frustrating thing is that it could so easily have been corrected by the complete removal of the utterly ham-fisted and largely irrelevant Venom sub-plot. All the weakest elements of the film are tied up in it from Topher Grace's terrible performance, to the impossible to believe coincidences, to the frankly embarrassing jazz dancing emo Parker sequence. It's a shame because this wrecks the second half of the film and just detracts from some pretty decent character moments from Peter, Harry and even The Sandman himself. Yet another abject lesson that in film making, more often can mean less.

xGary Xx

Super Reviewer


"Spider-Man 3," i'm not going to lie, has tons of plot holes; However, I find this film extremely entertaining! Ever since I first laid eyes on this film in theatres I was hooked on all the cheesy CGI that they chose to throw in. I could watch this film over and over again, laughing at the random cast choices and acting, but my belief still stands that if it is excluded from the first two films, then it would be a great film! Without it's corniness and it's unbearably cheesy scenes of CGI, it is comparable to the first film. It strays away from the comic books, which we all know that Raimi has already done since the beginning, but this time he went a little overboard when thinking about plot lines. He places far too many and much too many villains. Overall, I must say that it is the most entertaining film of the trilogy, to just kick back and watch some action, but without the heart of the first two, it unravels. "Spider-Man 3" works very hard to hold it's audience, and it does succeed, but only to fans of the first two. It will not gain any new fans. This film could have the title of "awesome," but there is too much wrong with it. "Spider-Man 3," despite what the critics have to say, it a very fun ride!

KJ Proulx
KJ Proulx

Super Reviewer

Spider-Man 3 Quotes

– Submitted by Jean R (11 months ago)
– Submitted by Wesley W (2 years ago)
– Submitted by Cai C (2 years ago)
– Submitted by Andrew D (2 years ago)

Discussion Forum

Discuss Spider-Man 3 on our Movie forum!