He's an excellent actor, and I thought he was above this type of movie. But he nailed this and brought a very villainous aura to the role. Well-done.
Sony needs to fully give Spider-man back to Marvel Studios. When they had it, they didn't do a damn thing right. Those Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield movies were horrible. Marvel Studios has it nailed.
The first two Spider Mans with Tobey are classics. What are you talking about? You Tom Holland fanboys need to be at least objective.
shareThe Raimi films are corny, Hollywood schmaltz. Have you watched them since they were new? They have not held up well at all, and even when new they didn't feel like Spider-Man films so much as generic, color-by-numbers superhero films. The two recent films are excellent, and appeal not only to hardcore fans of the comics but to general audiences as well.
shareNo you just like the formulaic MCU versions better because they use stupid comedy and are much easier to understand.
shareYou're certainly quick to insult people here. Why all the anger?
And would you really say the Raimi films are somehow more complex or deeper than the recent ones? Both had comedic elements, but I'd argue the MCU films employ more of an intellectual wit as opposed to the slapstick humor of the Raimi films. I'd also put forth that formulaic much better describes the Raimi films. Nothing about Far From Home fits any formula I've seen in a previous superhero film, while the Raimi films were color by number Hollywood hero films. They were unabashedly predictable, which was part of their campy charm.
Yeah, MCU movies humor is so intellectually witty hahahahahaha. Are you serious? Hahahahahaha go home troll
shareIf you think otherwise, you're in a tiny minority. Perhaps the reason you don't enjoy the humor is that it goes over your head?
shareGod, you guys always go for the “well, you’re in the minority” argument, don’t you?
Like having a complete lack of individuality is something to boast about.
LOL
Exactly and can you please explain to me how Marvel humor is witty, it’s juvenile.
shareThe humor in Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor: Ragnarok, the new Spider-Man films, it all feels very reminiscent of Monty Python, Preston Sturges, Howard Hawks, and that ilk. It's never a simple pratfall, it's seldom an obvious joke, you rarely see it coming, and you have to be paying attention to get the joke. It's not to your taste, I understand that, and there's no better or worse here. If you like the slapstick of the Raimi films, that's fine.
shareGiant Pac Man.
shareWho exactly are us guys?
I think it's a fair response to being called a troll that I point out I'm stating a commonly held belief, as opposed to stating something ridiculous and obviously false, i.e. trolling.
... generic superhero films when new?
Superhero films weren't exactly rampant in 2002 ...... what was there Batman, X-Men and ..... Blade?
I'll tell you what I'm talking about. Watch these last 2 Marvel Studio movies, then go back and watch the Maguire movies. Those movies are corny and cheesy. Maquire is about as stiff as a board. He's better-suited to play a dry-ass Vulcan in Star Trek. And Kirsten Dunst is about as appealing as a brick.
Nothing good happened for this franchise until Marvel Studios took the reins. Next, they need to get FF back and do some magic with that.
Kirsten Dunst is a 1000 Times more attractive than Zendaya lol. You MCU fanboys need to get a life.
shareThere you go again, stating your opinion as fact, then insulting those who disagree.
shareKirsten Dunst 1000 Times more attractive than Zendaya?? HA! No she is NOT. I like both actresses but Zendaya is stunning and naturally pretty. Kirsten is....not. Even w/out makeup Zendaya is cute. Kirsten again.... is NOT. They actually had to "ugly up" Zendaya's character to make her look plain Jane in the Spider-Man films, because with makeup she is nothing short of GORGEOUS.
Again... Nothing against either actress, but let's please not go spreading lies lol.
Zendaya looks like a man and has no breasts or behind. Dunst is stacked.
shareSo a woman only looks like a woman if she has a huge rack and a huge butt?? WOW.... Okay.... **eyeroll**
Still doesn't change the fact that Kirsten is plain and Zendaya is a goddess... I mean, did anyone SEE her at the Emmy's last week?? Whew.... you can't tell me she is not gorgeous. Sorry, not gonna convince me that Zendaya is ugly.
Idk why Marvel didn't allow her to look her "usual" self. That red hair really suits Zendaya. They could have given her red hair in the SM francchise, but they wanted to do something different for a change and make MJ smart, nerdy, awkward and not always the popular girl that all the guys want. It's refreshing actually.
You're wasting your time with this guy. Look at pretty much all his posts-- anger, rage, insults, name-calling.
Meanwhile, I agree, as do most-- the new films are great. We finally have Spider-Man movies that look and feel like Spider-Man movies. Raimi made fun movies, but movies with nearly no connection to the comics. They have not held up well at all over time, and to be honest they were campy when they were new.
MCU fanboy can’t be objective. It’s sad actually and I don’t give a rats ass about the comics. I’m talking about the movies bud.
shareFB. Don't waste your time responding to this dude. I'm guessing he's about 12yrs old.
shareI like the first Spiderman - plus it really helped kick start the superhero stuff along with X-Men back in the early 00's ... but subsequent Spiderman films were lacking indeed.
The new ones are pretty good, but I still think there is room for improvement.
Wow, are you for real? First and Second Spider-man movies are classics. Insulting them doesn't earn you any points. Wow.
shareClassics? Hardly. They are corny products of their time that have aged poorly. Sure, when they came out they were a lot of fun, because there was little to judge them against, but the MCU has shown us what comic book movies can be when taken seriously, and given us by far the two best Spider-Man films ever made.
shareNot true at all. I love the hole there was nothing else to compare them to therefore that is the only reason they were good. Spider-man 2 stands critically above any Spider-man film with the exception of into the Spider verse. Spider-man 2 was the first movie based on a Marvel character to win an Oscar until Black Panther. Richarder Donner's Superman is dated but does that make it any less of a film? Nope it does not. You have to account for time. Second the cgi in these new Spider-man movies are sub par at best. Nothing exceptional. Spider-man 2 had state of the art cgi for the time of it's release. That train sequence was amazing. Still the best live action Spider-man sequence.
shareI suggest you re-watch the Raimi Spider-Man films, then come back and you will surely admit that they are dated, campy relics the pale in comparison to the two MCU Spider-Man films.
shareSorry bud watched them the other day. Literally I watched them two weeks ago. Answer these questions for me. Does that mean Donner's Superman film is not a good movie because it is dated? Second why is Spider-man 2 critically hailed over the MCU Spider-man films if it pales in comparison to the MCU Spider-man?
We all have our own likes and dislikes. When I originally watched the Raimi Spider-Man films, I enjoyed them, but like I said-- it was because there wasn't much else out then. The MCU has taken superhero films to an entirely new level, and shown that comic book movies don't have to be goofy and aimed at kids, nor do they have to be cheezy Hollywood feel-good, predictable, formulaic efforts.
As to your questions-- the original Superman film is great, but again a product of its time. I think it holds up better than the Spider-Man films, probably because it is rooted in the '70s filmmaking era, which was just a better time for films than the turn of the century. It had the campy laughs, but it was also subdued in its approach. By the time Spider-Man came out, action films had become over-the-top, bloated, corporate monstrosities.
This isn't to say the Raimi films sucked. They had moments. The battle with Dr. Octopus on the train is certainly a well-filmed action sequence, although all the momentum it builds is lost in the stupid, schmaltzy "passing Spider-Man back like Jesus" bit of unintentional comedy.
So again, if you can watch those films and genuinely enjoy them without laughing, and aren't bothered by their maudlin cheese, well-- enjoy away. I think they're fun for children, but something an adult can't take seriously, whereas the MCU Spider-Man films are not just great superhero films, they're great films period, aimed at an adult audience. Take that as you will.
The Raimi films are what helped pave the way for superhero films in general for the 21st century. The MCU has been a huge cultural hit but I do not see what it did to take the superhero genre to new heights the way you are trying to claim. Batman Begins came long before the MCU did. That at it's core is a serious dark more grounded film. It does not follow the predictable formula either. Iron Man which was the beginning of the MCU pulled a lot from this movie. The hero's origin being told out of order, the mentor turned villain, as well as the hero being off in some obscure place where the rest of the world thinks he is dead but comes back with a new outlook on life. Which in turn ends up being the motive for them becoming the hero.
Being a product of the time is not a negative thing. How do you make a Superman movie back then timeless? Answer me that. There are good and bad films in every era. Lord of the Rings, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Harry Potter films and Borne Identity were out at that time as well. All of which ware considered quite solid films. So I do not buy into your generalization there. Were there bad films yep like any era as I said. Bourne Identity actually helped the spy genre be more believable and even James Bond started to copy it.
The battle on top of the train was amazing and also the upside down kiss is a memorable sequence that all of film historians and critics remember. It constantly is referred to as one of cinema's best kisses.
Lol did you just call the MCU Spider-man films great films period? Okay sure sorry but I can not agree with that whatsoever. Spider-man Homecoming and Far From Home can barely even crack the top 10 of superhero films critically much less greatest all time film lists. If Spider-man Homecoming was so exceptional where are it's Oscar nominations at? Now before we go here let me quantify. Superhero films do not technically garner up the big Oscar nods but Spider-man Homecoming did not receive even any nominations for technical awards.
Spider-man and Spider-man 2 received several nominations for there technical achievements at the time. Spider-man was nominated for best sound and best visual effects. Before I hear no competition it was up against LOTR the two Towers. It did not win over it but that is what it was up against. Spider-man 2 was nominated for 3 Oscars those being visual effects, best sound mixing, and best sound editing. It won the best visual effects Oscar it was up against Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban.
Spider-man 2 beats Far From Home and Homecoming critically. It had better visual effects for it's time as well. Second yeah those films are just as cheese as Raimi's. Raimi's while cheese did have those moments everyone remembers. Sorry but while I think they are good films I do not find anything memorable in them. I can guarantee these movies will be of their time just as much if not more so than Raimi's films were. JK Simmons was casted by Raimi why do you think they did not even try to recast because Raimi nailed that! No performance in these new films is as stand out as that one.
What did these MCU Spider-man movies do that elevates them to transcend the genre like you are claiming? I can quantify some superhero films that do this. Superman the movie, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Logan. Superman is on here why because it is the first to even be attempted. It opened the door that right there makes it something ambitious and endearing. The music is memorable as well as the chemistry between the actors.
Batman Begins: The first superhero story to be told out of order, the first superhero movie to have the mentor turn villain. Not the first dark superhero film that honor belongs to Batman. Notice I did not say first thematic superhero film that would go to X-men.
The Dark Knight: First superhero movie to subvert the damsel in distress cliche. The damsel actual dies and the hero truly fails.
Logan: First time the hero truly dies. Dealing with death fatherhood as well as accepting your own mortality. No end credits scene or world building just a tragic tale. A western like apocalyptic feel as well.
The MCU Spider-man movies while good do absolutely nothing to transcend the genre. They are good superhero movies nothing more.
Wait, I thought insulting people was what you hovered so high above.
shareDid I insult someone? Also, when did I say I'm above insulting someone? But really, who did I insult here?
shareWhen someone turns to base insults, you chastise them (justly). But then you feel free of that same guilt as you portray the movie they like as "made for children" and other honeyed portrayals of what kind of person it is made for. Couching your insult in prose is nicer to read and certainly a better gauge of insult but better if not from the same person who calls out people for their insult behavior. So I'm not calling you out for being insulting but rather for perfumed hypocrisy.
On Topic:
SM1:B+
SM2:A+
SM3:D
ASM1:C+
ASM2:F
HC:A
ItSV:A
FFH:Finding it hard to get interested in seeing the new SM. Prob see it on small screen
Oh, that guy. He was being awfully abrasive, but I did not intend to insult him. Or you. I definitely think the Raimi Spider-Man films are aimed squarely at children, but that doesn't mean adults can't enjoy them. Plenty of kids films are also fun for adults. That said, I think one of the main reasons that the MCU films have found unprecedented success is that they've flipped that formula. They make films for adults that children can also enjoy.
shareOh you didn't insult me. I don't care if people disagree with me nor if they look down at me. (I happily offer my fandom of old Godzilla films for public abuse). You turned the escape spotlight onto the guy for jumping to insults and then basically told him that he was a child. Not really a big deal to me but I saw it in my scope and sniped it. Know that my sniper rifle is Nerf brand.
I completely disagree with you about the (first two) Raimi films. They are the same style as MCU and no less cheesy. I think SM2 was in the top 3 of all time best comic book movies. Plenty of people I respect hate it, though.
Preach brother!
sharep.s. I recommend seeing Far From Home in a theater. It has some pretty neat effects that I think will be lost on a TV screen.
shareAlso let me add something to help my case for Spider-man being better than Spider-man Homecoming.
What consequences does Peter Parker face in Spider-man Homecoming? He destroys a shop no one dies, he shirks his responsibilities, gets detention for it and then ditches detention nothing happens. He endangers his team by leaving them high and dry at the competition they win and nothing happens. He ditches Liz at Homecoming and again nothing happens. The film even pokes fun at itself for this very thing. Peter goes back to rejoin the team and Flash is like you can't quit on us and stroll up and rejoin the team like it is nothing. His teacher then welcomes him back. It is self aware but that does not excuse weak storytelling.
In Raimi's Spider-man what are some consequences he faces? Well he lets a crook get away out of spite, we all know how that went now don't we? Accidentally reveals his identity unknowingly which puts his loved ones in danger.
They might've been cool back then, but have you watched one of them in the last year or so? They're really bad. They're corny and cheesy. They don't hold up well now. MCU has made Spiderman look like Spiderman should.
shareThis argument always drives me nuts. Richard Donner's Superman is corny and cheese as is Raimi's Spider-man films. Guess what that was intentional. The MCU Spider-man films are cheese as well. I for the life of me can not understand why Raimi's or Donner's films gets hate for that and then those same people turn around and rave about the MCU. Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers, Thor Ragnarok and the MCU Spider-man films not cheese? You sure about that?
Donner's Superman paved the way for superhero films in general. It's music, screenplay as well as chemistry between the characters is what made it a classic. Same goes for Raimi's Spider-man. A movie's tone is not what determines if it is well made or not it is the end result. Good light hearted cheese comic book movies Superman the Movie, Superman 2, Spider-man, Spider-man 2 etc. Good dark comic book films. The Dark Knight trilogy, Logan Sin City etc.
When I watch the old Superman films, or Raimi's Spider-Man films, they are openly corny. They're aimed at kids, unabashedly so. While that isn't a bad thing, it makes it hard for an adult to enjoy them in any deep way. They're formulaic, predictable, goofy movies for children. The MCU films are aimed at adults. Take Thor: Ragnarok, for example. It has a subtle, intellectual wit about it that will go right over the head of a child, but one that adults can appreciate. The MCU films never, in my recollection, dip into the goofy, cheesy territory that Raimi's films did.
As I've said before, this is not a knock on Raimi or his films. They are what they are, and they are great for what they are. What they aren't, however, are clever films with a sly wit. They are from the lineage of The Three Stooges' humor, and Flash Gordon's action. The MCU is from the Monty Python, Arrested Development school of humor.
Superman was a movie made for the entire family not just kids. Both Superman and the Raimi Spider-msn films have depth is the thing. You think because it is openly corny that by default makes it only for kids. Not true at all. Lex's real estate scheme is not something a kid would understand. The whole exchange between Lex Luthor and Superman is something only adults would get. How about this line? We all have our little faults mine's in California. The scene where Johnathon Kent dies this line from Clark. I have all these powers and I couldn't even save him. That humanizes Superman and shows that even as this all powerful being you can't stop death. The whole speech Jorel gives Clark in the Fortress of Solitude is adult as well.
Spider-man 2 had this quote.
I believe there is a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble. And finally gets us to die with pride. Even though sometimes we have to be steady and give up the thing we want most, even our dreams. What was that about there not being depth again?
Also no goofy scene that reeks of corniness in the MCU? Hmm okay lets see.
The dance off in Guardians of the Galaxy.
All of Kat Dennings scenes in Thor 1 and 2.
The nude scene in Thor 2
I wouldn't really categorize Superman with the Raimi films. It was a product of its times, and definitely had as much adult appeal as kid appeal. I was speaking mostly about the Spider-Man films, but I can see that the way I worded the previous post made it seem I was lumping them together.
I'm not saying the Raimi films are bad, or entirely without merit. They have some nice scenes, some fun lines, but as a whole they aren't to be taken seriously. There are simply too many moments of unintentional comedy, mixed in with slapstick and simple comedy, and the moments that try to be emotional come off as maudlin and schmaltzy. Likewise, the MCU films aren't perfect. I'd certainly consider Kat Dennings moments in the Thor films to be quite clever-- she offers a lot of quick bits of wry humor that are easy to miss if you aren't paying attention-- and she's one of the highlights of the film. I'm not sure what your issue was with Thor's reaction to Hulk walking around nude. Hemsworth played that off rather nicely, I thought, and the moment never stooped to any sort of juvenile bathroom humor, even though it could very easily have missed the mark.
In all honesty, we can go back and forth about this all day and never come to any resolution. I am curious about something-- if you were to create a short list of what you consider to be masterpieces of comedy, what would you include?
I suspect we may simply have very different tastes in humor. I'd offer Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Buster Keaton, Arrested Development, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, the Marx Brothers, The Office... those all come to mind as examples/purveyors of what strikes me as comedy with a deeper level of humor than that of, say, Saturday Night Live, Judd Apatow, the Three Stooges, and so forth.
It is your opinion they are not to be taken seriously. I myself never understood how people take the MCU movies seriously. Thor is every bit as cheese as the Raimi films were if not more so in my book. Anyway Kat Dennings clever? Not at all I found her scenes so very forced and unfunny. I am not talking about Thor's reaction to Hulk I am talking about Stellan Skarsgard running around nude in Thor the Dark World. Second you never addressed the dance sequence from Guardians of the Galaxy. The dance off to finish off a villain, that is not cheesy? The end fight in the first Spider-man is far more dark and brutal than anything in these new Spider-man films.
You like some of the same humor I do. Some let me give you a list of comedies I love. Groundhog Day, Ghostbusters, Princess Bride, Blazing Saddles, Evil Dead series, Wes Anderson fan, Arrested Development etc.
Here is the thing even when measuring technical film making the Raimi films blow most of the MCU films out of the water. For one he has lots of real backgrounds and practical stuff as opposed to just using a green screen as a background for the heroes to fight. His shots of New York are beautiful. The cinematography in those films still holds up nicely. Raimi likes to get as much done on camera as possible can not say that for a lot of MCU films. The Raimi films completely smash the thor films critically. Not just critically but they got several technical Oscar nominations. The Thor films nor Spider-man Homecoming received any nominations at all.
So in the end when film gets studied by critics and film historians the Raimi films are going to have the edge against the Thor films and most of the MCU films. Cultural impact is huge for the Raimi films nothing can take that away nor it's critical reception.
I'll add-- I'm a longtime, huge fan of Sam Raimi. Long before he directed Spider-Man I was a fan of his, and I was excited when I heard he was tasked with the project. The Evil Dead films were favorites of mine, the Quick and the Dead may be the most underrated Western ever filmed, A Simple Plan, For Love of the Game... both great movies, Drag Me to Hell is a masterpiece of horror filmmaking... and I don't hate his Spider-Man films. In any event, it's been a fun discussion. :)
shareSee that is interesting I love all his films. I guess that is where we disagree on the Spider-man films. Either way dude kudos for liking Drag Me to Hell and the Quick and the Dead. I feel Raimi in general is underrated as a film maker. Either way we can agree to disagree. Good discussion. I also love a Simple Plan and everything he has done. It is a shame he has not directed anything in a while.
shareIf you haven't already, you two should check out "Lunatics: A Love Story." Raimi only produced it but it's a gem.
shareI thought the first two movies were excellent at the time they came out. However, I don't think if they came out now they would such a hit. The bar has been raised so much higher now
shareThe actor from Bubble Boy and Prince of Persia is above this sort of movie? Sure.
shareYeah, it’s smart to judge an actor based on two early roles from his career. So I guess every actor is terrible then because every actor in history has been in bad movies. You’re a complete loser and troll. Get a life scumbag.
shareI never said anything like that. Perhaps you should read the OP (or at least his first sentence) and then reread my post.
shareAfter seeing him in Nightcrawler I thought he'd be perfect as a villain in the MCU, but with all the sort of indie movies he was doing I never actually imagined he'd join. His Mysterio was one of the best parts of the movie by far and I absolutely loved the movie as a whole.
I feel Marvel Studios should be able to have the live action Spider-Man, but after Into the Spider-Verse (which is arguably the best Spider-Man movie out there), I can't say Sony hasn't done ANYTHING right. I absolutely can't wait for the Spider-Verse sequel. Also they may not have aged well, but the first two Raimi Spider-Man films were great for the time. Without all the studio politics, I'm sure Spider-Man 3 would've turned out a lot better than what we got as well.
That being said, the MCU Spider-Man is the best live action iteration of the character in my eyes and I hope Sony lets Marvel Studios use him (and all his rogues) for as long as they want to make Spider-Man films. As far as I'm aware Sony is making a huge profit off that deal too, so what do they have to lose?
I thought he was a little over the top and caricaturistic. Its not easy to pull off something so fantastical while coming off serious.
share