• Bill Shannon

    ★★★ Added by Bill Shannon

    I might be one of the only people in America who thinks "Spider-Man 3" is better than "Spider-Man 2."

    The first two Spidey flicks were one up (Spider-Man), one down (Spider-Man 2), so this one is the tie-breaker. I'd say it redeems the franchise as a whole, but just.

    Like the other two, this one has impressive special effects, but also like the other two, it spends too much time on "drama" which is supposed to intensify the story, but…


  • Xelax666

    ½ Added by Xelax666

    Cuando tenía 14 años, esta peli me flipaba, cuando volví a verla con 20, me di cuenta que apestaba.


  • Rob MacKinnon

    ★★★ Watched by Rob MacKinnon 15 Jan, 2015

    Not nearly as bad as its reputation would suggest. I was entertained throughout.


  • Brian McLain

    ★★★★ Added by Brian McLain

    This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.


  • Martin Cross

    ★★½ Rewatched by Martin Cross 09 Jan, 2015

    J. Jonah Jameson: [Catching Betty Brant and Peter Parker about to kiss] "Parker! Miss Brant! That's not the position I hired you for!""

    After 2 excellent films, it seemed only right to let my boy watch this so he could complete the Raimi trilogy. Even as a 7 year old who should lap up a villain bloated mess like this he found himself bored.

    The story isn't awful but feels prolonged, and would have benefited from losing the sandman plot…


  • Alexander Sigsworth

    Watched by Alexander Sigsworth 10 Jan, 2015

    This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.


  • Alex A

    ★★ Added by Alex A

    Spider-Man '02? Somewhat campy, yet overall refreshing and fun. Spider-Man 2? Major step up from it's also solid predecessor with higher stakes, a deeper character study and better villain. Spider-Man 3? A full-grown kitten molded from it's two predecessors, loaded into a cannon, and shot at a brick wall at close range. Like most threequels, this is the absolute worst of Raimi's trilogy with an overabundance of characters(what a wasted Venom), pathetically executed "symbiote-spidey" subplot, Emo Peter Parker and lazy writing.


  • Kauri Chennai Singh

    ★★ Added by Kauri Chennai Singh

    A cluttered and mediocre-ly acted superhero movie that is only good for so bad it's good value or a guilty pleasure. But it isn't AS bad as people make it out to be.



  • Matt Singer

    ★★★½ Rewatched by Matt Singer 01 Jan, 2015 2

    C'mon, Sam Raimi, it's not so bad. A full appreciation: screencrush.com/spider-man-3-isnt-bad/


  • tjeckz

    Added by tjeckz

    The third installment of the Spider-Man series takes an odd turn as Spidey is forced to take on three new supervillians – the New Goblin, Sandman, and Venom, who all have different reasons to hate Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Meanwhile, trouble starts arising in Peter’s seemingly story-book romance with Mary-Jane. Action is sparse, and there is some painful dialogue and acting. Some fancy camerawork saves this a little bit, but for some reason the series seems to have stopped taking itself seriously and gone completely comic-book. John Paxton is extremely funny, probably unintentionally, as the Osborn family Butler. Speaking of which, Harry Osborn really, really likes that pie.


  • Vince Leo

    ★★½ Added by Vince Leo

    As a true-blue Spider-Man fan, it pains me to say it -- this third time offers little charm.


  • Colin Gillespie

    ★★★★★ Watched by Colin Gillespie 01 Jan, 2015

    I don't care what people say I like this movie yes it may have problems but I still like this movie. What I like about this movie it's more darker than the other movies from the first two films plus new bad guys I love the way you see Sandman and Venom was cool but has problems and the green goblin was cool new suit. To me this is a guilty pleasure movie to me so if you don't like then do like it just don't tell me.