Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Quite disappointing. I consider Spidey 2 one of the best genre films made, and it towers over most superhero films. Spidey 3 is a major step down.

It's a drama, first and foremost. And while it succeeds at the second most critical aspect of a drama (acting), it falls short at a script level.

It's not terrible, but it's juggling far too many balls, and never makes any of them particularly interesting. There is a fantastic segment in the middle (the dark side of Spidey), but not much around it is really honed or tight.

The good: the acting is a major step-up for the leads. In the end, it sort of works, in spite of itself. They really do save the film.

The bad:
Very little Sandman. After Molina's incredible Doc Ock, the villains seemed very pedestrian. One scene with his daughter does not a rounded character make. I understand (though disagree with) tying Marko to the death of Uncle Ben. It's the major theme of the film.

Some real quirky oddball moments that seem out of tune with the tone set by the rest of the films. Maybe I am missing the mark here, but some of it seemed screwball (or cheeseball) in a very bad way. It contrasted rather strongly with the soap opera elements of the script.

The effects with the black suit weren't great (Venom or Spidey) either. Some of the action was good...some of it was rather poor.

I'll be seeing this again with the wife, and I hope to like it better the second time. It's not terrible. It's just...there.

I could nickel and dime it, but it's late. Again, the acting was quite good. Better than the previous two films. That's something.

And lastly, f*** teenagers.

6/10,
Chuck

I think "Disappointing" will be the operative word used when reviewing Spider-Man 3. There are some awful emo-Parker scenes that just made me cringe, but some of the Darker Parker scenes almost made up for it in the mid-section of the film. The villains and their motivations are threadbare and just uninteresting and made for a very uninvolving last act.

The fight scenes looked clunky and just didn't quite strike the right balance of amazing action sequences and the "cool" factor. It got downright repetitive and vertigo-inducing far too much.

There are comic relief scenes that just utterly stop the film dead in its tracks to its detriment. Raimi took a step backwards with this installment of the Spider-Man franchise. It almost had the feel of a cash-grab, with very little to say, or what was said was so clumsily executed and drab.

I give it 2.5 stars or a grade of C+, which is being charitable.

I don't think I have heard as many groans as I heard while watching Spider-Man 3 since I saw Batman & Robin in the theater.

I have to say though that I did love Bruce Campbell's part.

Three in a row, with disappointing reviews already, should be interesting this time tomorrow here and on other sites.

The Theory of Relativity just ain't for physics. I love "Spider-Man 2" and hold it up there with "Superman: the Movie" and "Batman Begins" as the great comic book adaptations. Yes, this film is disappointing. However, since it comes off such a great predecessor, that relatively speaking, this third film is a horrific, overblown mess.

The operative phrase for this film is simply; too much. So much needed to be cut from this film. Sandman wasn't interesting, had a laughable origin, and a "humanizing" backstory that went nowhere. He didn't need to be in this film.

Gwen Stacy isn't the character from the comics. in fact, she has very little character in this film. She should have been cut. The plot needs a romantic foil for MJ, but Raimi should have gone with the obvious choice of using Betty Brant, who does have romantic history with Peter in the comics, rather than introduce a new character whom he gives no time to develop at all.

The conflict between MJ and Peter should have been handled with more nuance and subtlety than it is. If Raimi had concentrated on developing two strong scenes to show distress in their relationship they would have added up to be more than the half dozen or so painful scenes he has, and this subplot would have been successful.

There's too many attempts at humor that ultimately doesn't work. I don't know if Raimi realized he wasn't making a comedy or not to tell you the truth. There's a sequence that's meant to show Peter being affected by the symbiote, which should show a dark side, but instead shows a penchant for Travolta inspired silliness. As if that scene wasn't bad enough, he tops it with an incredibly amateurish scene in a jazz club which ends the Gwen Stacy storyline, but doesn't resolve it. That storyline, in actuality, never gets resolved. That's just messy storytelling.

The two elements that could have worked are the Venom and Harry Osborn storylines. If they had been given more time to breathe, the film might have been saved. The deletion of Gwen Stacy and Sandman would have gone a long way in accomplishing that goal. Conceptually and thematically, they were the stories that fit best with the overall film whereas the other two stories were just shoehorned in there.

But, just because they worked conceptually, doesn't mean they worked in practice. The Venom aspect was halfway there. Raimi almost understands him, but misses some of the key points. The symbiote is almost a character unto itself, and it has a relationship with Brock in the comics, but not here. He never refers to himself as 'we.' It's not developed that the symbiote hates Parker for casting him off as much as Brock does for showing him up. Some more screen time might have brought this out.

Harry, on the other hand, starts off strong, but then they take such an enormous left turn twenty minutes in that it derails the character. After a bad bump on the head Harry gets what is reported to be short term memory loss, but it practically turns him into an idiot savant. He doesn't revert back to the character he was before his memory is missing, a character we've seen. Instead, he grins ear to ear like a moron and even remarks at how amazed he is that he's wealthy. When Peter produces an old basketball they used to play with, I swear I thought Harry was going to start screaming, "Franks and Beans!"

When Harry does get back on track, his "evil plot" is so bad, it doesn't make a lot of sense. But, the worst is the "couldn't you have told me that two movies ago" moment from his butler. It's such an inane way to turn the plot, I coudln't believe this was the same filmmakers behind "Spider-Man 2."

Oh, and enough with the damn upside down kiss, already. It was neat in the first film, but it doesn't warrant continual throwbacks in every Spider-Man movie from here until the end of time.

Taken on its own, the movie might not be that bad. But, since relativity is everything, and part 2 was so strong, I hated this film. A deep, Roger Ebert hated, hated, hated this film. It's so bad, and I wanted to like it so much, it almost makes me want to cry.

Almost.

Chad's review pretty much sums up what I felt about the film. Incredibly bad storytelling, and after Spiderman 2 this just makes it worse.

Scenes just seemed thrown in for the sake of it. Both Stan Lee's cameo and the editor's scene at the end buying a camera feel like they are from the deleted scenes section of a DVD.

Why did the butler not tell Harry about his father 2 films ago ?
Why prompts the Sandman just to give up ? Better yet why does he bother trying to fight Spiderman at the end in the first place - wasn't he supposed to be getting some money to his daughter ?
Who on earth thought giving Harry amnesia was a good idea ?

And the news reporting scenes at the end were awful. The actress who played the female reporter was dire.

At least the cast tried their best with what they had - it seems to me that Maguire's instinct for getting out of the franchise now is dead on. It's a shame as I think he fits the part very well but if this is the kind of film that we are expecting for 4, he would do well to go with his gut feeling.

I thought some of the action sequences were well done but couldn't compare to those in the second as I cared very little about what was happening. Most of the emotional investment I had in the characters was from the second film and slowly decreased as the film dragged on. At the end of 2 I was quite interesting in where they would go with Harry's character. By the end of 3 I didn't really care about what happened to him.

Looks like the Spiderman franchise is echoing the Batman franchise to me. Flawed but reasonable first installment, much improved second, followed by overblown third. Doesnt look good for Spiderman 4.

:star:1/2 out of :star::star::star::star::star:

well just got back from imax in King of Prussia.

i'm still taking in the film.
not sure what i tink about it yet.

i do lnow it could have been great, if for a few cuts.
mostly the dark Parker jazz dance scene needed to be removed and destroyed.
hopefully when a re-editted cut comes out on Blu-Ray in couple years this will be removed.

more later.

I kept wondering what in the world was going on with three musical numbers in this movie.

My movie companions were wondering the same thing, was this actually a Spiderman movie?

Flawed was an understatement for this installment.

Some of the fight scenes were disorientating like the Star Wars Episode 3 scenes were. Too fast to keep up with the action and process it. When you can't process what is going on on the screen then it is difficult to be emotionally involved in the struggle.

I liked the creation of the Sandman scenes and thought they had a heartbreaking beauty to them. The main attraction for me though was the Venom storyline and to me it just fell flat and felt uninspired.

This movie was far weaker than The Hulk to me.

Well, i'm not as critical as most here because I liked the film quite a bit and IMO it's a good place to stop with this franchise...we're good here.

The symbiote, in it's free form, sort of reminded me of a mad scientists creation by taking DNA from an insect and crossing it with the DNA from a wacky wall walker lol. I guess I liked this film and didn't pick up on most of the complaints expressed here because i'm first and foremost a Superman fan with Spidey swinging in at second place.

I just sat back and enjoyed the ride and it was a lot of fun.

Oh man.. this doesn't look good.. I was so hoping for this one.. especially with the venom setup. I think I will wait a week to see it. Maybe by then the crowds will have thinned out.

Well we saw it at Midnight showing...full house on screens.

All I can say (and my buddy who went with me) is...

WHAT A GIANT BIG 'OL BAG-O-SUCK!!

Man this was just a terrible sequel...way too chatty, full of cheesy dialogue, cliched dialogue, terrible villians, minimal action..the list goes on.

We were amazed at how aweful this thing was....this will defenitely NOT be a DVD purchase or rental.

The crowd was full of comic book type geeks for the most part...many were totally into it..some laughed at the over the top cheesy parts....

We couldn't get out of ther fast enoguh that's for sure.

I'd give this a 3 out of 10.

I'd say this one ruined the Spiderman series the way Superman III ruined that series...



Note: It will no doubt make MILLIONS, but it won't get a repeat viewing from us.

First, before I begin, I want to preface my likes/dislikes of the comic book Genre. I loved all of the X-Men films, and I found X3 to be busy, but interesting. I enjoyed Batman Begins, and I still believe Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (Animated) may be the perfect comic book genre film.

That having been said, I loved Spiderman 1 & 2. I find both of them to be great entertainment and Tobey is good in both.

He shines again in this film, as he really captures the role. He just exemplifies what I expect Peter Parker to be.

That having been said, this film suffers greatly because the story lacks any real through line of action. There is no moving force that drives the film, instead we seemingly go from event to event, and some of them are good, some bad, but they don't weave together in such a way that there is any real logical progression for why one thing happens in any real order.

In that sense, the film is truly a mess - because it lacks any real driving force, the "final battle" is a major letdown in comparison to earlier special effect laden sequences because there isn't any real momentum built to propel it.

This is a film that has moments of greatness.. and solid acting on the part of Tobey. But some moments are so bad as to make it hard to forgive. The film would be much better, far tighter, and have momentum if it were about 20 minutes shorter and some characters rethought. The film betrays a big portion of Spiderman (1) with some of the character invention, which I find to be a MAJOR flaw.

:star: 1/2 / :star: :star: :star: :star:

I don't know what to say about spider-man 3.
i thought it could have been a great film but there was too many mis-steps
for that to be possible.

The origin of the alien symbiote.
They blew that one big time.

It was strange or maybe it was on purpose for Raimi to literally throw the symbiote into the movie.
The alien falls from the, sky, thus being thrown into the film.
The comic origin was not something that would have been possible to add to this movie.
The saturday morning cartoon had a very good beginning for the alien and venom.

This would have worked in the movie.
It came down on a space mission in a rock that was picked up from the moon
by John Jameson.
Jameson was already intro'd in SM2 as an astronaut and the Bugle's J.J.J.'s son.
Would have been perfect.



He possibly did not want venom in the movie and was planning another character.
Avi Arad who had been running the movie division of Marvel wanted venom in the film.
But i guess Raimi didn't want the thing in the movie to begin with
so he just tossed it in, literally.

Gwen Stacy was another thing that seemed to be added and it was totally out of place and not needed in the movie.
She was a generic female character and could have been anyone.

Peter had more chemistry with Betty Brant in the scene were he tells her he would love to shoot her picture anytime, then he did with Stacy.

Actually he had better chemistry with the woman at the door of the jazz club too.

Peter parker doing the odd dance number in the jazz club as “emo” parker was
just awful and didn't work.
There must have been a better way to show peter acting out of character
then this awful scene.
And he hits Mary Jane??
no not happening, totally over the top.



The end of the crane rescue.
What happened to the crane?
Peter was so busy talking about the rescue that nothing was done with the crane still being out of control.
Then he just left.

The score was underwhelming.
I didn't like it.
It didn't have any power to it.
It didn't create any excitement for the action scenes and it didnt create any
feeling. It was too blah.
Elfman was seriously needed.

The Harry amnesia was ridiculous.
It didn't bother me as much as some reviewers but it was bit silly.

I think it could have been great because the movie was dark,
very dark and was done well.
Unfortunately it didn't have enough of the black costume to have impact.
I really dislike the venom character in the books.
But here it was terrific.
There should have been more.
Venom was a frightening figure.

It should have been fleshed out much more.
We should have seen that the symbiote was a great match with Brock because they both hate spider-man.
Brock for obvious reasons and symbiote, due to being rejected by Parker.

There should have been more on why Venom is able to sneak up on Parker without setting off his spider sense.
Again i thought venom was a scary figure.
He could do anything and appear anytime without knowing he is there.
His sound and size when trapped in the pipes was impressive.

Raimi, for not liking the character did a great job putting him on film.
I wanted more, Venom easily could have carried the movie as a main villain.

What was great about the film was the way Venom was presented.
The origin of the Sandman was spectacular and will be a home theater demo when it comes to dvd.


The killing of uncle Ben by Sandman turned out to be fine and not really what might have been expected


I was also(surprisingly) satisfied with the New Goblin.
The board glider worked well and Harry as the New Goblin was done right too.
The battle with Peter Parker and then later with black spider-man was actually some deep stuff.
Especially the second battle that resulted in the scarring of Harry.

The team-up was just great stuff.
When Peter went to Harry to ask for help, i just thought that Tobey did an excellent job there.
The team-up battle was classic comic book stuff with the back and forth banter between the two.
I loved it.

A couple of funny scenes, one during a fight, the first time with sandman.
Spider-man doesn't know he is Sandman yet and says something funny right when he finds out.
Another after his fight with Sandman when Peter says “were do these guys come from.”
good stuff.

The look of Sandman couldn't have been any better, was perfect.
The powers were excellent with the hands becoming large hammers and other objects.

The more i think about it the more i like it and look forward to the next viewing.

I just need to go to the bathroom when dark Parker starts dancing.

One little thing i noticed that was different then the trailers was the yell of the over sized
Sandman during the armored car robbery was much different.
Was more like a grunt then a loud yell.

Anyway it isn't as bad as the Hulk.
It isn't anywhere near as bad as Superman 3.

I'd give it 3 out of 5

Enjoyable in parts, but there was way, way too much crammed in.

Why have our adventure films gone so over the top? We've reached a level of bloat, length and ridiculousness never seen before.

I have hope that Spielberg & his new Indiana Jones film next year will employ actual stuntmen instead of computers. (Will today's kids be able to sit still long enough to watch a stunt?)

And I have hope that The Dark Knight will have a unique plot, and hopefully only 1 villain and storyline.

My thoughts exactly. I know that the studio (and probably Sam Raimi too, but mostly the studio I imagine) felt that they had to try to top Spider-Man 2 by making everything bigger and flashier and more action packed. However they did so at the expense of telling a good story. They tried to crank up the drama too though ... Just look at how much crying there is in Spider-Man 3. But the drama just didn't have the same potency this time around.

However, you've gotta do what you can to get asses in seats. That seems to mean nonstop action, more characters than necessary and insane numbers of special effects. So much so that I was fatigued by the end. In spite of my criticisms though, I still liked the movie.

I liked it more than I thought I would, and I attribute that mostly to Tobey Maguire, who's still very good in the role.

It's easily the weakest of the three movies and it's for the reason everyone keeps saying: There are too many characters and too many storylines, and as a result, none of them get the development they need.

Too much silliness too: the dark side of Peter, strutting down the street to music that only he must be able to hear, the dance routine in the jazz club -- all too cheesy. Those scenes alone violated my rule of sequels, which is that they must not dissolve into parody or try to make the audience laugh at the characters' expense.

Sandman was a good character and given more time, his story could have carried the movie. However, I dislike the revisionist origin of Spiderman, placing Sandman at the scene and as responsible for the murder of his uncle. Peter Parker became Spiderman because he thought that if he had just stopped that thief, his uncle would have been okay, but now we see that that wasn't the case. Bad, bad, bad idea to revise the hero's origin and in the process mess with his reason for being a hero.

Venom I liked far more than I thought I would. I'm not a Venom fan and would have prefered not to see him in this movie. That said, the character was handled well (although how the alien got to earth in the first place was really weak). Topher Grace was very good in the role(s), which is sort of too bad because if Maguire ever left the part, Grace would be perfect.

Mary Jane was given the weakest part of all. First of all, the character of MJ is not one who whines about things that go wrong. She's a positive character. It strains credibility that she wouldn't tell Peter, her lover and best friend, that she was fired or had to take another job. Her character only served Peter's story and didn't have much of her own, which is a thankless role. Great character and Kirsten Dunst has played her well before, so they both deserved better.

Gwen Stacy came off better than I anticipated. Hardly a blonde bimbo (which is what I expected), she is closer to the comic-book Gwen than I thought we'd get. Ultimately, an under-used character. Of course, by not introducing her in the first movie and having her be Peter's first love interest, they can't really use her as such now. Anything or anyone coming between Peter and MJ at this point would get a hostile reaction from the audience. Because of that, Gwen will remain an unsatisfying character.

Capt. George Stacy was completely under-utilized. Shame; when you have James Cromwell, you should use him!

Harry Osborn had a lot to do, and he was pretty good. I hated the skateboarding outfit and transport he used. Seemed like they were trying to sell stuff to 11-year old boys who like skateboards. Wasn't really expecting him to aid Spiderman at the end.

Once again, not enough of J. Jonah Jameson and Aunt May. (Although the bit with Betty Brant "shocking" Jameson's desk was too much; come on!)

Peter had a lot to do in the movie and Maguire was up to the task, for the most part. A lot of the "dark side" stuff was very silly and didn't belong. Still, the movie was better than I thought it would be (much better than the third installments of Batman, Superman or X-Men), but here's hoping the creative folks go back and take a look at what made Spiderman 2 such a great film and try to emulate (not copy!) that for the next one. I'd like to see Raimi, Maguire and Dunst continue.

you must have seen a differnet movie, I loved it.. I was surprise by the underline theme of redemption and forgiveness. I thought that all of the plots worked fine.. both spidey 1 and 2 were more peter parker then spidey. its the same here.. I liked spidey 2.. but I didn't think it was the best superhero movie.. I did like spidey 2.1 better myself.

I thought it was great finish with all of the threads from the first two films.. like ROTK and ROTS.

Jacob

Overall, I had a very good time at the movie. This was partially due to the quality portions of the movie, partially due to quiet running commentary on the weak stuff and partially due to a full house audience getting into it.

The movie is the weakest of the trilogy, for sure. It has "written by committee" all over it. You have things that the story demands in order to fit into the previous movies (MJ and Pete's relationship, Harry's need for revenge, etc.), you have a marketing bent (more villains!), you have a "need to please the Spidey history nuts (Gwen Stacy! Black Suit!) and the fact that you have an exhausted cast that just seems a bit less interested in doing these movies (to me, anyway).

Things that worked for me:
-The action scenes. These were the best in the series, bar none. In fact, the opening duel with Goblin Jr. was the best sequence of the movie. It showed a maturing wallcrawler who is comfortable with his abilities and able to think on the fly. Great use of scenery.
-Harry Jr. For all of the dislike for the amnesia story bit, this is actually a staple of the comic book AND movie genre. His REGARDING HENRY-esque performance actually was nicely done and his was one of the few arcs to work well throughout the movie. To me, it was clear that THIS was what Raimi probably wanted for a third movie.
-Venom, the bad guy, not the suit. He was suitably (pun! w00t!) scary at the end, as it should be. The "Black suit era" of Spidey is honestly the least interesting bit but what are you going to do.
-Bruce...freaking...Campbell. He has had juicy cameos in all the movies but this was the best.
-J. Johah Jameson's first scene. Funny stuff.
-Ursula and her dad. I love her crush on Peter. She is cute as can be.
-Initially, the "bad guy walk" of Dark Peter Parker. This paralleled nicely with the second movie's Powerless Petey's Walk ("Raindrops..." song, etc.)...but then...

The Weak stuff:
-The SON OF THE MASK dance sequence didn't work. I knew where they were going with it but it was a bit too absurd and didn't fit in with the rest of the film.
-Not enough JJJ
-Mopey MJ. MJ has been the weakest written character in the film. She is a pretty girl but has horrible self-esteem issues, daddy issues and more angst than you can throw a stick at. The MJ I remember from the comic was a vibrant, outgoing, and successful young lady that everyone wanted to know. Give me Gwen Stacy any day.
-Not enough Gwen and, let's face it, no reason for Gwen. In the comics, she represents the next biggest "failure" for Spidey outside of his Uncle's death. This had none of her original character intent so why bother. I agree...let an already existing girl fit the bill (like Ursula or the secretary at the newspaper...whatshername) and be the competition/foil.
-Harry's butler waited until NOW to tell him the truth??? Calling Captain Plot Device. Weak.
-Sandman/Venom Team-Up. Sure, it needed to happen but man, can it be less interesting a reason? "I hate Spider Man, too!" Raarh!
-Sympathetic Sandman- This I don't mind, as a rule, as that has been the name of the game with the baddies in the series...they are all tortured souls who make bad decisions. But this was underdeveloped and uninteresting. Just give me a guy who wants money because he can get it and I am fine. Let Harry be the sympathetic baddie, since time is of the essense.
-Stay Puft Marshmallow Sandman. Lame.
-Worst...extras...ever. Clearly, Sam wanted "real" people to fill in the crowd scenes but man...it takes you out of the pic when the extras are so bad. To me, anyway.
-Did anyone already mention the Dance? Again?

It wasn't a bad movie. Far from it. I think it is mostly the let-down feeling that I had after really enjoying the second one. Taken as popcorn fun movie, there are enough scenes that really rip. With a bit more time to gel in the editting room and even more time at the writing table, I think this could have been hit out of the park. But it was as others have said, too many ideas in too short of time to really care about any of them.

I think the franchise is ready for some new blood and a more streamlined approach. Back to basics, as it were. Shouldn't Dr. Connor be getting more upset over his lack of an arm??? ;-)

Whoever compared SPIDER-MAN 3 to RETURN OF THE JEDI was correct. What we have here is a pretty to very good film, but with some huge flaws. There is too much going on, the jazz club sequence was out of place, and Venom seemed perfunctory. Having said that, I felt that the heart of the film was the relationship with Peter and Harry, and this was handled well. I also felt that the Sandman was a good addition to the Spidey rogues gallery. The standout performance came from James Franco, who did an excellent job at portraying the good and bad sides of his character. The action sequences were top drawer.

It's not up to the second film, which remains one of the better comic book adaptations, but I definitely liked it as much(or more) than Spidey 1. Flawed, but still good.


:star::star::star: out of :star::star::star::star:

It's films like this that make me think it can't be THAT hard to get a screenplay picked up out in Hollywood.

I could have penned that crap script on the plane flight out to LA to pitch the story - some of the laziest writing I have ever seen.

Thomas Haden Church was vastly underutilized - his "villian out of need to be do something good" was something which would have been new to the story, instead, he's a subplot, which there are far too many of.

It seriously has worse writing then the majority of soap operas on TV today.

1/10
(and only because Church gives a good, but unfortunately brief performance.)

Lazy, Lazy filmmaking - that was the first thought I had when watching the film. It seems like such a rush job that everyone was trying to cash in on that they may have ended up stumbling hard with the franchise in the future.

I'll stick with Spider-man 1 as the best in the series, 2 a notable dropoff but still enjoyable, and this bordering on torture.