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

Hohum Score

72

Boring

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: 231 out of 1024 found boring (22.55%)

One-line Reviews (751)

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

I got bored and I got frustrated.

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.

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.

Aunt May's boring advice?

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!

In the middle I started to get this boring feeling.

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.

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

(anybody else yawn thru Fantastic 4?

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

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

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

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.

The worst Spider-Man movie, but still entertaining .

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.

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

Disappointing, Predictable and Over the top.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

There were some pointless characters in this movie.

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.

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

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

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

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.

The movie dragged a bit for me.

This is definitely, definitely a movie worth watching.

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

I was so bored.

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

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.

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

There was a particularly enjoyable scene with J.

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.

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.

I actually enjoyed it how he blowed away MJ with the blond girl.

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

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.

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

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.

Boring breakup subplot?

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

Just as Entertaining as the Others .

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

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.

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

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

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.

The characterisation of the movie is really bland.

Many scenes were also pointless, e.

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).

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

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

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.

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

Despite pressure from studios Sam raimi managed to keep it entertaining.

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

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

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

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

I was so bored.

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

THis is the worst movie i have seen since Crossroad!

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

My wife wanted to kill me she was so bored.

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.

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

Visually, the movie is stunning.

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

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.

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

She is completely engrossing and awesome.

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).

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.

Glazed with cash but bland as butter.

Visually the film contains some stunning special FX.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

YAWN!

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

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

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

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

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

'An Extremely Entertaining Finale' .

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 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.

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

Church gives a touching performance with a contrived character.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Weak but entertaining entry of the Spidy saga.

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

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

A bit of a pointless inclusion.

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

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".

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

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

Maybe the worst movie I have ever seen ...

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.

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?

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?

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

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

Good, but for Spidey fans, kind of predictable .

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.

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

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.

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

Spiderman 3 sets a new standard of excellence for the mass audience movie taking humor, relatively complex plot outline, and incorporating breathtaking action sequences, and a heavy dose of spirituality, betrayal, revenge motif, forgiveness, love and relationships into an amazing package for this era of time.

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.

Enjoyable.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

The action is engaging and cool.

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.

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

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

"I'm Bored!

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Despite being entertaining, this is a disappointment .

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

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.

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???????

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.

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.

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).

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.

And the new villains are indeed quite fascinating.

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

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.

The plots are predictable and frankly boring.

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

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

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

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

They are stunning.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is confusing.

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

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

Breathtaking, to say the least.

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.

its a waste of time

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

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

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".

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

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.

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

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.

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

Sorry, but this is boring.

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.

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

Thrilling, exciting, Spidey fun, oh...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It's one of those deaths where it's been set up since the beginning and it was pretty unpredictable.

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.

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.

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

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.

The script seemed slow and poorly written.

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.

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

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

the worst movie ever .

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?

Cheesy- yet entertaining .

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

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

dull in comparison to the prequels .

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

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

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.

The ending scene was so boring!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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

'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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

All this does is makes it very hard to follow 3 bad guy's stories at once.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

One Of The Worst Movies .

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

However, I did find this movie extremely entertaining.

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.

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

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

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

this is unwatchable....

My husband fell asleep halfway through....

I wish I walked out.

It still has its entertaining moments.

A hodge-podge of intense emotion and action sequences .

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

Poor Eddie Brock just had dull lines.

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

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

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!

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.

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

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

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!

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

Long, dull and overrated .

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.

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.

And while cliche, his motivation does work.

)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.

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.

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.

The sand man was to slow in the movie.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

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

Spidey 3 is a complete waste of time and money.

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

Fast paced tale of a super hero .

The overall story of the film was also enjoyable.

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.

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.

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.

Disappointing, but still entertaining .

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

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

Emotionally too, this film is very gripping.

sorry I'm getting bored just recapping this drivvle.

Boring, yet a tad entertaining.

It became exciting as it went on.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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'.

Still enjoyed it, though!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Save your money and your time.

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

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

I enjoyed it.

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

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

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

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.

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

He's dull, and unnecessary.

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

* 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.

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

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).

It all grew very tiresome after the first hour.

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

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.

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

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

WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME!

THE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!!.

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

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

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.

All in all I ended up bored.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

It is extremely shallow and disjointed.

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

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

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

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

But it becomes boring, especially in second half.

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

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

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

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.

Spider-man 3 is pretty cool and entertaining.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Visually stunning, stylized, underrated superhero movie .

It was boring and a time waster.

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

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.

Entertaining .

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 was very bored.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

This sequence becomes bored and routine.

Very Predictable Very Entertaining .

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

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

I enjoyed 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.

The depth of emotions and the ethical message is so riveting is so ripe for today's complicated and crumbling societal direction.

What an awful, boring waste of time.

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

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

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

DVD has two enjoyable commentary tracks.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

There are many elements that make the film enjoyable.

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.

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

) 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.

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

He speaks in a monotone and never changes expression.

" in a boring tone.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Spidey for eMpty-TV Generation .

It just felt contrived.

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

Honestly the script is so predictable its unreal.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

Everything in this movie is totally predictable.

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

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

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

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.

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

Begging slow!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

A lot of this comes off as self-indulgent.

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

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

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

disjointed and slow .

POINTLESS!

Sandman is boring.

Worst Movie Ever .

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

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

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.

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

I was so bored.

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

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

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

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.

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?!

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.

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

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.

An Empty and Boring Action Flick .

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!

Good plot, great soundtrack, and intense action.

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

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.

Simply the worst movie of the season.

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.

(It's worth watching once).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

The technology is amazing & the sandman fights are stunning.

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.

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.

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

The plot itself is complex but very coherent and engaging.

Handles too much but nevertheless a funnier and enjoyable adaptation .

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

if you get bored...

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

It's the most emotionally gripping.

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.

The film ending on a solemn and reflective slow dance between Peter and Mary Jane rather than having them make up and get back together Hollywood style?

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

Worst movie of the last ten years!

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

The first "Spider-Man," was enjoyable.

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.

good but slow...

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.

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.

But that would just become monstrous and pointless.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Awful, Sloppy - I would have walked out .

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

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

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

Nothing happens.

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.

Even the story part is 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.

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

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

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

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

Blah Blah Boring .

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

And the ending was so boring.

and pointless.

First the story is cliché as hell.

Over all Spider-Man 3 is an entertaining movie.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

A flawed but very entertaining film.

entertaining allegory .

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

Bland and embarrassing.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Other then that don't waste your time.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

The story dragged on and on.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 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?

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).

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.

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

Spider-Man 3 is anything but boring.

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.

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

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

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

As a matter of fact it was enjoyable.

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

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

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.

Waste of time .

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And some of the action scenes are wonderfully gripping.

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.

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

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

The lightheartedness of the first Spiderman movie was entertaining.

It is good to watch when you are bored.

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

There was no real plot.

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.

Don't waste your money on this pile.

It was by far the most action packed 2.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Going on way too long.

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.

Were the first two Spidey films more enjoyable movies?

It's sad to see this trilogy end on its worst movie, oh well...

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

I really enjoyed it.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

The film is too disjointed.

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.

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

A horrible and needless contrived connection of Sandman to Peter.

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

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

the action scenes are well done and entertaining.

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

Long,Boring and Cheesy.

Truly enjoyable.

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

Worst movie of the last ten years.

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.

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

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.

BORING!

He becomes Edgy Peter parker for a few seconds reverts back because Aunt May said some stuff reverts back again after what Harry did and then he starts to dance and then it becomes a short pointless petty love triangle in that one scene were Peter slaps MJ and then he reverts back again.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

So the movie starts out pretty slow.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

boring.

Your story has grown tiresome .

There were several enjoyable moments, and I was entertained.

" cliché.

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 special fx were the most realistic and stunning 4.

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

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

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

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.

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.

The worst movie i have ever watched .

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

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.

a waste of time and money .

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

Waste of talent and money .

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

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

Entertaining, action-packed movie with few flaws .

It was fun and entertaining.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Cliché "Spidey" 3 .

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

This movie is more of an entertaining mess than anything really.

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.

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.

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

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