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

[Metamorphosis]

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.

On that note, have there ever really been any good threequel comic films?

We all know SM3's flaws. X-Men 3 was a badly-paced, character bloodbath that was also tonally off compared to the first two films (no doubt without Singer at the helm). I see lots of complaints about Dark Knight Rises (I thought it was great, but it's still the least of the 3 films), and Iron Man 3 also gets a lot of online hate (I liked it loads better than the 2nd myself).

Is it just that people get so tired of these franchises by the time of a third serving?

[Punisher007]

Spider-Man-Good but flawed (and somewhat overrated imo). It's got charm, it's fun, it's the most tolerable that Raimi-MJ ever gets, Willem Dafoe is awesome. Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson, James Franco, and especially JK Simmons all put in great performances, there's cool action, etc. However, the dialogue gets a little too cheesy at times, Green Goblin's complete lack of motivation to do anything undermines him as a villain, some of the special effects haven't help up well, and it has pacing issues. Overall, I'd give it a B.

Spider-Man 2-This is REALLY good. It's got heart, the effects/action are awesome, it's Tobey's best go-around as SM, Franco/Harris/and Simmons are once again great, and it's got a fantastic villain in Alfred Molina's Doc Ock. The only thing that I didn't really care for was how literal Raimi made the "Peter's having doubts, so he cannot be Spider-Man." Having him ACTUALLY start losing his powers was a bit on the nose. But still, I give it an A.

Spider-Man 3-Oh dear lord did they drop the ball with this one. First of all, they had like three separate storylines/with three separate main villains, all of whom could have carried their own film. But they tried to cram them together and it just didn't work. They bungled Harry's arc BADLY after doing such a good job of building it up over the previous two films. Venom was horribly done as well, and the "Sandman killed Uncle Ben" retcon was just awful, ill-advised, and undermined the entire point of Peter's arc in the first film. MJ was insufferable here, and Peter wasn't much better. It was just a mess all around. Still, Harris, Simmons, and Franco were still good yet again (for what little they were given to do), and I thought that, problems with the writing aside, Thomas Haden Church's performance as Sandman was quite good. In short, there's a lot of good IDEAS here, that are weighed down by very poor execution. And it's a highly disappointing cap-off to this trilogy. I'd give it a D.

[Mister Mets]

On that note, have there ever really been any good threequel comic films?

We all know SM3's flaws. X-Men 3 was a badly-paced, character bloodbath that was also tonally off compared to the first two films (no doubt without Singer at the helm). I see lots of complaints about Dark Knight Rises (I thought it was great, but it's still the least of the 3 films), and Iron Man 3 also gets a lot of online hate (I liked it loads better than the 2nd myself).

Is it just that people get so tired of these franchises by the time of a third serving?

Dark Knight Rises is the only one that was great.

It's interesting to consider why Superman 3, X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, Batman Forever and Blade 3 weren't that good.

Spider-Man 3 is the only one of the bunch with the original Director.

But I think another problem is the need to balance different demands: the narrative requirements on providing a satisfying conclusion to the earlier set-up, the studio requesting that something else be added, and directors/ actors wanting to add their own stamp.

Spider-Man 3 was the perfect example.
The studio wanted Venom.
The narrative demanded the Harry Osborn Green Goblin.
Raimi wanted Sandman (and Vulture.)

[Punisher007]

Well X-Men 3, Superman 3, Batman Forever, and Blade Trinity suffered from a big change in creative teams. Not just the director, but other's as well. So the difference in styles is obvious/apparent onscreen. Spider-Man 3 has pretty much all of the same people who worked on the first two working on this one (plus new actors/subtract some old ones). So in this case, they just flat-out dropped the ball. The resolution of Harry's is particularly egregious in that regard.

Also, Raimi had a tendency to press the reset button on character development, especially for Peter/MJ. They seemed to forget everything that they learned in the previous films and just kept making the same mistakes over and over again.

[DebkoX]

Brilliant. Huge. Amazing. Part of my childhood. Sensational.

Running out of superlatives!

[tombo]

I think they are great films, they genuinely recreate the look and feel of classic Marvel (mostly), they have a great "NY community feel"/offbeat characters that puts me right into what a real big city would feel like reacting to a Superhero, Doc Ock fights were the best effects I have ever seen, and they are warm and lovable. And I don't get why the emo/jazz parts get so much hate, it's humor.

[BlitheringToot]

Spider-Man: B
Spider-Man 2: A
Spider-Man 3: C+


B overall. Above average, but weighed down by Topher Grace and the Goblin costume.

[Alastor]

I went with B.

The first movie is a mixed bag in my opinion. Both the characters and the scenery are sufficiently colorful and it was a rather good attempt at retelling Spidey's origins in a 21st century environment. The movie raised the standards in terms of quality for other comic book movies, in a similar way the first X-Men movie did. The special effects haven't aged well at all, there are some way too cheesy scenes and the Green Goblin costume is not even remotely intimidating, I would have preferred his original look from the comic books. I'm not a fan of organic web shooters either, but it seems like the right decision for the trilogy.

Spider-Man 2 may not be the Citizen Kane of comic book movies, but I think it got pretty close. Raimi did a real good job of illustrating Peter's struggle with his alter ego and how far he got pushed until he decided to call it quits. Doc Ock was also the best villain in his trilogy, but the idea that the arms were influencing his mind was a bit too gimmicky and turned him into a watered down version of an iconic villain. The special effects still hold up to this day and the action scenes are a delight. And there is not a single moment in Spidey's cinematic history that can live up to the awesomeness of JJJ jumping around his office in Spider-Man's costume.

There's little I can add to what everybody else has said about Spider-Man 3. I usually skip that movie when I rewatch the series and I'm glad that the series ended when it did, because it would have been all downhill from there.

In conclusion, those movies are hardly the best adaptation of Spider-Man in another medium than comic books and judged by today's standards, the first and third movies in particular don't hold up too well. The characterizations of some characters were off, such as MJ, but J.K. Simmons playing Jonah was the best thing to happen in that series and I hope he will reprise the role in the MCU movies. Ultimately, they reflect the era when they were created and are for the most part worth a watch even today.

[marvelguy25]

I think they are great films, they genuinely recreate the look and feel of classic Marvel (mostly), they have a great "NY community feel"/offbeat characters that puts me right into what a real big city would feel like reacting to a Superhero, Doc Ock fights were the best effects I have ever seen, and they are warm and lovable. And I don't get why the emo/jazz parts get so much hate, it's humor.

Bad humor. The suit is suppose to tear you apart. It's suppose to make you do all the wrong things. It's suppose to make you like a predator. Maguire's suit just dances and acts like some douchey. The last straw he realized what he's done was when he slapped MJ. Not killing Harry, not killing sandman, but slapping MJ after that stupid jazz. The fact that you people just defend emo eter means your desperate.

[Alastor]

The fact that you people just defend emo eter means your desperate.

You're exaggerating, that was one poster who said that he didn't mind some scenes in Spider-Man 3. If we're precise, the Venom symbiote should be locked away in Battleworld and turn its host into a sleepwalker. All adaptations have used different interpretations of the symbiote and the Raimi trilogy is no different.

[marvelguy25]

You're exaggerating, that was one poster who said that he didn't mind some scenes in Spider-Man 3. If we're precise, the Venom symbiote should be locked away in Battleworld and turn its host into a sleepwalker. All adaptations have used different interpretations of the symbiote and the Raimi trilogy is no different.

I've ran into many fanboys defending emo Peter saying that its suppose to be there because he's dorky which is so not the case in all incarnations. Peter was never this dorky. He's a bit clumsy and a little bit of a goofball but not George mcfly.

The symbiote was not handled well in the raimi series. Most of the focus was just peter being a dick. Not intimidating at all.

[powerpackers90]

Spider-Man: A-
Spider-Man 2: A+
Spider-man 3: B-
Overall: A

[Dog]

B for Raimi, C for Webb.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

Overall, B.

SM1: A
SM2: C+
SM3: B+

The movies are fun, but the depiction of Peter in those movies is underwhelming and not properly accurate.
Spider-Man 2 has too much moping.

[Kevinroc]

I've ran into many fanboys defending emo Peter saying that its suppose to be there because he's dorky which is so not the case in all incarnations. Peter was never this dorky. He's a bit clumsy and a little bit of a goofball but not George mcfly.

The symbiote was not handled well in the raimi series. Most of the focus was just peter being a dick. Not intimidating at all.

Edit: Let me clarify this.

Raimi hated the symbiote and Venom, and only used it because the studio made him. And takes the blame for the movie we got. Yet he still had a better take on Venom than just about everything else out there. The suit doesn't make Peter a "badass." It makes him his idea of what a "badass" is.