Spider-Man 3 - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Spider-Man 3 Reviews

Page 1 of 10593
Super Reviewer
½ August 25, 2007
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,
garyX
Super Reviewer
½ March 26, 2007
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.
Super Reviewer
½ January 10, 2010
"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!
Super Reviewer
½ May 6, 2007
The next film needs to focus solely on J Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). He is the most entertaining element to Spider-Man 3, a film that is just filled with bland setups, predictable romantic tension, an emo Peter Parker, and the worst possible depiction of Venom - of which they never use this name. It's not just that there's too much going on. It's that none of it is interesting. A huge disappointment.
Samuel Riley
Super Reviewer
½ June 29, 2012
What makes this one seem more disappointing is that there is too many villians that there isn't enough focus compared to Dr Octopus and the Green Goblin. Another complaint about this film was the lack of fights. Personally, I believe that the intensity was focused more between friends, rather than battles to the death. Next time, it would've been better to focus on just the one villian, instead of three at once.
CloudStrife84
Super Reviewer
April 8, 2007
Five years have passed and yet the huge letdown that came with this film, is still felt like a deep stab wound. The first two were so great and then they had to go and ruin it all in such uninspired fashion. Fairly entertaining on the whole, I'll give it that, but the difference in the writing couldn't be more conspicious. So much unnecessary cheese and squandered potential. And as for the ending - annoyingly unoriginal! I so looked forward to seeing Spidey battle it out with his dark nemesis Venom, but due to lack of focus - and sheer common sense - nothing turned out the way we wanted to. Most of all, however, I feel sorry for Sam Raimi, who succumbed under the pressure from powers above. I must admit it was quite enjoyable to see Peter go "evil" though. I just wish they had cut out the corny dance number and cringe-worthy dialogue (along with a ton of other stuff that I'm not even gonna bother to dig into). Because more than anything, this is a scary example of what happens when soulless money-grubbers get too much say in the creative process. We can only pray the same thing doesn't happen to Mark Webb.
Super Reviewer
August 28, 2012
A mesmerizing plot of the battles within, indeed. But Spider-Man 3 lacked the magic from the previous two films. Possibly all in due to its overused allotted time, excessive amount of characters and emotional collapses. But regardless, the film's action and drama still made it somewhat solid. 4/5
Super Reviewer
½ June 30, 2012
"Spider-Man 3" is the sole reason for the franchise getting rebooted. After 2 great movies, this trilogy took a turn for the worse, but cramming so much in one movie is went way off the tracks. "3" picks up a couple years after the second movie, and finds Parker(Maquire) about to propose to Mary Jane(Kirsten Dunst). However Harry(James Franco) has assumed the role of the new Goblin in an effort to avenge his fathers death, and kill Spider Man. While this is going on 2 new villains emerge. Flint Marko(Thomas Hayden Church) becomes the Sandman while he is running from the cops after escaping prison. He wants to help his sick daughter, but keeps getting mixed up in bad situations. It's even revealed that he is the one who murdered Uncle Ben. Then an alien lifeform falls to earth and attaches itself to Spider Man turning him bad, and eventually becoming Venom. On top of all of this, Parker gets involved with Gwen Stacy, and loses Mary Jane in the process. It's literally too much crammed into one movie. When I saw this in the theater, I was like "that was just too much movie". It should have been 2 movies, or just toned way down. The special effects are the best of the series, and the performances are all good, it's just too much. Too much of a good thing can be bad, and it's proof is right here. I wish this trilogy could have had a better ending, but I guess that's what happens when things just don't turn out quite right.
Super Reviewer
½ September 7, 2011
Never liked the Spider-Man series all too much but this movie tops it off. There are some striking and visually stunning action scenes, but the problems drag this movie down.
Super Reviewer
½ January 13, 2012
This film....ugh. Spiderman is still fighting crime in New York and his unmasked persona, Peter Parker is living the good life. He has a hot girlfriend, he's top of his class in school and his best friend wants to kill him...pretty interesting life. The first thing I noticed from the start of the film was how rushed it was. One minute Peter is kissing M.J., the next he's talking to his aunt and then out of nowhere he's fighting Harry Osborn/New Goblin. The beginning seemed really squashed in so there could be time for the 4 other plots this movie has. Another thing is too much happened in this movie. There were so many plots that you couldn't really go into depth about the main storyline of the movie. (Whatever it may be.) The dialogue seemed be dumbed down. The first two movies had really good dialogue but this movie seems like it was written by a 5 year old. The action scenes were pretty cool though. It had good special effects, yet there are some shots where the CGI looks terrible. Sandman is the main villain which I had a problem with because he wasn't all that threatening. He was in the movie, but never did he feel like a worthy adversary of Spiderman. New Goblin is in it and he was actually really neat. He had a cool arsenal of weapons, yet they are limited in terms of screen time. My biggest problem with the film though is Venom. Not that he wasn't cool, he actually was and I liked Topher Grace's portrayal of him, but he didn't show up until the last 20 minutes of the film. He also gets killed off in a really half-ass way. In short the movie is ok, but it's the worst Spiderman movie. It didn't have the heart of the first two and it felt lazily done. I liked what the writers were doing with a darker Spiderman, but it was all ruined when "Dark Peter" started dancing in public....yep, that seriously happens in this movie. You can check the movie out if you want cool action scenes and an interesting plot, but if you want rich storytelling and character development, just watch the first two instead.
Super Reviewer
½ May 29, 2007
Nobody agrees with me, but I think this movie was the best of the three. I really liked Topher Grace as Venom, and since I never really cared for Tobey McGuire as Spider-Man, I really gloried the evil, cackling, hands-rubbingly evil malice Eddie Brock visitied down upon him. I really liked the character design too, but the participation of Sandman just seemed superfluous. I don't really like Thomas Hayden Church, and I found the insertion of his character really artificial and forced. But yes, I quite liked the callousness that the venom symbiont instills in its host, but it really irked me how Peter Parker showed this by turning into some sort of roid-raging, emo jive turkey. What a waste of a supervillainous power. Good thing it got into the right hands soon enough.
Super Reviewer
½ August 10, 2011
O que começou como um gênero composto basicamente de filmes camp nos anos 60 evoluiu em um filão de filmes arrasa quarteirão, onde seus personagens principais são emocionalmente atormentados e cuja profissão traz maiores cicatrizes do que glória. Estamos falando do gênero super-herói, cujas adaptações cinematográficas rendem milhões aos estúdios desde Superman em 1978. É interessante observar a evolução do gênero, pois, transcendendo sua categoria de filme pipoca, cada vez mais os diretores têm criado heróis de personalidade tridimensional, mostrando que pode ser um grande fardo ter superpoderes em um mundo caótico. Em 2002, a Columbia acertou em cheio ao transpor o Homem-Aranha para as telas, e o público imediatamente estabeleceu uma conexão com o fracote Peter Parker que era apaixonado por sua amiga de infância. "Com grandes poderes vêm grandes responsabilidades" já dizia o tio Ben, e em Hollywood isso significa "com grandes bilheterias vêm grandes seqüências".

Em contrapartida aos filmes anteriores, no início de Homem-Aranha 3 tudo está bem na vida de Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire): não só o Homem-Aranha é adorado pelo público de Nova York, o rapaz também conseguiu mediar sua vida como super-herói e como estudante e ainda encontrar tempo para dar atenção à sua namorada Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst). Esta, por sua vez, continua com sua carreira de atriz, fazendo sua estréia em um musical na Broadway. Infelizmente os bons tempos não duram muito: seu antigo amigo Harry Osborn (James Franco) logo aparece na forma do Novo Duende para vingar a morte de seu pai (o Duende Verde do primeiro filme) ao mesmo tempo em que Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), o homem que matou o tio de Peter, foge da polícia e acaba sofrendo um acidente que o transforma no vilão Homem de Areia. Já no Daily Buggle, um novo fotógrafo chamado Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) tenta tomar seu emprego. Além disso, uma estranha substância negra vinda do espaço adere à sua roupa, lhe causando certas mudanças no comportamento.

Com tantos enredos paralelos, é admirável que Homem-Aranha 3 não tenha resultado em uma obra conturbada e turbulenta, o que não signifique que a produção ainda não apresente sua dose de problemas. Na tentativa de manter o filme coeso e amarrado, Sam Raimi e seus roteiristas Ivan Raimi e Alvin Sargent apelam para alguns artifícios que acabam tornando a narrativa mais artificial e menos verossímil. O roteiro utiliza de forma exagerada o formato de causa e conseqüência tão comum na narrativa clássica americana, onde um evento leva a outro e assim subseqüentemente. Deste modo, o espectador é obrigado a crer por três ou quatro vezes durante o filme em uma série de coincidências nas quais os personagens sempre se encontram no lugar errado e na hora errada. Homem-Aranha 3 também introduz muitos elementos novos e tenta amarrá-los com outros já previamente desenvolvidos. O principal caso é a aparição do vilão Flint Marko que, graças a uma descarada manipulação dos roteiristas, se tornou o assassino do tio Ben dando uma perspectiva diferente aos acontecimentos do primeiro filme. O desejo de amarrar todas as pontas (este filme tem mesmo o sabor de encerramento) gera um dos momentos mais duvidosos do filme, onde um mordomo é instituído da função de esclarecer fatos importantes da história.

Assim como Batman: O Retorno e Superman II¸ Homem-Aranha 3 apresenta a maior galeria de vilões da série. Não bastassem Harry e o Homem de Areia, o aracnídeo ainda tem que lidar com seu próprio comportamento agressivo causado pelo simbionte vindo do espaço e que, não será nenhum spoiler revelar, irá se tornar o vilão Venom. A conveniente solução para trabalhar com os três vilões foi se livrar de um deles no início (de certa forma) e deixar para introduzir outro apenas no terceiro ato. Apesar de esta ser uma adaptação dos quadrinhos, um homem feito de areia requer maior suspensão de descrença do que um homem vestido de duende que voa em um planador ou um homem com tentáculos de metal. Os efeitos especiais ajudam a criar um vilão impressionante tecnicamente e Church é um competente ator, mas os motivos para seus atos são um tanto superficiais. Com tantas histórias paralelas, alguns dos personagens ficam um pouco apagados. Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), o novo flerte de Peter, tem pouca função na história a não ser uma pedra no caminho de Mary Jane, enquanto a tia May (a ótima Rosemary Harris) apenas tem a função de oferecer seus conselhos e filosofias ao sobrinho, não tendo o mesmo papel ativo que teve no segundo filme.

Mesmo entre tantas batalhas, externas e internas, é louvável que o filme consiga reservar boa parte de sua duração para explorar a relação entre Peter e Mary Jane. O grande diferencial do filme é que MJ agora conhece a identidade secreta do herói, trazendo à mesa uma série de novas implicações. Em séries como a do Batman e de Superman, um elemento recorrente é o herói tentando esconder da mocinha sua verdadeira identidade em diversas situações. Em Homem-Aranha 3, o fato de Mary Jane estar ciente do alter-ego do companheiro dá nova dimensão à relação do par: além de ter de lidar com duas personalidades diferentes, ela também precisa suportar ver o sucesso de Peter enquanto sua carreira profissional desaba. A oportunidade é propícia para Kirsten Dunst mostrar seu amadurecimento como atriz e apresentar a melhor atuação do filme. As cenas entre os dois proporcionam alguns dos melhores momentos da película, estando livre das convenções narrativas que limitam diversos filmes de super-herói. Outro conflito de personalidades é a tão comentada batalha de Peter com ele mesmo. Sob o efeito do simbionte, ele adota um novo vestuário preto (tanto como Aranha quanto Peter) e um novo penteado que rendem inevitáveis comparações ao movimento emo. Mais agressivo e arrogante, o vemos sair às ruas de Nova York no melhor estilo John Travolta em Os Embalos de Sábado à Noite, em uma cena que atua como o oposto da seqüência "The Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" do segundo filme (ainda que não exatamente com o mesmo efeito). Tobey Maguire parece se divertir interpretando a versão má de seu personagem, podendo fugir um pouco de sua habitual expressão de menino desamparado.

Não podemos esquecer que Homem-Aranha 3 é um dos grandes blockbusters do ano e que seu inflado orçamento de $250 milhões não foi gasto apenas em cenas de desenvolvimento de personagens. Ainda que em aparente menor quantidade devido à maior duração do filme (que acaba sendo algo positivo), as cenas de ação devem agradar aqueles que esperam ir ao cinema vibrar com o aracnídeo em ação. O dinheiro gasto aparece na tela e os efeitos especiais não desapontam - ainda que, como já ficamos tão acostumados (ou poderíamos dizer mimados) com as proezas do computador, cada vez mais se torna difícil ficar realmente impressionado com eles. A maioria das cenas de ação envolve pancadaria em queda livre, algo que acaba se tornando cansativo após a terceira ou quarta vez. O filme também faz uso do gasto artifício do momento deus ex machina, onde um personagem é salvo por outro na última hora. Curiosamente, a cena de ação mais efetiva do filme é um combate mano a mano entre Peter e Harry, cujo auxílio de efeitos especiais é mínimo.

Com Homem-Aranha 2, Sam Raimi criou o que muitos consideram o melhor filme de super-heróis já feito, conferindo uma grande responsabilidade ao terceiro episódio da série. Se Aranha 3 não consegue suprir todas as expectativas, ainda assim é um filme superior a qualquer aventura do X-Men e milhas a frente das bobagens de O Quarteto Fantástico. Com seus problemas narrativos, o filme talvez não se sustente tão bem quando analisado tão detalhadamente, mas o resultado final é outra adição de valor à saga do aracnídeo. Enquanto seus produtores não esquecerem que não foi a ênfase em efeitos especiais e sim o carisma do personagem e sua proximidade com o público que renderam tamanho sucesso à série, sempre será bom ter o velho amigo da vizinhança por perto.
Super Reviewer
½ October 2, 2011
This film lacked substance and the ratings show it. It had some cool action scenes and Venom was awesome, but overall it lacked an identity that the previous two had.
TheGame90
Super Reviewer
December 20, 2007
Seen it twice...and it's great. but it's still lacking the extra touch that makes 1&2 the awesomeness that they are.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
½ August 26, 2011
Spiderman 3 is quite possible the worst of the three films (if you can believe that) the first was decent, the second mediocre, and third is simply awful. This third entry is a silly, pointless third film, and it doesn't deliver anything really entertaining. Sam Raimi's credibility as a good director, I believe is tarnished by the Spiderman films. As they never were that good to begin with. This third film has an awful story with pretty poor acting. This film scraps the bottom of the barrel, and it feels like they were struggling with finding a good idea for a film. What they come up with here is laughable, and the film doesn't work whatsoever. This is yet another example of an awful sequel, and it's really a shame, because this trilogy could have been something great. Instead, the Spiderman films are a joke. This third entry is the worst of three films, and feels like they were struggling with the material that they had come with for this film. The concept behind this film is terrible and I question as to how Sam Raimi, once a promising talent after making The Evil Dead, has fallen like this. I guess these films aren't meant to be anything special, because in the end, they're forgettable, but above all this one is laughable. The action scenes were sloppy, and way too over the top for me. A ruined series that had the potential to be something terrific. If you've seen the first two films, avoid this poorly crafted third entry.
murphmann93
Super Reviewer
June 24, 2011
I loved all of these Spider Man's.
Super Reviewer
½ January 22, 2011
Underrated much? Spider-Man 3 features great action, great acting, and really fun sequences. It may be a little long but it feels so short if you're into superhero movies.
blkbomb
Super Reviewer
May 8, 2011
"Whatever comes our way, whatever battle we have raging inside us, we always have a choice. My friend Harry taught me that. He chose to be the best of himself. It's the choices that make us who we are, and we can always choose to do what's right." I'd be lying if I said I wasnt a little disappointed, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and say I absolutely hate it. I hated aspects, such as Topher Grace. I like That 70's Show but that is all he ever will be. He's a sit-com actor and that's where he should stay. I also hated the 25 minute portion of the movie where Peter Parker was walking around like he was the shit. I almost felt nauseous during that part. Overall though, I enjoyed the movie. It was as fun as the first two, but just not as well made. Sam Raimi does deserve praise for his 3 Spider-Man films. He's a great director and I always look forward to his next film.
jamers2011
Super Reviewer
½ August 3, 2010
So so so disappointing. This was okay, but could have been so much better. It really had the potential to be among the best films ever, but it falls so short. This film just tries to do too much.

It really is sad how disappointing this films turned out to be.
DreamExtractor
Super Reviewer
February 27, 2011
Worst in the series, Spider man 2 was way better. Story sucked beyond all recognition. The effects were probably the best in the series. It was obvious all they were carring about was money, and it really showed when they made one of the worst threequels ever here.
Page 1 of 10593