How would you rate the Sam Raimi/ Tobey Maguire Spider-Man Films?

[Mister Mets]

I've asked these questions about notable comic runs, but I'm curious about how you guys would come down on the Raimi/ Maguire trilogy.

What grade would you give it?

To explain the potential scores, as it's possible for one man's B to be another man's C...
An A+ is the highest score. It's meant to be pretty rare, an indication that this run is up there with the best of the medium (The Godfather trilogy, Casablanca, Goodfellas, The Passion of Joan of Arc)
An A is impressive, but not quite on that level. It's still highly recommended.
A B indicates that a series that is good but not great. The majority of the material is still worth seeing again. In terms of quality, it's largely a success.
A C is pedestrian. It's neither good nor bad, and most of the material is probably not worth watching more than once..
A D is poor. It's a flat out failure. Most of the material isn't worth seeing in the first place.
An F is worse.

* For the last option, it's supposed to be "Haven't/ won't see it"

[Agent Z]

A for the first two films. C- for the third.

[Tuck]

I'd say the individual movies are an A, A+, and a D.

So . . . that comes out to like a B+ I guess. I'll round up to A because I'm fine with ignoring 3.

Even so, there really hasn't been a definitive Spider-Man movie yet. I like the first two Raimi films, but they are very much an interpretation.

[Metamorphosis]

I'd go with A for the first two films, and B for 3. Raimi seemed to naturally understand the Spidey world.

It's easy to be critical of these movies in light of the last 10 years of comic movies. But Marvel arguably wouldn't be as far along now without the early success of this franchise.

[Polvo Aranha]

I just watched the first film, and it remains great for me.

[Mister Mets]

I'd go with A for the first two films, and B for 3. Raimi seemed to naturally understand the Spidey world.

It's easy to be critical of these movies in light of the last 10 years of comic movies. But Marvel arguably wouldn't be as far along now without the early success of this franchise.

An advantage of the Raimi films is that it's so stylized, it doesn't get dated as quickly.

I'll go with an A for the series as well.

[JTait]

The first two are great fun, and largely true to the Spider-Man mythos. Both villains worked too. They were hampered though by a pretty weak romantic sub-plot that was pushed to the forefront too often. The casting choices were largely spot on or very close to, with very few real clunkers.

Spider-Man 3 is an entertaining enough mess that doesn't really work on any level, and features three villains who were all mishandled to varying degrees. The special effects and action sequences hold up to the rest of the series though.

Overall it is a pretty great trilogy.

[oldschool]

B+ for the first one, A for the second and a C- for the 3rd. Gonna round up to an overall but Raimi stumbled badly with 3 IMO; way overcrowded with villains and Sandman's ending didn't sit right nor did Venom's story and especially not "dark Peter". Also, I guess I reside in the camp that thinks Garfield/Stone are a much better leading duo than Maguire/Dunst so that takes a bit of the sheen off even the first film for me. Still, I prefer rewatching Raimi's first two films over anything that followed.

[Scott Taylor]

Just based on quality, I give the entire series a B+. To provide relative comparisons, i consider Superman 2, X2, Avengers and Spider-Man 2 to be solid A+ films.

Another factor for me is what those films did for the superhero film genre in general. Historical significance if you will. Spider-man series was so important that I bump it a whole grade.

So, A.

[Mutant God]

Both A and B are great and I thought 3 was okay, don't see how you could made it better then it was.

[MindofShadow]

on a 0-11/10 scale (11 is for my favorite movies ever)

I have

SM- 5/10
SM2- 6/10
SM3- 4/10

So... a C I suppose.

I really do not enjoy them. Tobey/whiney Peter drove me nuts and if you can't stand the central hero... the movie isn't really enjoyable. Didn't like MJ one single bit either.

I actually like the two ASM better because I like that Peter better and Emma Gwne shits all over Dunst MJ.

[Kid A]

Tied with Nolan's Bat-films for my favorite superhero film series.

Even the third movie is enjoyable for the hilarious disaster that it is.

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

Tobey = a great Peter Parker, but a pretty poor Spider-Man, IMO.

[Vortex85]

Tobey = a great Peter Parker, but a pretty poor Spider-Man, IMO.

I blame the Raimi films for making people think Peter is somehow to be portrayed very differently in and out of costume. If you truly understand the character you would know if an actor can play Spidey, he can play Peter and vise versa.

Tobey's Spidey was a lame duck because his Peter was one too.

[marvelguy25]

i agree. it's thanks to tobey people think peter is an even bigger loser than he was in the comics and their comparisons to back that up is not even close. not a little.