|
Spider-Man 3 [Blu-ray] | ![Spider-Man 3 [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-UZV7iwqL._SL160_.jpg)
 enlarge | Director: Sam Raimi
Actors: Toby Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace
Studio: Columbia Pictures
Category: DVD
List Price: $43.95
Buy Used: $4.39
You Save: $39.56 (90%)
New (59) Used (70) from $4.39
Rating:  437 reviews
Sales Rank: 1801
Format: Anamorphic, Color, Dolby, Subtitled, Widescreen
Languages: English (Original Language), French (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language), Portuguese (Original Language), Cantonese (Subtitled), Chinese (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), Korean (Subtitled), French (Dubbed)
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: Blu-ray
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1
Number Of Discs: 2
Running Time: 139 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 3
Dimensions (in): 6.7 x 5.3 x 0.5
MPN: 15932
UPC: 043396159327
EAN: 0043396159327
ASIN: B000UR9T7I
Theatrical Release Date: May 4, 2007
Release Date: October 30, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Excellent condition. Fast shipping.
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
How does Spider-Man 3 follow on the heels of its predecessor, which was widely considered the best superhero movie ever? For starters, you pick up the loose threads from that movie, then add some key elements of the Spidey comic-book mythos (including fan-favorite villain Venom), the black costume, and the characters of Gwen Stacy and her police-captain father. In the beginning, things have never looked better for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire): He's doing well in school; his alter ego, Spider-Man, is loved and respected around New York City. And his girlfriend, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), has just taken a starring role in a Broadway musical. But nothing good can last for Spidey. Mary Jane's career quickly goes downhill; she's bothered by Peter's attractive new classmate, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard); and the new Daily Bugle photographer, Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), is trying to steal his thunder. Enter a new villain, the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), 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. There's also the son of an old villain, Harry Osborne (James Franco), who unmasked Spidey in the previous movie and still has revenge on his mind. And a new black costume seems to boost Spidey's powers, but transforms mild-mannered Peter into a mean and obnoxious boor (Maguire has some fun here). If that sounds like a lot to pack into one 140-minute movie, it is. While director Sam Raimi keeps things flowing, assisted on the screenplay by his brother Ivan and Alvin Sargent, there's a little too much going on, and it's inevitable that one of the villains (there are three or four, depending on how you count) gets significantly short-changed. Still, the cast is excellent, the effects are fantastic, and the action is fast and furious. Even if Spider-Man 3 isn't the match of Spider-Man 2, it's a worthy addition to the megamillion-dollar franchise. --David Horiuchi More Spiderman on DVD 
The Spiderman Toy Store | 
More Spider-man on Amazon | 
Spider Man on the small screen | 
The Soundtrack | 
For PlayStation 2 | 
The Book |
More Superheroes on DVD | - Jimmy Neutron
- Justice League
- Kim Possible
| - Robocop
- Spider-Man
- Superman
| - Wonder Woman
- X-Men
- Also see our Action & Adventure Store
| Stills from Spider-Man 3 (click for larger image)
Product Description
Columbia Pictures Spider-Man 3 (Blu-ray)
Your friendly neighborhood web-slinger is back, only this time his sunny outlook has become partially overcast in the third chapter of director Sam Raimi's Spider-Man saga. Astrange black entity from another world bonds with Peter Parker and causes inner turmoil as he contends with new villains, temptations, and revenge.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 432 more reviews...
 Spider-Man 3 - All art no plot August 19, 2008
Reef Shark (Houston, Texas)
One of the most anticipated movies of summer 2007 Spider-Man 3 ended as possibly the biggest letdown. The spirit that had driven the first two films seems to fizzle in a film that just doesn't have a story to work with its substantial budget.
The original Spider-Man was a great popcorn film, providing a good live-action adaptation of the character's development while Spider-Man 2 was one of the best superhero features ever put on film. So why does a sequel involving the same cast and director fail? I personally believe it was art. Director Sam Raimi seems so caught up in dazzling the audience with visual spectacles that he loses the heart of the previous films. The special effects drive this film which is never a good thing. Human elements are lost, and thus the film fails. Sorry to say Tobey Maguire's portrayal of Peter Parker and Spider-Man is amusing, but it isn't in the same league as Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow who'll pull in the crowds. The acting in these films has been good, but no character has ever stood out to the point of wanting to see the movie for the character alone. J. Jonah Jameson is probably the most enjoyable character of all three films, but of course no one wants to see a movie based on him.
Part of the no plot problem is the villain overdose this film suffers from. How they went from Green Goblin in the first one, Doctor Octopus in the second (my favorite of the web-slinger's villains) to the third with New Goblin, Sandman and Venom. That's THREE villains, Sandman and Venom not getting enough character development for the villain to care about them as characters, and you only know New Goblin because, you guessed it, Harry Osborn's been in the last two films, prepping for his turn to crime...which also comes across as very forced in this movie. Not to try and spoil the film, but to save viewer groans he has a period where he hits his head and forgets Peter's Spider-Man, but of course remembers later on. The fact that they used that cliché is something I can't understand.
Moving on to Venom and Sandman, we get a mixed issue. Neither of these characters gets the screen time required to have the viewer care for them, especially Sandman. Another problem I have is after they went through all the trouble of bringing realism to Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus, Sandman still looks and dresses exactly as he does in the 60s comic books, but not to discredit him entirely some of the Sandman effects in the film provide great entertainment. Then we have Venom, who I actually liked the design of, but even if Eddie was fleshed out he must only be Venom for the last fifteen minutes of this movie, and knowing how many fans the character has this will come as a major disappointment to say the least.
Going back to visuals and specials effects; this film suffers from some of the same problems the original Spider-Man film did, and that's at times the special effects seem to deny reality in many ways. Characters seem to fly through the air as if they are weightless, and some things just defy physics and logic, no matter how cool it looks on screen. Spider-Man 2 didn't suffer from this, Doctor Octopus and Spidey seemed to have weight to them when they fought on building tops and fought across The Big Apple. Sandman turning into a sandstorm and flying around (probably against the wind too) doesn't seem to cut it as real.
Overall Spider-Man 3 is a great display of visuals, but not that great of a movie. Lots of it looks like they had a concept artist sketch some cool images out which Raimi just randomly slapped in their (such as Spider-Man crouching in front of an American flag). Could've worked as a poster collection, or comic book, just not as one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year.
Spider-Man 3, I give it a solid 3/5 Stars
Each Plot, and Actor, Needed Their Due August 13, 2008
Scott William Foley (Illinois)
(I'm almost sure there are no spoilers in this review, but read at your own risk.)
From the get-go, I thought Spider-Man 3 looked a bit ... crowded. I had no idea how they were going to incorporate new angles with Sandman, Venom, and Gwen Stacy, as well as follow up on logical story progressions with Peter Parker, Mary Jane, Harry Osborn, and Aunt May.
Well, in short, the movie lived up to my expectations ... it was very crowded.
However, that's not to say that I thought it was bad.
In fact, I really enjoyed it. It moved hyper-fast, with so much going on I literally had to stay on the edge of my seat to keep up with everything, but I did have a lot of fun watching it.
What I enjoyed the most was the superb acting, but that's also what makes me the most regretful about Spider-Man 3. Any one of the film's multiple plots could have been a very satisfying movie in and of itself.
James Franco has finally matured as an actor and I found his Harry Osborn both charming and utterly creepy. He really held his own with Maguire. I can't say I cared for his Goblin outfit, but the conflict between the two characters easily could have made for a great film, especially with the chemistry between the two actors.
Thomas Haden Church, always wonderful, brought a depth and sensitivity to Sandman that I wouldn't have thought possible. He instantly made me care about the character but his entire subplot was rushed and the audience was totally cheated from what also could have been a remarkable movie by itself. The Sandman effects, by the way, were out of this world.
Finally, I'm not a huge Venom fan. I'm not against the character, but I'd much rather see Spider-Man's classic villains brought to celluloid life. That being said, I think Topher Grace did a magnificent job with the Eddie Brock character, and the visuals of Venom, while perhaps not everyone's bag, were pretty disturbing and therefore fun. I've always thought of Grace on par with Maguire in terms of being squeaky-clean, so it was nice to see his arrogant and unlikable Eddie Brock. In my mind, Grace stole many of the scenes. That being said, the whole black suit/Venom angle could have been a move all by itself as well.
Instead, they mashed all three of these rich plots together into something that felt like Dr. Frankenstein had gotten into movie making. Spider-Man 3, while visually captivating and a true action movie, lacked all of the heart and characterization of Spider-Man 2, and lacked the sheer exuberance of Spider-Man 1.
Man, it really sounds like I didn't like Spider-Man 3, doesn't it? I honestly enjoyed it very much; I just would have liked to see each of these plots, and actors, given their due.
~Scott William Foley, author of The Imagination's Provocation: Volume I: A Collection of Short Stories
 Okay, but too much crammed into one movie... August 9, 2008
Jude Nguyen (Cali)
Spiderman 3 a necessary title to complete you spiderman collection, but wouldn't be too concerned with getting a copy.
ACtion wise its amazing as usual, nothing less what you would expect from a marvel title. however unlike the first two spiderman titles there's to many items crammed into this one movie.
Not as good as the others, but could have been worse August 9, 2008
Clayton Bambrough
I loved spider man 1, and enjoyed the second even more. When i was sitting in the theatre waiting for the 3rd movie to begin, i was expecting something totally spectaculer that would blow me away. But i was extremely disappointed.
The problem with spidey 3 is it lacks content. The first and second had in depth looks at the characters, but this one didn't as much. The biggest problem was the number of villains. It made the story seem somewhat unorganized and thrown together. It's also clear that Tobey Maguire is loosing intrest in his role as peter parker/spider man.
Another problem was the way spider man was out numbered in the end. If it wasn't for Harry coming and saving him there would have been flattened spidey peices everywhere. They should have called it spider man 3 and in brackets: "new goblin" A real hero would have been able to take on everyone at once. But what would have been better would be if spiderman had taken on each villain one at a time, instead of all at once, although it did make it more of an intense sequence at the end.
What the movie lacks in story it makes up for in visuals. The cgi is well done, especially for venom and sandman. Also the way the venom moves is quite intresting.
Another thing i missed from the first 2 was spideys web slinging. He hardly ever swings from building to building, but that may be because Raimi figured spider man had done enough of that in the first 2.
I gave this movie 3 stars because it doesn't have a great plot, but good cgi. I think because this movie was not as successful as the first 2, there might not be a 4th. Although i would like to see the lizard before they finish making the spider man movies. But who knows, it's been left open for another sequel, so they might do another one in the not too distant future.
When will Hollywood LEARN?! July 31, 2008
R. Cassano (Information Highway, USA)
As a die-hard Spider-Man fan, I enjoyed this film. As a film critic, there's a lot to be desired.
The action and effects are easily the best in the series. Some of the most stunning effects I have seen. Unfortunately, the acting and dialogue is probably the worst.
The Good: I appreciate what elements Sam Raimi brings to this film from the comic, specifically, the Venom symbiote. It's a gutsy move to include it, because it's a stretch for the casual Spider-Man fan to digest an alien coming down and taking over Peter Parker (& Brock), but hey, it's true to the comic.
I also loved the Sandman action sequences, good use of his powers. But making him the gunman of Peter's uncle Ben was a little over the top for me, especially given the ending. To Raimi's defense, at least they give you SOME reason to understand the Sandman's motivations. I was really hoping Venom would be better utilized but he was more of a one-hit wonder character than anything substantial. He's more used as a device to demonstrate the alien's power over people.
In the end, the action sequences are wonderful and thrilling and found myself wanting to rewind and watch is slow motion more than once.
The Bad: Much of the dialogue is forced, failing to flow nearly as easily or believably as 1 or 2. Tobey Maguire seems far less comfortable with the character in this film, which is surprising and unfortunate. Too many homage scenes too, where the writers felt they should give EVERY character that's been in any of the first films at least 5-10 minutes of screen time (like the landlord and his daughter.) This was a huge complaint I had about Pirates II...give us substance instead of what you THINK we want to see more of.
Also, there's times where scenes are so unbelievable from a HUMAN standpoint, you almost can't believe the scene was ever approved. Case in point - in one scene, Gwen Stacy barely clings to a damaged building, dangling 30 stories up. Below are her father and boyfriend watching from the street. One would think they would be panic stricken, especially the father. Instead, both as docile as two strangers watching the evening news. They are so blase in fact, that Brock (Stacey's BF) takes the opportunity to tell the her father that he's been dating her. Meanwhile, she's second from death. I felt more panic from the extra in Spider-Man 1 where she's waiting to see if her baby is rescued from a burning building.
And my biggest issue should not be news to Hollywood - GOOD MOVIES DO NOT NEED TO BE 2.5 HOURS LONG! This movie could have EASILY dropped 30-40 minutes and been a great film. They spend WAY too long on needless scene after needless scene (the part where Parker shows up with Stacy at the Jazz club could have been a 5 minute scene; instead, it's dragged on for 15 minutes and it's not even a good scene.) What's worse, many of these unnecessary scenes are redundant - how many dramatic scenes do we need to illustrate the tension between Parker and MJ? I didn't count, but it seemed like 20 when there only needed to be maybe 3.
In the end, despite my complaints, I did enjoy the film. It's a must-see on the big screen given its effects and cinematography. If there is a SM4, let's hope for a less contrived and convoluted script.
|
|
|
|
| |
