The only GOOD Raimi Spidey Film
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Marvel/DC
T-eschberger — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 09:44 AM)
Yes, I said it. Spider-Man 2 gets all the love and Spider-Man 3 and the Amazing films get all the hate, while this film is promptly ignored.
I dislike Raimi's take on Spidey as a whole. Spider-Man 2 is one of the most overrated blockbusters of all time. It has horrible pacing issues, stiff, awkward and corny acting and dialogue. Maguire is a terrible actor that is a charisma vacuum. He's a simpering, whimpering sack of anti-likability and talent. I don't believe him as a superhero, an everyday young man, or a love interest. His chemistry with MJ is non-existent and painfully awkward to watch. All of their scenes drag and have a cringe level so high it's embarrassing to watch.
The dialogue is over-written melodramatic soap opera crap. Every adult figure in Peter's life gives him the same kind of inspirational after school special pep-talk BS. Aunt May, Otto, Otto's Wife, a random doctor and Dead Dream Uncle Ben. All of them blatantly spout the themes, morals and lessons to Peter is exposition so heavy-handed it leaves mental bruises on the viewers brain.
Raimi's sense of humor is too tongue-in-cheek for the films humor and drama to mesh well. He's not ever overtly making fun of the character, but he constantly winks and nudges to audience saying "this is a little silly, ain't it?" This makes the melodramatic scenes all the more hard to stomach because of how dramatic and serious Raimi directs them. Am I supposed to be invested with Peter as he confesses he's Spider-Man to a public phone? Because I laugh my ass off. This scene could work with better writing and acting. But Maguire is just so pathetically weak in the roleit's nothing but cringe.
The only good thing Spider-Man 2 had going for it is the action. And do I need to mention Spider-Man 3? No, I didn't think so. It's a film that actually gets worse and worse as time goes on. I've re-visited it from time to time trying to find value and all that happens in I keep finding more and more flaws.
Now, the first Raimi Spider-Man has the same kind of tone as the sequels. It's goofy, a little cheesybut I don't ever feel like Raimi is winking at us like he is in the sequels. There is no "Raindrops" or emo dancing beep Peter equivalent here. The conversations and dialogue don't have the preachy sap BS to them like the sequels do. The dialogue is much more earnest, thus making the acting much more earnest. Maguire is actually tolerable here and shares some ok chemistry with Dunst.
In the sequels, the cast is mugging. In this filmthey're simply performing. Yeah, Defoe is OTTbut it's the character the Goblin is and his connection to Peter doesn't feels as forced as the one in with Otto in Spidey 2. People praise Molina's Doc Ock for reasons I can't comprehend. All he did was do a pale imitation of Defoe. Defoe may be OTT and sillybut there is a underlying menace to him the whole time. When he screams "Do you know how much I sacrifice!" in a boardroom it may illicit a gigglebut at the same time I feel like this guy is truly unhinged and dangerous. I never once felt any kind of threat from Molina's Ock. When Ock is standing around alone, talking to himself and his arms vowing to finish his experiment and declares nothing will stand in his wayI just giggle because it's goofy. End of.
The script for the first Spidey is fantastically written. It's just about 2hrs and moves like well-oiled machine without ever sacrificing heart or character. I give credit to David Koepp, an underrated Hollywood writer if there ever was one. Yeah, give him crap from Indy 4 or whatever (which was always going to have aliens. So shut up.) but the guy knows how to inject character into scripts and understands plotting. This film tells a near perfect superhero story with 30 minutes less screentime than most superhero films today. If Spider-Man 2 had Koepp onhand, it wouldn't feel nearly as wooden and melodramatic and maybe the performances would have faired better. -
AndrewGS — 9 years ago(July 04, 2016 10:02 AM)
I thought Maguire was a lot more confident and likeable in 2 than the first film.
Dafoe had good menace but I thought Molina did too and what was especially good with Dr. Octopus is I felt it actually worked for him to be an older, darker reflection of what Peter could be (unfortunately Raimi then went way-overboard with Sandman supposedly being sympathetic and having a personal connection to Peter in 3); he was also effective as a villain who had presence and a story and yet was very much a supporting character/villain rather than a huge focus of the film. I don't see how the acting style is real different or the actors are mugging in the sequels. -
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 9 years ago(July 04, 2016 07:46 PM)
I thought Maguire was a lot more confident and likeable in 2 than the first film.
I don't agree at all. Being confident would mean he would go ask some other girl out when MJ tells him she's seeing someone else. Heck, to me personally being confident would be not giving up being Spider-Man though it was forced on him in Spider-Man 2 since he lost his powers. Confident would be him standing up to the people who rudely bumped into him on the college campus. Confident would also mean trying to help the guy who was getting beat up/murdered by calling 911 on a payphone nearby.
Green Goblin is great! -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 07:54 AM)
I don't agree at all. Being confident would mean he would go ask some other girl out when MJ tells him she's seeing someone else. Heck, to me personally being confident would be not giving up being Spider-Man though it was forced on him in Spider-Man 2 since he lost his powers. Confident would be him standing up to the people who rudely bumped into him on the college campus. Confident would also mean trying to help the guy who was getting beat up/murdered by calling 911 on a payphone nearby.
Comic book Tony Stark would have never agreed to create Ultron, and he would most definitely not force Bruce Banner to help him out with that. Stark is an inventor, not a conceptualist. He believes that man has to be in control of technology, and not the other way around. Here, one of the primmest examples of how different comic book Tony Stark is from the way he was portrayed in movies:
https://pp.vk.me/c837426/v837426686/fb93/JCqZl4nDaEk.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c837426/v837426686/fb9d/MoirnLsgcic.jpg
When Stark's cousin Morgan Stark used Ultimo as a substructure of his ship, Stark points how irrational and dangerous it is to make such decisions.
Tony Stark in Age of Ultron acts more like Tony Stark's cousin than actual Tony Stark.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that you always trash Raimi's Spider-Man because of how it's inaccurate, you ignore things like that in movies which you love - Age of Ultron. -
jaseace — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 07:19 PM)
Dont ever make me read that long of post again. I actually like all 3. 3 gets alot of flack but I still enjoyed it in the theater and own all 3. The first two were better, true. All 3 were superior to andrew garfields WEAK ass spider man movies. Those were god awful
-
ComicNerd — 9 years ago(August 18, 2016 02:44 PM)
This is a pretty fair post. I get the feeling most people like Spiderman 2 better then 1 because the action and VFX are better. The 1st Spiderman movie feels more complete to me, I'm not a fan of the high school to college jump but it feel like a more eventful movie.
The big problem with 2 is that outside the action scenes it's painfully dull. The movie tries to hard to give Parker a personal connection with Doc Ock, and makes Peter too much of a sad sack. Yes Peter Parker always had bad luck but he wasn't a complete pushover. I never liked Tobey as Spiderman but he was tolerable in 1. -
-
Phill24 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 01:52 PM)
The green goblin is a fine villian who comes off as being a nice guy, changed by chemicals and forced into being a bad guy. Its almost sad in a way.
In the comics Norman Osborn was not a nice guy. He's not a good guy gone bad, he's a bad guy gone nuts. Green Goblin/Norman Osborn should never be sympathetic. He's evil and crazy -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 07:37 AM)
In the comics Norman Osborn was not a nice guy. He's not a good guy gone bad, he's a bad guy gone nuts. Green Goblin/Norman Osborn should never be sympathetic. He's evil and crazy
I don't know to whom you replied, since that person deleted its post, but I'm assuming you are criticizing Green Goblin in the first Spider-Man movie. If so In the comics, The Mandarin is an oriental supremacist-megalomaniac who hold the power of an ancient alien race that crash-landed in China decades and decades ago, in the ancient Valley of Spirits, where he found their ship. Yet, you gave Iron Man 3 a 8 out 10, despite how inaccurate Mandarin was portrayed in it. -
BlablaBlackSheep — 2 years ago(December 28, 2023 07:14 PM)
I honestly found this to be the highest quality Spidey movie too, at least story wise as well as acting. The sequels got a little too hammy as they went on, although the special effects in 2 were the best of the trilogy.
Usually the first film in any series is going to be the cream of the crop, that’s when lightning in a bottle is most likely to be caught. Like Star Wars (yes, first is better than Empire you fools), Lord of the Rings, Godfather, Terminator, Alien.
The only thing that could have made Spider-Man a truly GREAT film (as opposed to just a very good one) is if they allowed or Raimi had ramped up his Evil Dead freakiness and unconventionality. Particularly with the Goblin animatronic mask that went unused. It looked terrifying and far more effective than the lame power rangers helmet they went with instead -
Kirk’s Dead Mommy — 2 years ago(December 28, 2023 07:36 PM)
The first film is always one of the worst because the Directors vision isn’t fully there.
Terminator 2 is vastly better than the original
The Road Warrior is vastly superior as is Fury Road
Infinity War is vastly better than the first Avengers film
This is particularly true in action franchise films where the first film suffers from a lack of technology and budgetary issues.
But in the case of the Raimi trilogy, Spiderman 2 is vastly better because it doesn’t have to waste all that time explaining the origin of the character and the love story between Peter and Mary Jane gets played out with a resolution….the original leaves us dangling.
