Spider-Man 3 (2007) - Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

Hohum Score



A strange black entity from another world bonds with Peter Parker and causes inner turmoil as he contends with new villains, temptations, and revenge.

IMDB: 6.2
Director: Sam Raimi
Stars: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst
Length: 139 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 243 out of 1024 found boring (23.73%)

One-line Reviews (801)

It is contrived, ridiculous, annoying, cringe-worthy and to be honest I nearly walked out about half way through.

By the time the original Batman series got to part IV, there were so many villains, so many characters, so many subplots, it was so bogged down, it was unwatchable.

We have Sandman who has a boring backstory and his motivation lacks depth.

The first "Spider-Man," was enjoyable.

But as a fan first rather than a critic, i still enjoyed it.

I really enjoyed it, and for those of us who did, it keeps going or completes the story of Spiderman.

The film labors through a series of shallow subplots that converge only artificially through a series of ho-hum coincidences, such as the physical proximity of the characters.

I found myself laughing at the humor more and finding the action much more exciting.

It blended wonderful, enjoyable silliness, adult issues, and rousing action and effects.

this is unwatchable....

Church gives a touching performance with a contrived character.

The sequel to the then most successful box office smash of all time brought an exciting prospect for all Spidey fans in two of the most recognized and established villains from the comic book series: Sandman and Venom.

With Spider-Man 2, Sam Raimi basically set the benchmark by which all superhero blockbusters are judged, exciting, funny, action packed, spectacular, with characters that you care about and a great villain, it is virtually everything you could want from this kind of movie.

The main villain in my opinion was the sandman which i thought was the most boring character.

This may be due to Spiderman 3's bigger budget, but it still is a nice thing to see in an overall boring movie.

Of course, it wasn't that bad, but painfully slow endings will destroy even the best movie experiences.

Either way you see it, theater or at your own home, it's a thrilling movie experience.

The action is engaging and cool.

The point overall is that "Spider-Man 3" is rather entertaining and really worth the buying.

If you like fast paced fantasy action superhero web slinging sand blasted sky surfing love stories then Spider-Man 3 will be right up your street.

It would practically been a waste of time, like introducing a new, useless character just to please shallow audiences.

All the special effects are just mind blowing, some of the best I have ever seen.

I will say nothing of the events itself, only that I felt that the final minutes of the movie were contrived and telling of both the director's and Maguire's stated interest in, and favoritism toward, the "Sandman" character (compared to the apparent dislike of Venom, Carnage, and other such brutal villains).

The twists and turns and plots jumps can seem to be confusing...

The further pace was pretty boring as well, even considering a number of action scenes.

The action scenes are so fast paced that it is sometimes hard to keep track of everything that is happening.

I enjoyed it .

Gwen Stacey's role was rather pointless and limited, acting just as a damsel in distress.

It is sloppily written, painfully embarrassing and unbelievably boring (even the action scenes..wow, spider-man swings through some more streets, how utterly riveting).

Church gave the best performance and had the most interesting character, even if his stand-issue-melodrama sick child was just as contrived as Greeney's amnesia.

I was very bored.

But that would just become monstrous and pointless.

You see, normally if a movie has anywhere near as many intersecting plots and ideas as there were in this film, I seem to tune out, as it gets way to confusing.

This most boring Marvel picture was a disappointment to me and everyone around me.

It's not the best comic-book movie ever made,it;s not the best action movies ever made either,it;s just one of the most entertaining film ever made.

Bad But So Entertaining .

This may have been the worst movie I have ever seen.

The film tirelessly juggles five stern subplots, while seemingly trying to incorporate more, to the point of cinematic confusion.

Save your money, buy the DVD if you must, and fast forward through the boring filler.

Tobey Maguire does a great job once again Thomas Haden-Church bulks up with good acting and the unexpected great performance by that "blonde pretty boy" who was better than expected and he's also great in Predators.

Entertaining, action-packed movie with few flaws .

Spider-Man 2 brought around the unfortunate villain Dr Octopus and with that one of the most stunning graphically enhanced action sequences ever seen in a comic book adaptation: the train sequence.

Maybe that's a good thing since films will be forced to return to what made good cinema in the days before flashy graphics: a decent plot and engaging script.

Simply the worst movie of the season.

Its Pretty obvious that Mary Jane will gt trapped by the bad guys and saved by Spider Man Kirstin Dunst was good in 1 and 2 but she was quite boring and dull in this movie.

Thrilling, exciting, Spidey fun, oh...

Which is very confusing for the audience, especially if they're not familiar with Spider-Man, so to make it better, throw all the unnecessary chunks of the movie out and shorten it a little and try to have it with no more than 10 characters.

It has a very very good script and it kept you on the edge of your seat.

Were the first two Spidey films more enjoyable movies?

Here we see so many different plot elements, many lifted from the older spider man movies, that it gets a little bit boring after a while.

In this film, he was portrayed as totally pointless, and one of the lamest screen villains ever.

A popular character, two reasonably entertaining and well judged films and the kind of brand recognition that would make Coke envious, all fed into the pre-summer hype and when there's that much anticipation amongst the young and the socially stunted these things have a habit of becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The overall story of the film was also enjoyable.

I daresay that Spiderman cried much more than all the women put together in the movie and at the end his sobbing became so intense that my cousins started laughing.

So, Spider-Man 3 has its problems, but it's still enjoyable.

The action scenes are brilliant, the fights are intense and the mid-air acrobatics appropriately stunning and the CGI is probably the best it has ever been in the series.

OK so the action scenes were entertaining and the special effects and stunts pretty impressive but whats with the complete lack of plot as a basis for the context and the development of the action.

However, for mature people who had their fair share of movies, you will recognise all the typical cliché Hollywood shots of reunited friends and lost loves.

Oh, and then because he accidentally smacked MJ (that was actually a moment that I applauded at because she was unbearable throughout the whole movie- who would date her at all???????

I think the movie should have been a bit longer because I agree a few characters could have used more airtime but loved it for what it was and just found it very entertaining and fun to watch.

"I'm Bored!


His relationship with Mary Jane is also very tedious and has always slowed the films down way too much for me.

So the movie starts out pretty slow.

SM 3 is just as explosive and fantastically entertaining as we had hoped for, everyone is back for another bunch of emotional labyrinths and mind-blowing excitement.

THis is the worst movie i have seen since Crossroad!

Basically what is supposed to be an action movie is just pure boring banter for the first twenty minutes.

Clearly, however, the writers felt something else was needed, so they invented a highly contrived plot thread in which Peter (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane's (Kirsten Dunst) relationship disintegrates.

This is shown with the way the movie handles it's handful of villains, instead of having Spider-Man battle them all at once, they become incapacitated for brief periods of time, (The cliché of amnesia is used for Harry Osborne a.

However, it was still action packed and all around fantastic.

The film is too disjointed.

The plot itself is complex but very coherent and engaging.

Sam Raimi takes what is given him and delivers a film that is neither bad nor good, but enjoyable.

The look of the whole film is mind blowing, with splendid special effects, brilliantly choreographed fight sequences and spectacular set pieces.

a waste of time and money .

The second movie went that stage further: more action; more humour; a fantastically portrayed Doc Ock (who's excellent CGI made for some breathtaking action sequences) and a more engaging plot.

Here however they're much more obvious but a little rushed in and not fully developed, but like I said for the audience it targets, its a great movie, and for us who are past or a little past our teen years, I would still say a great enjoyable movie for any occasion.

Spidey 3 is a complete waste of time and money.

The only saving grace of the movie, though, are its breathtaking action sequences - apart from the final confrontation, that is, which lacks any excitement whatsoever and comes off as a pale rehash of the first two.

From her hypocritical behavior over the Spidey/Gwen publicity kiss, to giving into Harry's empty threat to break Peter's heart, to her constant whining about her fading career.

Cranky newspaper editor Johna Jameson livens things up with some very funny scenes but other than that Spider-Man 3 just felt lifeless & bland.

Sandman is by far the most entertaining and coolest villain in the film you can tell Sam Raimi loved this character and wanted to bring him in to the franchise in a big way and trust me the confrontations between Sandman and spiderman are just the impact Sandman needed to forever cement himself as a classic character in the Spidey film franchise.

Then too, the scenes with ROSEMARY HARRIS, a warm and engaging actress, add to the almost soap opera flavor of the script in dealing with Spidey's human side.

Instead we just have boring stuff about Peter and MJ dancing...

The special fx were the most realistic and stunning 4.

In my opinion I think what dragged this movie down a little bit was that Sam Raimi tried to put to much into one movie, which leaves you questioning parts about the movie.

Indeed, Spider-Man 3, even while it doesn't quite match the train sequence in Spider-Man 2, does deliver on some explosively entertaining action sequences.

The humor kept the movie from being really boring.

I was so excited to see this black spidey flick and must say i enjoyed it and now it has been in my fav spidey movies list.

Definitely has some entertainment value, but overall, a bit of a bland third installment .

All in all I ended up bored.

Spiderman 3 is watchable , but no way as enjoyable,exciting or as heartfelt as its predecessors.

By the end, I was thoroughly bored with Spiderman, and rather wanted him to jump off a building.

Spiderman 2 was the only acceptable movie of the trilogy, it had a lot of JJJ, least of Tobey playing his dumb scenes of Peter Parker (instead of just being a shy, rational guy), and a good villain (in fact villains were the overall positive things of the trilogy), Spider2 just lacked on action, it just should have had more, it made the movie a little boring.

Peter Parker and Mary Jane are OK characters, but hollow and predictable, even if their acting is top notch.

It is so boring and there's way too much time spent on it.


This was the climax to the intriguing story arc of a man wrestling with his soul and his conscience on discovering that has father's murderer, so he thought, had turned out to be his best friend.

This movie stands on its own and is a darker, more complex, funnier and more action packed than the previous ones.

I want you to kill Peter Parker " This film is an action packed superhero flick which delivers what any superhero film requires to deliver.

I thought it was by far the most entertaining and did not fade on you once.

What a waste of money, I wish I had a receipt so I could get my money back for "faulty goods", please please please take heed before viewing this appalling piece of cinematic detritus.

Maybe it's the dreary-as-a-cubicle Amazing Spider-Man movies that have made me appreciate Raimi's gonzo energy, or maybe I've just come to terms with the fact that Spider-Man 3 is not the comprehensively perfect comic book adaptation its predecessors were.

What I found more compelling about this film was the fact that the characters weren't so basically aligned towards either Good or Bad - black hats and white hats.

The movie is so unbelievably difficult to follow, that I'd probably have to rent it to figure out all the story lines.

But all in all, it's still a very entertaining movie although there are some dull moments here and there.

The third & final instalment in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy, Spider-Man 3 is an absolute trash that gets every single thing wrong from start to finish and it's difficult to believe that it is from the very filmmaker who brought this Marvel Comics character on the film screen in a truly fascinating manner and then went on to raise the bar for superhero flicks with an even more superior sequel.

However, despite all of its faults, SM3 is still a thrilling and intelligent action movie.

It was mostly embarrassing to watch and totally pointless to show to audiences (did they actually screen this movie to test audiences?

In the first several minutes of the movie, I was tempted to simply stand up and leave the theater.

All in all an entertaining film for most parts although Peter Parker as a bad boy worked ironically if you think of it as him trying too hard esp when you see the bemused looks of women he scopes as he walks down the street in some scenes.

Visually stunning, stylized, underrated superhero movie .

The ending was pretty uneventful and only served to compile more anger towards what had just transpired on the screen.

This movie was a waste of my time and i made a list of bad and good things.

Just like how Batman went downhill after two films and Superman went beyond farce post it's second film, so you'd expect a similar pattern with Sam Raimi's Spiderman films (led by an awkward Tobey Maguire and your standard damsel in distress Kirsten Dunst, this series has all the makings of any other tedious example).

Once again the critics are too harsh on a fun, action packed movie!

CONCLUSION: "Spider-Man 3" is easily the best of Sam Raimi's three Spider-Man flicks -- it's the most entertaining and it has the most spiritual depth.

Maybe they were just looking for an excuse to put in two of the greatest spider-man villains (Venon and Sandman), or perhaps they wanted to give the Spider-Man character a bit of a new, more compelling look.

Aside from the incredible scene of Sandman's "birth", there is a genuinely scary and gripping scene in which Topher Grace's Eddie Brock first transforms into Venom.

I disliked Spiderman 2, and put off seeing 3 until it appeared on TV tonight, and I was surprised how much I enjoyed it.

Don't waste your money at theaters, unless your a total fan-boy.

Its a mundane insight and I won't bore you with it.

We meet a new possible love interest for Pete (the above-mentioned Gwen Stacy), but she proves to be a very thin and boring character in the film, kind of like Mary Jane.

Directed by Sam Raimi (Evil Dead Trilogy, The Gift, A Simple Plan) made an entertaining if plot-heavy sequel to the ever popular "Spider-Man Series".

It became exciting as it went on.

Long, exaggerated, boring, painful....

It may seem like more then a special effects show at first glance, but the self-righteous melodrama is only concealing the true nature of this blockbuster - yes, it's a popcorn tween action flick that just happens to be boring.

More like a daytime soap opera with a cry baby protagonist going out with a self centered egotistical failed actress while trying to handle 3 poorly executed villains with no back-story or explanation whatsoever jumbled into one overly long, self indulgent, massively contrived hollywoodized corporate propaganda of a film.

Absolute brilliance in all terms for adrenaline, visual and shock.

But slow down..it still is well-performed with slight exceptions, features astonishing effects and presents an utterly comforting and satisfying ending.

This sequence becomes bored and routine.

Other than that it creates the dumbest storyline in a comic movie ever (The whole Sandman story is insulting and annoying)and completely squanders a possibly entertaining one(Venom).

A very "Love or Hate" film you might say.?The start credits were as fun & suspenseful as ever - comic book drawings popping up with a spiderweb red background and a picture of one of the last 2 films every few seconds.

And a runtime of 140 minutes, or 2 hours and 20 minutes is far too long for this movie.

Other comedy in Spider-man 3 feels so contrived that it cheapens the entire film.

My wife wanted to kill me she was so bored.

This was accentuated in "Spider-Man 2", but for this third film the computer effects seem to dominate, taking away from what I found to be part of what made its predecessors so enjoyable.

The heart of the Spider-Man trilogy is pubescent angst, and watching Peter continue to go through puberty when he's in his twenties is tiresome.

Over all Spider-Man 3 is an entertaining movie.

Disappointing, but still entertaining .

Fast paced tale of a super hero .

Spider Man 3, in many, but not all ways, is a grossly inferior film to its fun and exciting predecessors.

A flawed but very entertaining film.

(anybody else yawn thru Fantastic 4?

This movie is probably the worst movie i have ever watched.

Certainly a step down but still relatively enjoyable and surprisingly sombre.

Its pointless describing the action scenes but needless to say they are exciting indeed.

Overall I give it a 7 out of 10 because the action was great and there was more than the second, but it did have some dull moments where it seemed like the director was trying to kill time and make it longer.

Truly enjoyable.

The reason given for Venom's hatred towards Spider-Man in this movie was stupid and pointless.

Kirsten Dunst was uninspiring.

i broke into laughter and almost walked out of the theater at one nauseously patriotic scene involving a flag (anyone who has seen the film will know).

sorry I'm getting bored just recapping this drivvle.

To me, he was like a bland, three-dimensional individual.

It is extremely shallow and disjointed.

James Franco is frankly scene-stealing in this film; his acting surpasses Maguire's every time and he's also much more of a real hero than the (by now) bland and unremarkable Spiderman.

Two and a half hours of sheer boredom.

If they had planned from the beginning to make a Spider-man 4, they shouldn't have ended Eddie/Venom's story; it should have gone a bit slower, with Eddie's hate for Peter having more time to grow, and his last part (or one of his last parts, at least) in the movie should have been his 'infection' by the symbiote.

Well, let me start with confirming that the film does feel rather disjointed.

The script seemed slow and poorly written.

This is definitely, definitely a movie worth watching.

The sequence is pure Raimi, every bit as silly and entertaining as the Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head montage from Spider-Man 2.

Sam Raimi seems to really over egg the pudding to produce a bloated, dull, quite unspectacular follow up to the triumph that was Spider-Man 2.

Besides that, and concentrating on the action itself, Spiderman 3 has a very good pace, and most of the situations happen in a "natural" way, entertaining a lot (which is it's main purpose).

This movie had everything in it; from drama to romance to comedy to breathtaking action-packed sequences.

The love story between Peter and Mary Jane bored me to tears I just wanted her to get squashed by the taxi to end it.

What I like about the Spider-Man movies is that they're exciting and not boring like other previews that you are fooled by seeing that the movie is going to be good when in reality they are boring which seems like you just wasted your money on something worthless.

The storyline and general plot of this movie had nothing; it was flat, repetitive and boring.

James Franco is pretty good as Harry and is more relatable then Peter even though his climax is fairly predictable.

Don't waste your money on this pile.

Spider-Man 3 is anything but boring.

The action scenes are just as entertaining and exciting as ever, giving the audience the bang for their buck.

Nothing happens.

But the film is still extremely enjoyable despite its flaws, and it is head and shoulders above some of the travesties put out by Marvel in recent years (Fantastic Four, Daredevil, The Hulk).

Regrettably, this movie is trying to cramp too much information into its two and a half hours, making it rather slow and despondent at times.

In my opinion, this ranks up there with films like Batman and Robin and Spawn as one of the worst movies in this genre, and how it has such a high rating here on this website is really confusing to me.

OMG - awful, horrendous, stupid, confusing, pointless, all of these words spring to mind when watching this movie, I mean what in the hell were these people thinking?

disjointed and slow .

That being said, the special effects are at least decent and there are a few funny scenes and enjoyable action sequences.

Aunt May's boring advice?

and also some new characters were brought into the movie which made it more entertaining but confusing at the same time.

I'm sick of everyone moaning about Venom not getting enough Screen time, Two-Face barely got any screen time in TDK and no-one complained, we got plenty of Eddie Brock (just like Harvey Dent), Plenty of symbiote and enough of screen time for Venom, I walked out the theatre satisfied and expected a positive response, I never liked Venom, I was into The "Sinister 6" villains, like Electro.

There were some pointless characters in this movie.

Overall, though, the movie is entertaining, which is exactly the role of a superhero movie.

Both visually stunning for his CGI scenes, and well acted when human, everything about the Sandman is practically perfect.

After and exciting initiator (with an unforgettable kiss) and a magnificent second installment, the chance to see a total crap and a drain on one's resources was really plausible.

Some may say that's a bad thing, but I think it just made the movie much more entertaining to watch.

Many great epic movies on this scale get away with cute or cliché elements which would fall flat in a simple talking heads bedroom and boardroom filler program.

It just felt contrived.

Worst movie of the last ten years.

One Of The Worst Movies .

Someone like Venom had a lack of story in this film, which is a shame because like I've said, he is one of Spiderman's most popular foes.

" I was hoping I was wrong and that this cliché filled movie would not turn into a Batman Forever.

Before i start writing review about this movie , i wanna talk about the new movie The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) the new movie of Spider - Man is awfully horrible boring and wrong.

My 5 year old son fell asleep...

Going on way too long.

Even the story part is boring.

Kirsten Dunst returns as Mary Jane but appears to be regressing in acting ability, is she bored I wonder?

This is definitely a highlight of the film featuring a knock down, drag out fight showing off the New Goblin's technology and Peter's ingenuity on the fly to defeat a superiorly armed foe.

The characterisation of the movie is really bland.

To be honest my main complaint about Spider-Man 3 is that it just felt like a rehash of the the previous two films ideas & themes without ever being as good as either of them, the strained relationship between Parker & Mary Jane, the tensions between Parker & his best friend Harry, some super villain or other terrorising New York, his landlord asking for the rent, dealing with the death of his Uncle & the problems of being a teenager are all recycled here to dull effect.

The 1st part of this trilogy was what which kept me mind boggling for a long time after viewed the movie.

Then I heard from friends attending the midnight preview that it was a horrid waste of time.

The main complaint is the movie is too long and jumps around way too much.

It was even more exciting to see a "darker" look at Spider-man, from the mysterious "black suit".

The movie dragged a bit for me.

The first one introduced us to the lovable Peter Parker and alter ego Spider-man superbly, brilliantly capturing the normalcy and rather uninspiring life of Peter Parker before his dramatic transformation, this being one of the chief reasons for the comic books' widespread appeal.

Lowell from "Wings" as the Sandman wasn't the greatest choice either, I mean, he was so boring his monotone delivery of lines almost put me to sleep.

The stunning birth of Sandman, the intense mid-air fight between Spiderman and the New Goblin, the creepy black sludge and the spectacular ending fight scene are all amazing and would have deserved an Visual-effects Oscar more then Spiderman 2.

The technology is amazing & the sandman fights are stunning.


And while their are other bad films that I find entertaining (Such as "Daredevil" or "The Last Sentinel") that I can watch multiple times, I've only seen this film once and have NO desire to see it again.

Very Predictable Very Entertaining .

He switches from affable to intense hatred with the greatest of ease and gets a lot out of the character he's playing.

The trailer broke minds and fans flooded in to see a collection of fantastic action sequences, intriguing characters and a collaborative story of love, drama and good vs evil, so why doesn't this film match the previous two releases?

This potentially fascinating element is, with a few eceptions, executed poorly.

The fact that he's banging on it in the first place is a little too contrived.

The many battles are also entertaining to watch albeit some of those are a bit overdone perhaps.

However, now these things are repetitive, and this installment amps them up to the max.

I walked out of the theater wanting to put Sam Raimi on a hit list.

Firstly it took ages to get going and was overly sentimental, secondly it had too many villains and as a result failed to develop any of them fully, thirdly the action scenes were poorly choreographed and confusing, fourthly...

good but slow...

I saw the manager to complain and get my money back as we had travelled 90 miles there and had to travel 90 back to see this movie, luckily he said there was another showing due to start in 15 minutes on another screen and it was empty in there.

Well, somehow they managed and I left the theater that night very disappointed.

My dad asked how the movie was and i smiled and lied "the best of the year" What i was really thinking was this is the worst movie and how come my birthday comes once a year and i choose this movie.

Poor Eddie Brock just had dull lines.

But Venom isn't the only Spidey foe appearing, for we also have a new Green Goblin, played by a returning James Franco, and Flint Marko, aka the Sandman, played by an incredibly bored-looking Thomas Haden Church.

Between this slipshod blend of heroics and homilies, Raimi and company continue to reheat the chick flick soap opera love triangle with Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, and Harry Osborn that drags out everything to a tiresome 140 minutes.

and pointless.

It is confusing.

It's painfully dull with none of the likability or fun that it's predecessors offered - in fact the only thing that was better about this film than the previous offerings were the special effects.

Spidey for eMpty-TV Generation .

The whole movie gives an impression of being shot in a hurried manner during production with both cast & crew having no idea of where it is supposed to be headed, Raimi's direction lacks the energetic vibe that made his previous two features such a fun & enjoyable ride and every single aspect seems to be lost in its own realm for none of these elements come together to provide the much-needed smooth flow to this unnecessarily convoluted mess.

Then, the screenplay is absurd and makes most of the non-action scenes really boring.

Worst movie of the last ten years!

However, I did find this movie extremely entertaining.

Here are a few words to sum up Sam Raimi's "Spiderman 3": awful, terrible, awful, awful, awful, funny for the wrong reasons, piece-of-s**t, horrible, horrid, moronic, boring, fake, horrible effects, worst movie (perhaps) of all time, terrible, terrible, terrible, Ed Wood could have made a better film than this, terrible script, stupid "emo-ness", could be better as a soap opera on TV, terrible, you shouldn't see this film for any other reason other than laughing your butt off for all the wrong reasons (and if you like it you must be the biggest moron on the face of this Earth), terrible, awful, dreadful, George Lucas writes better stuff than that...

The rest of it is all terrible, tedious drawn out dramatic scenes detailing Peter Parker's soap opera-ish troubles.

After witnessing the New Goblin battle, the climax feels a bit sluggish, but nonetheless entertaining and action-packed.

I like the playfulness and the elimination of predictable dramatical events.

Raimi's Trilogy Capper is a Big, Trashy, Deliriously Entertaining Superhero Soap Opera .

The sand man was to slow in the movie.

This movie kicked butt and I enjoyed it to the fullest.

The birth of the Sandman is arguably the single most breathtaking scene of all three Spider-man movies.

Waste of time .

The story of the symbiote was confusing as heck, but when Eddie turned into Venom, that confusion all went away.

It was by far the most action packed 2.

The scene where a taxi was suspended in mid-air is thrilling and keeps me on the edge.

The creative decision to go this way has led to fight scenes that are way too long, break too many laws of physics too often, shatter all sense of believability, and feel downfight oppressive and exhausting.

A bit of a pointless inclusion.

Its during these downtime scenes, I found Spider-man rather boring.

What an awful, boring waste of time.

It is flat and boring with nothing to emotionally invest the viewer in the action.

The moral speeches by May Parker, who serves more as a mother than an aunt for Peter, become repetitive and we see too little of actor J.

Peter turning evil was good at times and entertaining.

In my opinion, This last film of the franchise was a complete success and It was very entertaining and it's a classic film to watch over and over again!

Despite some extremely well-done effects work, easily making this the most visually impressive and eye-catching film in the series, the overwrought nature, the depressingly underdeveloped subplots, the shorthanded villain backstories, the repetitive sentimentality that creates an atmosphere more self-depreciating and mawkish than need be, and the needlessly emphasized issues that should've been left as subtle as possible, Spider-Man 3 is a big budget mess and a big budget disappointment.

I loved the action sequences, but the rest of the movie was boring beyond reason.

Truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Bouncing around between so many subplots gives the movie a disjointed feeling throughout.

I found this movie was trying to put way too much stuff in this movie, I loved it, I was like Give Spider-man a break This movie was really fasted past and Action packed and I don't think took my eyes of TV at all until the ending credits There action scene in this movie was very gripping to watch, really well made and not sure what make of the Series Twist at the end.

Another problem is sandman, He seemed like a pointless character and should have been thrown out so they could focus more on venom and new goblin.

Its entertaining, action packed, the cgi was outstanding and in some parts really funny.

'An Extremely Entertaining Finale' .


Solid cast, a plot that was overcrowded but enjoyable enough, and a lot of polish, owed to it's huge-ass budget.

The action sequences are superbly choreographed as usual, with each movement being well-defined, clear and thrilling.

The darkening of Peter's character and the power the new suit brings, with the personal difficulties Peter is experiencing and the emergence of Sandman, truly makes for an engaging storyline with some truly hilarious moments mixed in.

There is no plot point in this whole movie that made me think the writers/producers/director did anything original.

About an hour could be cut without losing anything but seemingly endless shots of Mary-Jane in yet another mood, or suffering from PMT or blubbing from some pointless tiff.

This movie is a highly entertaining movie which has some very uninfluenced flaws that can be easily forgiven For me Spider man 3 is the Lawrence of Arabia of superhero movies world.

The final scene/s were a bit too much and the audience seemed bored of the characters' tears.

Despite being entertaining, this is a disappointment .

The movie was too long in my opinion and because it wasn't that good,after and hour and a half some people actually got up and left the theater and I am not talking about 1-2 people.

So, in conclusion: Its funny, entertaining, Bruce Cambell is the best part.

The lightheartedness of the first Spiderman movie was entertaining.

He speaks in a monotone and never changes expression.

The movie was good at first but in the middle it got boring and the ending took too long to finish, i mean we were like praying for it to finish.

There is a super cool villain who is barely shown in the movie, a really boring climax fight, a moronic British female reporter, and BY FAR, the WORST CONCLUSION I have EVER seen on how to handle a villain's 'weakness'.

Honestly the script is so predictable its unreal.

Save your money and your time.

it's just a waste of screen time!!!

The plots are predictable and frankly boring.

But no matter, Raimi seems to catch your attention, right before you drown into all the nonsense, with his breathtaking action sequences.

It was boring and a time waster.

Fast paced, wild, acrobatic, everything that enhaces an action scene.

In Spider-Man 2, barely anything was going on and it was so boring to watch.

Over all, this was a great movie with a ton of unexpected twists and turns.

Why not Riami make a spoof of spider-man using Campbell and the butler, would've made a more entertaining movie.

Overall I was bored and sad to see what started as a great series go down with a whimper.

I recently watched the third instalment of the Spiderman franchise and I have to say that I rather enjoyed it.

Boring, yet a tad entertaining.

In the end, SPIDER-MAN 3 succeeds mainly as a slick and solidly entertaining ride (as long as one doesn't analyze it too deeply).

I thought 2 was really slow to get going and didn't really move until the science demonstration by the good doctor.

The biggest sin Sam Raimi could have committed was to make a boring movie out of this material.

A battle between the Sandman and Spidey which passes from storm drain, to subway tunnels, and back to storm drain, is hard to follow.

It does have Sam Raimi's trademark direction with stunning special effects even with Venom and good action sequences.

I almost got up and walked out of the movie right then and there, which just so happened to be the climax.

It's not the Godfather, I admit, but it's still great and entertaining, and the haters need to shut up.

However to much problems makes the movie become long and boring.

It still has its entertaining moments.

In condensed form: the beginning was good, the middle sucked and dragged the ending with it.

The Sandman effects were fascinating and the black gooey stuff was good.

As the movie continued it was becoming more predictable and I began to enjoy it even less.

The first movie was entertaining and enjoyable, and had great drama that had a good resolution, and left you wanting more.

My husband fell asleep halfway through....

I wish I walked out.

I heard things like "Spider-Man 3 sucks" or, among critics, "Third time's a yawn," and "Raimi thinks he can do it all by himself.

It has many threads, but never develops any of them strongly, so that the film becomes muddled and tedious.

This installment has the same stunning FX, thrilling action AND rib tickling funny the first 2 had.

Was it a good, entertaining, and much better than most third-of-the-trilogy movies you've seen?

Unfortunately, the charm wore off and the sequence went on far too long this time around.

It did end up a bit boring a few times and sometimes some scenes felt repeated.

It's easy to deconstruct the problems of "Spider-Man 3," however, and harder to admit that it's an engaging film with good intentions.

Their were times when I wanted to fall asleep in the chair.

Easy enough to understand if you have not watched the first films, this film is incredibly dangerous, exciting and gripping.


Let's just say that of all the superhero movies, this one has the most possibilities for giving us exciting dimensional vision.

It was a headache, and to a disappointment, the action sequences were relatively few, making the pace even slower.

Kirsten Dunst does a great performance as her career as an actress fails and she feels Peter fading away; James Franco's Harry shines more than ever as his bump in the head makes him go back to the beloved Harry from the first movie (one especially memorable scene features him and Mary-Jane twisting) and Tobey Maguire is once again absolutely stunning; with all this said Spider-Man 3 is a bit lengthy and could have, as said earlier, been more thoughtful about the chose of three villains.

This movie can be an entertaining one regardless of it strongly missing its full potential.

The second film had so many eye-rolling, lame, supposed-to-be-cute moments with formulaic elements and predictable story lines that I feared the worst when entering the theater, and I was delighted to find that instead of a continuation of this, we were faced with a script that pokes fun at itself and its roots justly, making the characters sympathetic and understandable instead of infuriating.

So what if Parker goes a bit too far with being Black-Spidey, overall a great film, I highly recommend it to everyone, its just slower moving than the other Spider-Man films, so be prepared.

The movie tries to do way too much with a huge, disjointed story, and too many characters.

Next, there is so much problems going on with Mary Jane and Spiderman that are just soooo boring and I wanted it to end!

Topher makes a crappy Venom (and only appears as Venom for like ten minutes at the end), Sandman shouldn't have been in the movie at all, and the first hour was so slow I almost forgot I was watching an "action" movie.

Instead, we have that pretentious candy-cane finale, and by this time should we really have expected more?

Its fascinating, you might think and even if you wouldn't I would, that parents are a great deal more relaxed about entertainment than other confected consumables.

We wanna see mind blowing special effects here, killer action with carefully thought out character building.

And just like the second, there is a scene of awkward walking and facial expressions that is just unbearable.

I actually fell asleep during this movie (that rarely ever happens, I even stayed awake through 300).

Except for the lulls whenever Spidey deals with his romantic complications, it's a pretty fast-moving story that has some eye-filling special effects whenever things get too dull in the storytelling department.

Yet this may be the reason why I enjoyed it so much - this is what comic book adaptation on screen should look like.

Still the opening action scene is exciting and the birth of Sandman is memorable.

What we end up with is easily one of the most entertaining superhero flicks ever made, not to mention it possesses a wealth of spiritual insights, which is a mark of all great films.

Waste of talent and money .

Several elements of the stories feel heavily contrived, just to get all the villains present.

The main problem being that there is just too much going in in the script, that it all comes out as rushed, half baked, and often cheesy and contrived.

A very weak but entertaining entry of the popular superhero franchise!

But no - it's so sloppy, so formulaic, so erratic, so poorly written, so...

If you sincerely consider Spider-Man 3 one of the worst movies ever made, then you haven't seen enough movies.

What a waste of time, the entrance of said "symbiot" is totally wrong and just makes this piece of garbage a joke from the word go!

Now personally I like superhero films, so i guess my opinion is a bit biased, but even if you don't like superheros and the like, its still worth watching.

The entire stuff dealing with Mary Jane's professional career was just boring and never worked either.

And the new villains are indeed quite fascinating.

It's special effects are, for it's time, groundbreaking, the action is as always with the trilogy, very well choreographed and insanely entertaining, and some of the moments and lines of dialog, are now just purely iconic.

We don't have to make it good at all, just pay some people to come up with some cool special effects and plagiarize the 'Every movie cliché Hollywood has ever come up with' screenplay.

MJ seems to whine constantly, her kidnapping is more predictable than in the first two, she performs badly on Broadway instead of a local theater, and all of her fun and deep enigma is gone.

) the Sandman's evolution is somewhat rushed and to be honest in my opinion dull and a little too easy.

Rail thin Topher Grace is hopelessly miscast as Brock/Venom, playing him as basically a mean, jerky version of his 70s Show character, and he's clearly in over his head because he has neither the physicality or intense range to pull it off.

i just watched it and liked it, though be aware when you watch it, it is long and rather slow.

There's too much going on, but it's still entertaining .

I've heard boys my age say they really liked it so maybe it is based more at males but I found the storyline repetitive and a lot of it was all clichés!

Ghost Rider was just a horrible uninteresting film, whereas spidey-3 still keeps you engaged and want to stay till the end.

These scenes play out kinda like an inverted take on the equally unexpected 'Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head' scene from Spider-Man 2 - it's moments like that which made the Spider-Man trilogy special imo.

We get bored of the routine accident scenes and especially Mary Jane in danger moments.

Blah Blah Boring .

Other then that don't waste your time.

Still enjoyed it, though!

It was definitely unexpected, with many mysterious items, you just have to pay attention to realize...

Spider-Man was a surprisingly entertaining action flick with touches of humor and suspense.

It was quite dull and pointless as evidenced by the film's need to have Peter Parker dance like a moron, hold every intense look for about 10 seconds too long and have him dressed like soccer mum who'd been crying all week.

Plus the dull acting from Toby Maguire and others was awful and embarrassing to watch.

The movie as a whole felt disjointed.

Visually, the movie is stunning.

Maybe the worst movie I've ever seen in my life.

I could try and explain it to you, but it would make The Big Sleep sound like Snakes On A Plane.

All wrapped up in a complex, segmented story with awe inspiring visual effects.

the action scenes are well done and entertaining.

This third installment by Sam Raimi and Tobey MacGuire shows a lot of misfiring of the web as well as the execution of a disjointed screenplay.

The story dragged on and on.

they didn't come, i was so disappointed with this film and everything was so rushed, the writers should not have had so many story lines and villains in this one film, they could have easily got 2 hours plus out of Harry's and Peter's feud with MJ as the sideline, three villains and so any gaping story lines just dragged this film on and on and on.

The above paragraph sounds confusing and partly inconceivable, and that's pretty much how this whole film was.

There was something lacking from this performance, perhaps a bit of boredom on the part of Maguire.

Music: Christopher Young's score keeps a similar tone as the previous films and is very enjoyable.

I felt that the story dragged far too much at times and the scenes where Peter Parker becomes a macho man were just plain embarrassing.

When it comes to summer blockbusters, give me too much action, too many villains, and too much humor, over ponderous, self-serious safety any day.

His turn to the "dark" side is very entertaining.

The second half is directly an insult, an unworthy, soulless and unbearable garbage.

So watch a rare product in today's Hollywood: an enormously budgeted movie that has thrilling special effects paired with a compelling and thought provoking storyline.

Everything felt rushed, even though the movie ran way too long.

First part of the movie is good and one hour later it getting bored and tremendously makes me want to sleep.

Haden Church gives classic brute Sandman a firm measure of humanity, James Franco must be applauded for his stalwart handling of a highly conflicted character in Harry Osborn, and despite limited screen-time, Topher Grace, yes, I have to admit, did gleeful justice to the wall-crawler's most fascinating adversary.

extremely boring, predictable, corny, bad acting, pointless and dreadful.

Instead, however, they tried to throw too many at the audience at once, just like they did with the Batman movies, and just like Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, Spider Man 3 became a disjointed mess of a film.

First the story is cliché as hell.

Sandman on the other hand, was boring and was left to be desired.

Mary Jane is more unbearable than ever in this installment, Venom has nothing cool to do, and character motivation, save for Sandman and Harry, is almost a joke.

Sandman is boring.

Many scenes were also pointless, e.

It seems almost an unwritten law that the final part of a trilogy often collapses into a clichéd, trite and hard to follow mess.

Add that to the fact that the beginning had about two hours of confusing nothing and I wonder where they can go now?

There was no real plot.

I watched this film again last night, hoping that on this occasion, unlike at the cinema were i just thought it was OK, i'd find it to be a much more enjoyable experience.

If you're just seeing it because of the hype, then don't waste your time, it's just OK, not fantastic.

This is thanks to the great actings( Kirsten dunst one not so much), the stunning visual effects and the fact that after all ,is a spidey film.

Happily, everybody from the previous "Spider-Man" movies reprises their roles, but several are given the short-shrift in this tedious tale.

These diverse plot strands converge at the end in a breathtaking finale.

Throughout the entire gross display of Spidey trying desperately hard to be suave (which he failed miserably on), i felt the urge to walk out of the theater!

All that I saw was a waste of money and a slap in the face of Marvel.

What results is at times an immensely entertaining film with action set pieces and special effects that out do its predecessors, trademark moments of zany and self aware comedy (Spidey empties his boots of sand after a long bout with the Sandman, asking himself "Where do these guys come from?

Spider-Man 3 is a film that I really disliked, I was literally sat there wanting it to finish so I could watch something else I was that bored by it.

the endless line of ridiculous cliché scenes and cheesy lines leaves the viewer wondering when the actors will suddenly burst into laughter, look straight into the camera and say "sorry man i just can't say that".

I felt tired, even video FXs did not help, and the bed was slow, bad and boring.

Spider-Man's much hyped desent into the "dark side" was just Peter Parker getting emo hair and not showering, and the normally interesting relationship between Spidey and MJ felt like slow, dull torture.

They are stunning.

Jonah Jameson is top-notch as ever and wildly entertaining.

Sandman was the best by far, the sand effects were stunning and unbelievable.

I saw the first two Spiderman movies and I thought they were entertaining.

Although the critics and some fans ripped this entry into the Spider-Man franchise as the worst of the Sam Raimi directed pictures, it's still an action packed entry as a superhero flick.

But because this movie moves so fast, and is so mind boggling how insane it gets (I'm looking at the emo dancing Peter scenes) the movie is still enjoyable to watch because it is regrettably something new.

dull in comparison to the prequels .

Spider Man 3 is by far the worst movie I have seen in a very very long time.

A good, entertaining movie, undeserving of all the negative feedback .

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.

And it's some of the most action-packed, flat out spectacularly entertaining drive-in pulp you'll ever see.

And May Parker, Peter's aunt, has become increasingly annoying with her long, drawn out, Yoda sermons on life.

All I have to say is one of the worst movies ever.

Handles too much but nevertheless a funnier and enjoyable adaptation .

I was so bored.

However, in his darker manifestation the normally engaging Maguire is not at all sympathetic.

As a matter of fact it was enjoyable.

MJ being jealous was also pointless.

But as an entry in the superior Spider-Man saga, it falls behind number 2's stunning all round quality and even number 1's tight plotting.

The resulting concoction focuses too hard on the story, and with unbelievable character arcs and an overwhelming amount of unnecessary supporting characters (I mean, did we really need the pointless Gwen played by Bryce Dallas Howard in this film?

Without revealing plot details, the part involves a change in Spider Man with some very entertaining results.

I saw Spiderman 3 recently and enjoyed it greatly for the special effects and for the new bad guys it introduces.

)For me, while I found Spider-Man 3 an entertaining enough time-waster, it's got far too many problems for me to call it great.

It is saying a lot when B-movie ham Bruce Campbell, with his typical cameo, ends up being the most interesting and intriguing part of the whole flimsy production.

You can do a lot in a film if you do it all well; if characters are developed and the focus is tight and snappy.

I got bored and I got frustrated.

DVD has two enjoyable commentary tracks.

The endless story lines and melodramatic speeches make this film bland, excessive, and boring.

So it should be fairly enjoyable as a film with entertainment and a good/solid/overrun story.

Worst Movie Ever .

As someone who is a fan of the comics I was disappointed but that was not because of the comic story parts but because the movie felt very disjointed and it just never got into a rhythm.

By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result.

The action parts are entertaining & the end is extremely pleasing, also the rise & fall of PJ's relationship is entertaining & surprising.

The tag team battle at the end was very entertaining, and made all the more special by a cheering crowd rallying behind the heroes (a setting which I think is sorely lacking in superhero films).

Visually the film contains some stunning special FX.

The running time is far too long, just under two hours would have been an improvement.

This is a lesson in more is less, to use the cliché, which what they have clearly used here more than once.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, two hours of mindless entertainment - well, what do you expect of a comic!

I enjoyed it.

Long, dull and overrated .

This movie was mind blowing!!!!!!!

A lot of people felt it could have been done better, because it was kind of confusing, rushed, and you always felt that it was crammed as well.

The result can only be awkward laughter and distancing of the viewer from the fantasy world they were immersed in.

I saw Spider Man 3 on opening weekend - of course - and really enjoyed it.

Don't waste your time on this latest Hollywood bonanza.

I just saw F4 silver surfer and I about fell asleep and then almost laughed at the ridiculousness of it all.

This was certainly true of 'Superman 3' and 'Batman Forever' - though a very enjoyable movie - was not as good as the two preceding it.

I've seen a lot of comments saying that there was little character development, poor acting, etc. In my opinion, for a movie that lasts only two hours and a few and can make you sad, make you laugh and give you adrenaline rushes all in one film, it's great.

She is completely engrossing and awesome.

The 'spidey' universe is full of interesting and exciting characters and super villains, and Sam Raimi managed to incorporate three of the best into this summer blockbuster.

For example, with three bad guys to fight, did we really need the dull as dishwater subplot about Peter and MJ's on-again-off-again relationship?

The worst Spider-Man movie, but still entertaining .

you are better off waiting for the fx premiere to see this but if you must see it save your money and rent it from blockbuster.

I left the theater comfortable in knowing that I always have choices that I can make.

Awful, Sloppy - I would have walked out .

The hilarious and yet emotional scene in the restaurant involving champagne is so entertaining!

I really hated this movie, which is too long, although I love spider-man.

While Raimi is trying to give us a background to each villain we begin to get bored of the film and lose all concentration and get entangled in its own web.

Venom, although underdeveloped, shows real potential and his bust up with Spidey is some of the most thrilling of all three films.

That includes the special effects, which also are visually stunning, and has you convinced that Toby Maguire is really swinging through New York.

Spider - Man 3 is emotionally riveting and amazing to view.

Thomas Haden Church is a great actor and deserved to have a more drawn out character.

But, the rest is good; nice action, a good in-depth plot, and some very suspenseful scenes.

Despite the plot this is a sharp fun film with once more stunning action and fantasy.

The first good surprise of this third part is that this boring structure explodes right away, villains comes out of nowhere every five minutes, sentimental and heroically life are stuck together, the situations always change : you really have the impression read a gigantic trade paperback of the Spider-Man adventures.

Was it exciting?..Yes.Would I watch it again when it comes out on DVD?..Yes Bring on Spiderman 4

Venom was quickly shoehorned in during the last act of the film, and his character was overall boring and quite dull.

Maybe the worst movie I have ever seen ...

But essential this is an uneven roller-coaster ride of a movie, sometimes great, sometimes rubbish, worth watching once.

She provided absolutely nothing to the movie, except cliché after idiotic cliché.

It's entertaining, dark, funny, emotional, thought provoking and enthralling apart from being action-packed, thrilling and visually striking.

* The special effects seem very "digital" and unrealistic* The script is obvious, full of bad lines and really just pathetic* The actors don't really get much to work with, so they seem bland and uninterested* The director has tried to cram too many stories into one move, and you never get to sympathise with any of the characters* It feels like the movie is full of obvious product placements* Everything you see is very black and white, the characters are so spelled out that nothing becomes exciting.

In addition, watching Topher Grace as an arrogant/nosy geek was just like seeing Eric Forman's evil twin= both rather tedious.

The theme of superhero comic books has also traditionally centered on a predictable pattern: the triumph of good over evil as played out on the battlefield of human vs.

The phenomenal action set-pieces in this film wouldn't have been anywhere near as gripping as they turned out to be without the terrific visual effects at hand to aid the illusion.

But the overall plot dragged a little and the series did look like it was losing steam by the time this movie was made.

It is a fun, and exciting movie to watch, and it is fun as a Spider-Man movie to watch.

If it was split into two movies, I think it would have been better, because there really is two movies worth of info in one, which can become confusing to the casual viewer.

I am a soo excited when It came out in South Korea for this movie, but after seeing the first 15 minutes, it became confusing to me.


The opening aerial battle between Peter and New Goblin (Fanco) is breathtaking.

He was far more charming, funny, even angry and entertaining then the other main characters.

I certainly understand the dilemma but the screenwriters and producers came empty with this film.

And some of the action scenes are wonderfully gripping.

I felt that their were too many characters, which makes the movie confusing and let's say, I was a bit confused.

During the very first fight between Spidey and Hobgoblin Jr. I was actually bored.

And for those of you bored out of your mind or just plain confused, maybe even angry after reading this thing, I just want you all to know that it sounded a lot better in my head (as most things tend to).

After seeing the third Pirates of the Caribbean films and being very disappointed and bored, I decided to keep my toe in the summer blockbuster pool (what choice do I have?

The strutting sequence and the reference to Saturday Night Fever was funny for the first minute, then went on far too long.

Neither of the villains got enough time to be developed, and every time they show up it all feels so disjointed.

So the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies come to an end, they were at times very enjoyable, and i for one cant wait to see the Andrew Garfield/Marc Webb reboot, should be awesome.

The first Spiderman film was good fun, and managed the rare feat of appealing to both comic book fans and just people who want n entertaining film with a good story when they go to the cinema.

I thoroughly enjoyed it as a blockbuster movie designed to entertain and thrill as only these Spider-Man movies can.

Overall, I enjoyed it very much, and plan on seeing it again.

I will not speak about Tobeys acting, the nerd Peter is way to much boring, confusing, stupid; i kinda liked the bad Peter at least he does something, he reacts, and it's funny.

I enjoyed it immensely and even though it was long (140minutes), it didn't FEEL long, it felt just right.

Venom especially had way too little screen time as a result, and the final showdown between them felt a tad on the contrived side.

Also the effects sequences with Sandman's initial rampage were the most impressive and engaging in the film.

The worst movie i have ever watched .

What made the first two Spider-Man movies so enjoyable was the extent to which they stuck to the overall feeling of the comic books--the schmaltz, the fun action, and the somewhat cheesy dialogue.

to me, the entire conflicting love triangle between him, Gwen and Mary Jane seemed pointless and tragically high school in a sense.

Glazed with cash but bland as butter.

Surely special effects people can come up with something a bit more exciting for the dough.

Spider-Man 3 wasn't a work of art or anything, just an enjoyable couple of hours of eye candy.

Maybe this is a lesson on How to waste money big time.

i thought it was highly entertaining, yes , it was cheesy, yes everybody who know comic story (including me) where like: hey thats not supposed to happen!

I was exhilarated from the moment I walked out of the theater the first time I saw it.

'Spider-Man 3 (2007)' is certainly a step down and 'Emo-Peter', or more specifically his arrogant dancing, is as cringe-worthy as his reputation would suggest (though when viewed on their own these scenes are funny to say the least, it's just that as a part of the overarching narrative they are entirely out of place), but despite its problems this is still a relatively enjoyable picture that has some entertaining sequences and even some nice character moments (some of the stuff with 'The Sandman' and his daughter is quite well done) sprinkled throughout the over-cluttered and generally messy narrative.

Topher Grace as Eddie Brock is nowhere near as compelling as the previous villains in the series, and he doesn't even become Venom until late in the film.

The CGI is stunning; it's worth every cent of the 250 million dollars invested in this movie, especially the scene of Sandman's "birth".

It's the most emotionally gripping.

During a somewhat confusing fight scene in an alley, Harry is bonked on the noggin and suffers short-term memory loss.

The constant too'ing and fro'ing that every single character was doing just got repetitive, predictable and very very boring...........

The viewer has to demand more at some point or its just all a waste of time.

There were, of course, some very entertaining action sequences, that most people will enjoy regardless of the otherwise lame storyline.

if you get bored...

And thirdly, importantly, comparing this movie to the Schumacher Batmans isn't that far-fetched, considering it's overindulgence of narrative lines that eventually culminate in a weighed-down and uninteresting story of too-much-villain.

And another thing I've notice, people started to walk out after 2 hours and more couldn't wait to walk out before the movie really ended!

Mary Jane is pointless sandman makes no sense.

It was incredibly riveting and the cinematography was never corny the way it tends to be with many superhero films and especially Sam Raimi films.

Howevever, if you go into the movie, leaving behind your realistic thinking; hence black goo coming from outer space with no explanation on how, you'll be able to sit back and enjoy one of the most entertaining superhero movies around.

Maybe that's why I left the theater unsatisfied, my movie palette somewhat unquenched.

There were several enjoyable moments, and I was entertained.

By now, Peter has become so whiny and predictable, I wish he would just hook up with Ursula and be done with it.

I was also drawn, by the lack of plot probably, to the fact that Toby Maguire simply can't act.

Instead, the villains in "Spiderman 3" are flat and uninteresting.

I mean the dialog/acting for Hary (Jame's Franco's) character is just pointless and awful, it's really painful to watch.

But despite the harsher critical response than to its predecessors, and the vast amount of controversy surrounding the film amongst fans, Spider-man 3 is a hugely enjoyable, engaging and breath-taking spectacle.

Don't get me wrong - it is a great movie, immensely entertaining, packed with awesome special effects and ridiculously funny.

There are so many pointless, meaningless scenes, not enough spider-man scenes and too many characters.

It was the worst movie for the Dunst Maguire pair, Kirsten was just used to mop the floor, man, seriously.

TOO many villains, too many plot lines (and plot holes), WAY too violent, too long (the longest one of the series) and surprisingly dull.

Although Spider-Man 3 has these flaws, it is still quite entertaining from an aspect as we do enjoy the character and some things in the film.

Cliché "Spidey" 3 .

Overall, I was entertained, but the whole thing did seem more than a bit disjointed and cobbled together.

Too heavily reliant on CGI, it feels disjointed, moving from action set piece to discussions about the nature of the superhero to Peter's arguments with his girlfriend with little to apparently link them.

And then bang boom, we are into a fight scene with the new Goblin, which is so confusing to watch.

Bland and embarrassing.

From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level.

Crackling with breakneck energy and rousing humor, this entry strives to up the entertainment ante.

The on/off relationship between Parker and MJ continued throughout the movie and I found myself wondering why Parker kept bothering with such a moody young woman - obviously it must be down to the stunning good looks of Kirsten Dunst, one of my all-time favourite sexy chicks.

It is a good film, overall, and contains many of the same scenes and sub-plots that cause some to cringe and others to merely yawn and wait for the plot to resume, as is typical in any film expected to gross a large amount in theaters.

The story is engaging, and Maguire does come across a bit less whiney than he did in past iterations.

The ending scene was so boring!

But I didn't like what they did with the Character of the Sandman, they changed it to fit the "moral of the story" I don't believe they should have had him robbing banks to help save his sick/dying daughter, it took the villainous edge away from him making him too soft and boring as the villain.

2007's "Spider-Man 3" is easily the most entertaining of Sam Raimi's three Spider-Man flicks.

It is plagued with far too many characters, has a plot outline that is for anyone; even the brainiest person complicated, confusing as hell!

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 final battle scene was very action packed, but the shots were often blurred and you cant get a really good feel for whats happening until a lull in the action.

On one hand i find it to be a big, enjoyable, living comic book akin to Superman 2, with awesome action sequences not to mention good humour and heart.

And the story is very confusing, some who do not knows the story of spider is going to get confused.

Part three digs deep into the persona of Peter Parker which makes the movie thrilling to watch.

It was fun and entertaining.

On the up side, I thought Bryce Dallas Howard was just stunning.

He's dull, and unnecessary.

Etc etc etcSorry guys but the audience in the theater was bored at the middle of the film.

This girl has SO much talent and so much potential and it all just gets wasted away in this film in a perfect example of bad directing, bad script writing and a tiresome story.

that's how boring this movie is...

The ending was possibly one of the soppiest, cliché endings I've ever seen.

Peter Parker/Spider-Man, arguably the greatest and most intriguing superhero of the comic book world, is given the hack treatment by Sam Raimi and his collaborators.

With the help of such great visuals, it broadened the action sequences very well, making them intense and glamorous to watch on the big screen.

An Empty and Boring Action Flick .

Everything in this movie is totally predictable.

Nevertheless, I found the movie to be quite entertaining until "the black suit" clinged to lil' Tobey.

Now, before I get flamed on this, The movie was indeed very entertaining.

I also liked the fact that Raimi included the slow romantic moments to let you analyse what just happened, while still enjoying the scene.

There was a particularly enjoyable scene with J.

It is good to watch when you are bored.

What made Marvel Comics head and shoulders above all other comic brands was not only their creative characters & action, but their maturity and intriguing explorations of morality and the human condition.

And we are reminded that beneath all the callous, empty rage, there is a real human...

Thomas Haden Church is perfectly fine in the role but the character is fairly uninteresting, particularly the clichéd sob story concerning his critically ill daughter.

As a big spider-man fan i liked the 1st and 2nd spider man, but this one was all to predictable everything happened to spider man it was just sad.

The montage sequence was WAY too long, WAY overdone, it was unintentional comedy at its most bloated.

Kids also love to go see spidey and they may get bored through some of it.

The pace of the story is too slow, filled in gaps with some irritating and baffling scenes.

The majority of subplots (Peter's relationship with Mary Jane, anything with Sandman, Peter's relationship with Harry, etc.) were completely unnecessary and only made the film feel long and pointless.

So even though Sandman was not a real baddie, he still was quite formidable as an opponent, and the film was enjoyable.

The film is uneven and way too long, it has a lot of plot holes and have a lot of things going on instead of just tying together a couple of good tight few ones.

It cost me only 3$ and i feel like i have waste time + money!

Bottom Line: Worst movie of the summer three-quals, worst Spider-man movie, and right up there on the list of the worst movies I have ever seen.

The whole Parker turning into a goth/Simon Le Bon wannabe is pointless and not part of this film.

But overall it was a good movie and I enjoyed it I even saw it again after opening day.

The most skimpily developed villain is Venom, a gloopy, fast-moving black parasite that takes hold of Peter first before it takes control of professional rival Eddie Brock.

However, it is still immensely entertaining, and boasts a humanity and care for its characters that most special effects orientated blockbusters wouldn't even dream of.

I guess part of the problem are the horrible dialogue lines (even for a comic book movie), and even the way George Lucas is writing his love scenes (I am a Lucas supporter, though) is infinitely superior to the tedious and painful exchanges between Dunst and Maguire.

When does a story about spider man and action packed comic book hero/cartoon turn into a love story.

That left the first hour of Spiderman 3 boring and uneventful.

'Spider-Man 3' is a goofy, although well acted, action-packed and extremely entertaining conclusion to the trilogy..!

Sand Man is the weakest and the thinnest person here, his character is thin and badly depicted, the love line is boring and the part of the flat owner's daughter is seemingly silly.

I liked it though, FWIW--pretty entertaining, if you set yer sights lower and don't expect coherence in some of the Gobby's actions etc--it's worth your time.

In particular, the physical transformation is stunning, kudos to the make-up department.

A hodge-podge of intense emotion and action sequences .

At almost two & a half hours long Spider-Man 3 felt like it went on forever to me, I was really bored by the time this thing had finished.

There was acting, a seemingly visible script and a breathtaking action scene involving an armored truck.

I found it somewhat entertaining at times, and that is the reason I give it a 5.

Raimi's approach of making the movie bigger and more exciting was not the right path to take.

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.

I was so bored.

Peter Parker's inner turmoil and transformation ranges from entertaining to disturbing - it is this 'face your demons' theme that holds the film together well.

All in all, this film gets a 7 out of 10, for the spiritual issue, cleavage shots, and confusing story.

There are major flaws, but on the whole this is an incredibly enjoyable experience.

Fox in "Batman And Robin," a pointless role with no real meaning.

Although bound face up and taking the full force of the attack on his chest, nothing happens.

It was a waste of my money trust me, along with without a paddle and epic movie, which one was worse...

A film of poor plotting but great moments, then, rather than the final triumph some would have hoped for after Spidey 2, Spider-Man 3 is a flawed but entertaining slice of summer blockbuster fun.

Painstakingly dragged out to two and a half hours, the film consists of alternating scenes of Peter Parker trying to make things right in his relationship with Mary Jane in overly emotional discussions filled with trailer-worthy one-liners.

Too long, stories banged heads, comedy was a bit too cheesy, tobey could not pull off a 'bad' and 'mean' spidey, venom only appeared at the end, Kirsten lacked and looked bored, confusion with sandman, brock not well done by topher and so on and so forth.

Spiderman 3 is a very enjoyable movie, it's not an must-see, but the action, special effects and the cast makes this movie worth watching.

Breathtaking, to say the least.

entertaining allegory .

The special effects are top-notch; there are many stunning action scenes and the final message about choices is very positive.

may be true but it is in this context more suspenseful and more playful.

Yeah there was a lot going on and it was fast paced but it did have it's slow moments and they weren't dull.

I'm talking about the kind of gasping that forcibly and inadvertently escapes the viewer as if to ask, "Did I really just see Mary Jane Watson plant the most awkward, cliché', blatantly scripted 'I-don't-know-what-I want' kiss on the lips of Harry Osborne?!

Perhaps for the critics & small-flaw seekers but not for me, just makes it that much more exciting.

All-in-all, this Spidey film is a good addition to its predecessors and is worth the watch despite its short comings.

This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen for ages.

Films like SPIDERMAN 3 are often underrated but they are nevertheless worth watching and collecting.

His inner struggle between his (BTW most boring superhero's girlfriend)Mary Jane Watson and lust for young men so overwhelms him that he falls down from the building.

For me the whole MJ/Peter romance dragged on, Venom should have been put to one side and done as a complete 4th film, Sandman should not have been made to be a bad/good/bad/good guy and should have been killed off at the end.

Grade: ***1/2 Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of action violence My rating: the same

-Spiderman jumping in front of the American Flag- That was just overall ridiculous and pointless.

Cheesy- yet entertaining .

When Venom was in it, it was so exciting and suspenseful, although he was so disappointing.

The action scenes are well shot, but two love triangles slows things down to a snail's pace in between the action set pieces

Granted, there undoubtedly are some lose ends and some characters such as Venom or Gwen Stacy didn't by far get the attention or development they deserve, but nonetheless the movie tells an entertaining story from start to finish and the main core of it is still intact and comprehensive.

The story of the symbiote was confusing as heck, but when Eddie turned into Venom, that confusion all went away.

It has a lot of action and it's very suspenseful and dark.

" Sandman was introduced as an antagonist, as Raimi found him a visually fascinating character.

But, it is very entertaining in that fast, fun, undemanding Hollywood way.

Its funny (Bruce Campbell), exciting, edge of the seat stuff!

Your story has grown tiresome .

It's amazing how intense the directors could have made the battles without making it too unrealistic.

the worst movie ever .

Too many side-stories, too many black and white characteristics of the major players and too many special effects-laden sequences that dull rather than excite cause this movie to be a gigantic bore of near epic proportions.

It all grew very tiresome after the first hour.

Spider-man 3 is pretty cool and entertaining.

Gwen Stacey if you ask me is the most pointless character in the movie aside from being there so that Peter can have someone to cheat on MJ with, and they had Bryce Dallas Howard playing her for crying out loud, how could they just flat out waste her like that?

The entire story was dull and the ending was not much better.

The plot is completely incomprehensible and having three bad guys wander in and out of the film's narrative only serves to make matters more confusing.

Boring, filled with clichés, bad CGI, bad characterization, and potentially career ending performances.

A key problem also lies in the divergent yet predictable ways the villains have been developed.

The idea of internal struggle which made the second film so compelling has been employed again here, where the mysterious symbiote causes adverse changes to Peter's character.

After all, Spider-Man is an action packed thrill ride, it's a very fast and dynamic film, if you want strong character development for a comic-book based film go see Batman Begins or wait for The Dark Night.

Weak but entertaining entry of the Spidy saga.

The special effects are very good, though some of the 'chase' action sequences are slightly hard to follow.

I was desperately bored by the end of the movie, and felt for a while it was the worst thing i'd seen in the theater for a long time.

He bore almost no resemblance to the Green Goblin, and his weapons were over the top even for a superhero film.

His back-story is completely repetitive and ridiculous, verging on corny.

Sorry, but this is boring.

Plus, there was no plot, it was the worst...

Its comic book sensibility (not striving to be 'too' real), its writing, acting, and even special effects, add up to an enjoyable experience.

Willem Dafoe's cameo as Norman Osborn was even more evocative of "Hamlet" than in the second film, considering that he uses the phrase "Remember me" as did the Ghost of Hamlet's Father.

This film centers around a very boring relationship between Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst.

As Dieter of Saturday Night Live would say, "Your story has grown tiresome".

Maybe Spider-man 4 if they do indeed make another one will give us the Spider-man movie we've been waiting for with a compelling story, well developed characters, menacing villains, and more action.

Long,Boring and Cheesy.

The film is cluttered in its writing and has a constantly wandering tone, but it's also the most enjoyable from a purely entertainment view and visually thrilling of the trilogy.

The change of Peter Parker is mentioned by two ridiculous and pointless scenes; the bar scene and the street scene that Peter Parker dances!

Spider-man 3 is the weakest of the Spiderman films, but it is still an entertaining superhero film.

I was on the edge of my seat the entire time.

This part is so tedious, so boring that you must rub your eyes all the time.

First of all I will say that I loved the first two Spider man movies I thought they where extremely enjoyable.

Boring breakup subplot?

Amazing, a two and a half hour movie that I was bored through a lot of that still can't manage to explain the story line.

It is still entertaining from a special effects and fight scenes perspective.

It's probably the most enjoyable of the series in a basic sense.

Unfortunately, whilst the third film in the trilogy is entertaining and a great spectacle, it is a disappointment as the film is lost without a proper plot and caught in a mêlée of villains and plot lines.

its a waste of time

The first thing to bore me out like hell were the CGI intro titles that were MORE THAN 3 MINUTES long and probably were worth a couple of millions to make.

A horrible and needless contrived connection of Sandman to Peter.

However, still the movie is satisfying as an action and as said very entertaining, it has demo scenes.

This movie isn't even so bad that it's funny because its such a disappointment and boring.

The film is clearly divided into two very differentiated parts; A first half boring, dull and with an argument more proper of a soap opera than a Marvel comic.

The love triangle of Franco, Dunst and Maguire was stale after the first movie; stretching into three movies just made me yawn.

The dialog, for example, is very cliché and fails to envoke any sought of reaction from the audience.

Still enjoyable and entertaining, with some pretty good parts to it...

The stress on Peter Parker's shoulders was unbearable and the film, brilliantly written and directed, conveyed the angst and pressure perfectly.

Although, unfortunately, some parts were a little boring, the action scenes are absolutely superb.

OK now I loved the 1st Spider Man but I have to say that Spider Man 2 had a couple cool action scenes, but it was a let down to me because there was just too much drama, confusion, and romance involved with the whole superhero image and it just doesn't mix.

Oh well, at least after this debacle, Raimi wisely returned to the safety of the horror genre, giving us the entertaining Drag Me To Hell as his next movie.

Even if you loved the first two films, Spiderman 3 is boring, brainless and not worth seeing.

He does the best he can do and tries to please everyone, but in the end it's a disjointed entry compared to the two superior installments.

For example (******SPOILERS******):When the crane crushes the building again, the lower floor is completely empty.

The first fights with Harry and Sandman are simply superb, both effortlessly thrilling thanks some excellent directing and flowing action.

Still, as I said before, it is such an entertaining film.

After watching the trailers over and over again, I felt as though this movie would be riveting, an edge of the seat, action packed, thrill ride that would keep me asking for more (that is what the previews said).

) sporting a phony French accent and trying to help Peter pull off an extremely cliché'd engagement proposal.

Not as good as the first two, but still very entertaining .

Stunning action, well introduced characters and a lot of heart.

It has it's moments of drama and entertaining action.

Although this installment is certainly not the strongest of the trilogy (and is perhaps the weakest), it is still a fun and exciting film to watch.

This movie is boring, stupid, makes no sense, and i the worst movie I have ever seen.

His dual role as Harry Osborn and New Goblin is the most challenging of the film - that of hero's friend driven to hate, then amnesiac friendship, then friendship pretense masking evil intent, then sincerely offering friendship once more in a compelling Marvel Team-Up situation, ultimately meeting his end by saving Spiderman's life in the same way that his father, the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), tried to take it.

It's not comic, it's a stupid and uninteresting love story.

My answer came after I walked out of the theater and overheard a conversation.

The CGI of the Sandman is even more impressive when compared with the cartoon like nature of Venom and the increasingly tiresome special effects of our hero.

I thought that it was a serious mistake and ultimately rather pointless to retcon Uncle Ben's death so that Marko and not his carjacker accomplice was the culprit.

The action scenes are all very enjoyable, even if a few of the ones with The Sandman are a little too short.

The crane/destruction of an office thing was quite entertaining.

The starting of the movie was boring and even the movement of the movie is not as much as the first two parts.

Leaving the good things, and talking about the two big holes in the story, (A) Repetitive climaxes In Spiderman 1, Mary Jane kidnapped by villain in Climax.

The beginning was very promising, and then took about 90+ minutes to get somewhat exciting again.

There are many elements that make the film enjoyable.

This whole subplot — despite being a thrilling action sequence — feels like unfinished business from the second film rather than an integral part of the third.

Enter a new villain, the Sandman, who can transform his body into various forms and shapes of sand and who may be connected to Peter's past in an unexpected way.

I guess, but in that case you must face the consequences of making it fun and exciting especially when doing a 'trequel' of any kind of a movie, especially comic books.

Disappointing, Predictable and Over the top.

And the ending was so boring.

" cliché.

However, despite all its very significant failures, I think that absolutely everyone should go to see this movie because of one incredibly entertaining part: seeing Tobey Maguire as emo.

It's sickeningly pretentious, and often condescending towards the viewer, something the previous instalments never were.

There are still plenty of action to keep the story exciting, including the fight scenes between Spider-Man and Venom, and I thought the subplot about finding the truth behind Ben Parker's killing was pretty intriguing.

It was sheer entertainment, exciting and nerve-wracking with dialog that should be hovering from a speech bubble overhead.

But yeah regardless of what other people think I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and look forward to the next segment in this already entertaining and delightful movie franchise.

Not as family friendly as the last two, which might send some children running, but still an action packed thrill ride that I had come to expect.

The bad acting can be justified by a lackluster script, as can be the clutter of the story and the tediousness of the useless subplots and weak villains.

The first two adaptations of the comics were frozen in a bi-polar structure, that divides the movie in a first enjoyable part that shows Peter Parker's daily life and problems, and a more conventional second part, were Spider-Man fights a villain (Green Goblin or Octopus).

In the middle I started to get this boring feeling.

All this was just very hard to follow, and you question why they would make these choices?

Entertaining .

Although not as centralized, or as concentrated as the first two movies, it still is every bit as engrossing and real.

Though scenes like the (looong) one where Peter shows off in front of all of New York just to show us how 'bad' he's become simply because he changed his hairstyle, wears darker clothes and is more open with the ladies make the movie stutter in places, but it's still a solid film which is worth watching.

Even the children in the theatre were bored.

It had its share of slow points and points at which you knew they weren't out to make the best film in the series.

He has to battle many foes, so there is a lot of fast paced action in the movie.

The first two Spider-man films were both great films, but this one just seemed to lack that magic that made the first two so enjoyable.

Good, but for Spidey fans, kind of predictable .

When did spider-man become a long boring chick flick?

Both characters are enjoyable and both Thomas and Topher are satisfying as their villains.

Emotionally too, this film is very gripping.

The stunning visual effects make his character come to life, and a series of action shots caused for high-class entertainment.

It shouldn't matter, but it is so boring it detracts from the fun.

In the end, Spider-Man 3 is neither the worst movie I've seen nor is it the best.

To those people who said that, did you guys ever see Batman The Movie(No, no, no, not the 1989 film, the 1966 film based on the TV series) It had 4 villains, was it cheesy, yes, but enjoyable.

But as enjoyable as Spider-man 3 is, it's too messy to be considered a classic like the first two.

During the first of many slow points, the thought that hit me was: "Don't worry ...

And the screenplay is so bad that I counted 7 acts that were totally contrived and filled with cliché' and contradiction.

Far too long .

You are bored when Peter cries over the loss of his uncle and his girlfriend, you are frustrated when another villain appears and his whole background is unveiled in the course of two whole minutes.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Seeing Spider-Man 3 a second time was like watching a whole new movie, and a much more enjoyable one at that.

Anyway, the special effects were great as you might expect (the only reason I just managed to give this a 6/10), but the rest of the movie ended up so infuriating in parts that around 10 or 15 in a cinema of 300 walked out before the end.

That said as far as sequels go, this one captured the camp and fun of the original Spider-Man TV series as well as being up to date, exciting and having a popcorn friendly plot.

So boring.

MJ sucks at singing and gets fired and then she bores the audience with her jealously and hypocrisy.

I found the stories difficult to follow and instead of flowing naturally like the second, which if you remember had one main story and a few sub-plots, it felt clichéd.

Okay, first this movie was slow, and for a three hour movie that's never good.

The story was confusing and had many holes, and there was an outrageous number of useless scenes that gave me the feeling that a good chunk of the movie was just filler scenes, and the acting, especially Toby Mcquires was brutal.

So dull and disrespectful to the audience.

Topher Grace's character was developed as a trite "office rival" and was unnecessary.

The movie goes slowly 'till its final part, then everything happens fast enough.

only good points for present a fascinating universe in a decent manner.

Tobey Maguire is surprisingly one of the worst things about this film, along with the always unwatchable Kirsten Dunst.

A lot of this comes off as self-indulgent.

Begging slow!

So cliché, so overdone, such unnecessary babbling filler just drives me up the wall.

I feel since I just wasted two and half hours of my life watching this movie, that I'm now entitled to use a over-used cliché to describe the biggest disappointment of a film I've ever seen.

Instead of a fully realized portrait of a Superhero who deals not only with supervillains, but with relationship issues, family crises, and the unique moral nature of his position, we are given a contrived story in the same vein as the new installments of the Star Wars franchise.

It is enjoyable and an obvious watch if you enjoyed the first two releases.

And while Spider-Man 3 is enjoyable as well, where it ultimately fails is in trying too hard to capture that essence--and in trying to do too much.

Only thing that keeps me from giving "Spider-Man 3" ten points is the fact that there is ridiculously little time given to Venom who is basically the most enjoyable villain there is.

The action was incredible, but you wouldn't expect anything less from Sam, the problem was many of the "acting" scenes were SO contrived!

The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow.

While in the comics it was very stylish with its large white spider design -- the movie design is merely the regular costume dunked in black dye and is amazingly boring to look at.

I would recommend this movie to my friends, but some parts of it just seemed pointless.

This time round, Raimi's direction of the more emotionally engaging scenes has a far defter and much more accomplished touched and as per usual he mixes plenty of humour in- Bruce Campbell's cameo in this one absolutely blows away his small roles in the previous two, and once again J.

I recently watched Spidey 3 and you know what, I really enjoyed it.

Reasons for this is that the Venom back story is very long.

The action scenes are great, the visual effects stunning as usual.

(It's worth watching once).

I'm sure that heading into this movie, given the hype of Black Suit Spidey and the advertising campaign of "the battle within," most fans were expecting an intense, dark drama as a result of the symbiote not a superhero version of the Nutty Professor.

All in all this was a very poor film with no redeeming features (sure the effects were adequate but so what, I was just as bored during the "action scenes I was through the rest of it).

What is supposed to be funny turns out to be dumb, tedious, and irrelevant, ultimately killing any chance of the film being good enough to view more than once.

Not only is he given very little screen time, but the character development is lacklustre, the motivations for his intense hatred of Spider-man, though shown, are uninspired, and the taunting and general attitude of the comic book character has been wholly bi-passed, to allow time for Sandman and the Green Goblin.

jonah jameson in his office, peter strutting down the street, the birth of sandman) that were gripping and got the audience glued.

There's simply too much going on, and when the film allows the pace to slow enough to spend some quality time with its central character, it turns out that Peter has turned into such an insufferable narcissist that we can't wait to get away from him.

I was falling asleep...

STILL despite the uproar among fans, it was a good and enjoyable film which I would recommend to anyone

As for the film, well, it was unbelievably poor, a good half hour could have been cut out, including Tobey Maguire cringingly awful sequence when he's emo, Gwen Stacey was pointless, so was much of MJ and Peter's tribulations.

Then the city will go back to its absolutely boring peacefulness.

Writer/director Sam Raimi weaves it all into a cohesive and entertaining 2 hours and 20 minutes.

I was so bored.

I really enjoyed it.

Instead of the movie being full of intense action it started dragging onto some boring drama or romance scenes, which were never necessary.

I'd always said that Spiderman's character must have been represented by a different actor, but, after watching it, my point of view..changed, let me say that Tobey Maguire made a really good job, stunning!

Not only was it quite boring (the whole film followed the same romance-fight scene-romance sequence) but the villains were unspectacular, and in Venoms case,pointless.

The Sandman story is a complete waste of time, Maguire doesn't quite pull off Emo Parker and Franco never looks particularly comfortable in his skin.

The CGI is perfect, the actors play very realistic, the film has humor, it is thrilling, in short: everything you could wish from a movie like this.

I wanted to start off by saying this movie was entertaining and worth the price of admission simply for the action.

They were very enjoyable and they stayed true to their source material.

I only think this movie is worth watching in theaters if you like a good romance story with a little bit of action.

) 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.

Do yourself a favor and see this movie for what it is--an enjoyable conclusion to a well-done trilogy.

OK well I saw Spider-man 3 a few weeks ago and was furious to the point that I nearly walked out.


Venom and sandman are the big bad enemies and venom only really appears towards the end of this very long dull movie.