Boy you really need to get out more to the movies; Superhero movies are B pics at their best.
I will be forever confused by people who thought the first one was anything better than “mediocre”, largely because of what the OP is describing. J.K. Simmons was the only actor that was remotely interesting to watch, and it only got worse when there were multiple actors on the screen at the same time attempting to have some facsimile of interesting interaction.
The second movie, on the other hand, is a pretty decent movie simply from the presence of Alfred Molina. He does his best to overcome the script, and he comes really close to making it a Legitimately Good Movie.
The less said about number three, the better.
[QUOTE=madsircool]
Boy you really need to get out more to the movies; Superhero movies are B pics at their best.
[/QUOTE]
Off the top of my head, the two Nolan Batman movies, the first Iron Man, X-Men First Class, and of course the Avengers were A-level in quality. I’m sure I’m missing a couple. Just because a genre is 90% misses doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have some real quality as well; same as pretty much any other film genre, really.
Just to pick nits, it was Macy Gray, not Blige.
First of all, no.
Second of all, go have some fun at the movies. Just get up and go see The Avengers or Spider-Man right now. Feel free to leave your Film School Discussion Hat at home.
Third of all, we’re putting together a big list for you.
I’m not a huge Spider Man fan in general. But cinematically, I have trouble getting past the same bizzarre camera angles and snap zooms that Raimi uses in Xena and Hercules.
So are Westerns.
Superhero movies by the very definition are B pics: They are complete fantasy and dont attempt to explore or expose a deeper side of humankind. While many if not most Westerns are also B pics, Westerns do not automatically fall into the fantasy category.
Its sad in some way that major Hollywood studios now release product aimed at the lowest common denominator. Todays corporate garbage cannot compare to the last Golden Age of film..the late 60’s early 70’s. Apart from an Oliver Stone, what happened to the filmmaker?
Christopher Nolan is very much a filmmaker, and also does super hero films.
The whole premise of Spider-Man is inherently kind of weird, though. Lots of awkward sexual symbolism. The gratuitous views of MJ’s rain-soaked nipples are especially kind of odd/unexpected for a “kid’s movie,” not that I’m complaining about it.
Nonsense.
The Dark Knight used its entire running length to expose a deeper side of humankind.
The X-Men movies are allegories for how people who are “different” have the choice to try and fit in with society or to oppose it. Even when they fail (X-Men 3), they are attempting to explore a deep issue.
Spider-Man was written by David Koepp. Action movie with some comedy. Willem Dafoe is dark and scary.
Spider-Man 2, written by Alvin “Ordinary People” Sargent. Again, action with comedy. Spider-Man quits being a hero, a man is driven to madness and crime with some scary robot arms, aunt May fights him with her umbrella. Not bland.
Spider-Man 3, written by Sam and Ivan Raimi. A farce with some action thrown here and there. Emo Peter Parker dances in the streets, the two girls are cardboard cutouts of a 1920’s damsel in distress… Bland.
Actually, you’ve confused me a bit by stating they changed the scenario. I thought it was pretty accurate, but it’s been a while since I read a reprint of the original. What exactly changed? Who the robber robbed? Why Peter chose not to stop him?
I don’t understand how people can be more impressed with 2 than 1. I disliked the second movie because it felt like it was such a rehash of the first movie and heard others make the same complaint quite a bit at the time (not as much as about the chocolate cake controversy, but a lot), so how could you fail to like both pretty equally if you liked the second?
I like them both pretty equally. For my money, while Dafoe was great in 1, Molina was even better in 2 (and Doc Ock looked a lot better than Green Goblin). Also, they brought Peter and MJ together at the end, ending all the dancing around they were doing. (It’s a shame that 3 was as botched as it was, otherwise it would have been interesting seeing things develop.)
That’s not the definition of a B picture.
In the original comic-book version, Peter (as Spider-Man) is stepping out of a studio where his TV show was filmed (in the first few weeks after getting his powers and designing his costume, Peter becomes a TV performer and earns some serious money doing elaborate stuntwork) when a man runs past with a security guard behind him yelling “Stop that man!” The man reaches the elevator and escapes, while the guard chastises Spidey for not tripping him, or holding him for a second or two, as that was all it would take. There’s no indication that the thief has any connection with Spidey’s employment, other than happening to be on the same floor. Spidey’s inaction was not because of some petulant scorn for the thief’s victim, but pretty much a normal response anyone (who isn’t yet a superpowered vigilante) might have. Spidey does express annoyance at being lectured by the guard, who he not unjustly might see as the latest in a line of authority figures and bullies trying to push him around.
I admit the Raimi movie improves on the sequence in the sense of Ben’s presence being linked to Peter’s, and his death being incidental to the thief’s flight. It’s still a goofy coincidence, but now much less of one. There had been an attempt in the comics to explain why a guy who robs a commercial building in Manhattan later tries to burgle a home in Queens, but I forget how that worked out.
Didnt say that it was.
Doesn’t IMDb miss you?
This quote sounds like something manufactured to sound like the archetype of a cinema snob. Really? Have you had any exposure to superhero stories? Almost all of the major ones have something to say about the human condition. Since when do fantasy elements exist in a vaccuum where no instrospection is possible?
What’s with this sad that Hollywood tries to make money stuff? That has always been the goal of the industry, studios bank on the art that people want to consume. Do you think that the timeless classics wern’t created to make money? Do you think that all the great movies were somber reflections on humanity? Because a lot of my favorite older films (like the classic musicals) are pretty damn frivelous. Or do you think that all the movies we remember from different eras with modern DVD releases were all there were and bad movies didn’t exists then for the same reason they exist now?
Geeze get some perspective.
Watch out, I got thoughts on Spider-Man 3.
Though oft-maligned, I loved it in theaters and still think it’s a solid, if flawed, movie. The big problem with SM3, to my mind, is that its clear Raimi knew this would be his last Spidey movie, so he tried to cram *everything *into this movie. Not only do you have Spidey vs. Sandman with the revelation that Sandman was involved in Uncle Ben’s death, you got Harry going batshit crazy, the introductions of Eddie Brock and Gwen Stacy, and of course Peter gets the symbiote and then encounters Venom. It’s TOO MUCH.
Honestly, Raimi should’ve kept to Peter and Harry and Spidey and Sandman, and made one solid movie that way, and if he had a chance, kept Venom for a fourth movie. Because Venom appears so late in the movie and there’s no build-up, he doesn’t seem like a truly intimidating foe. It’s also too late in the game to bring in Gwen, when Norman died in the first movie (thusly wiping out her famous death in the comics).
Harry’s amnesia in SM3 is hokey, but I’m not sure it’s any hokier than anything in the comics, and it served an important purpose: reminding Peter and MJ, and most importantly* we the audience*, why we love Harry and making us root for some sort of redemption for him.