How well do the Raimi/Maguire Spider-Man films hold up today?

[Vader's Fist]

In light of Spider-Man's exit and subsequent return to the MCU, I started wondering just how well the original Spider-Man trilogy holds up today. I'm curious because I feel it's become cool in certain segments to decry them as 'cheesy' and 'dated', which, personally, I think is being unfair. There's a warmth and a sincerity to these movies that I feel neither of the two following cinematic takes ever quite managed to recapture. While I still think Spider-Man is a damn good movie and deserves almost all of the credit for launching the age of Superhero movies we're living in now, Spider-Man 2 is, if not my favourite superhero movie of all time, definitely in my top five. It's an absolute classic that I think belongs on the Mount Rushmore of superhero cinema. Having gone through a similar experience to Peter in that movie, I can identify with his character arc more than ever. Even 3, as much of a step down in quality as it was, still has quite a few redeeming aspects.

But enough from me. How well do you think they hold up?

 

[LoganPool]

The whole trilogy still holds up for me! Especially 1 and 2. I get a good laugh at some of the CGI now, but other than that it still holds up as one of the best trilogies ever made, IMO.

 

[Themanofbat]

Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man are arguably the TOP TWO best Spider-Man movies ever made, with Far From Home being a very close 3rd.

 

[Frodo]

The first two hold up very well, especially for the general audience. While there may be a segment of Spiderman fans who are down on them, the reality is , for the vast majority of the GA, the first two films are respected and beloved .

Maguire was basically the first actor to define Peter Parker for the public similar to how Downey Jr. is what people think of as Tony Stark, and Hugh Jackman is what the GA think of when they think of Wolverine.

Maguire's version of Peter Parker will certainly be remembered in the same vein as Jackman's Wolverine, Downey's Stark, Reeve's Clark Kent , Keaton's Batman etc,.

Maguire and Holland have set the bar high for future actors taking up the webshooters.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

They are almost unbearably cheesy, and unfortunately Spider-Man 2 is the worst culprit. The entire relationship between Peter and MJ, and Octavius and his wife, is like something a 13 year old girl would write.

 

[Charzhin0]

First one is dated yet stil good. 2nd and 3rd are more modern.

 

[Spider-Fan]

They hold up very well for me.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The second one holds up great. The first one is still good in terms of the story and characters, but has aged terribly in terms of the CGI and Green Goblin costume. SM3 holds up remarkably well. It still isn't great, but looks better when you compare it to how bad the next two Spider-Man films and Venom were.

 

[MadVillainy]

The second one holds up great. The first one is still good in terms of the story and characters, but has aged terribly in terms of the CGI and Green Goblin costume. SM3 holds up remarkably well. It still isn't great, but looks better when you compare it to how bad the next two Spider-Man films and Venom were.

I'm pretty much there, but even storywise/structure I say Spider-Man is a bit hokey.

I think they hold up generally

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm pretty much there, but even storywise/structure I say Spider-Man is a bit hokey.

I think they hold up generally

Parts of Spider-Man 1 work really well. I love how they handle the whole origin story. I think the second half has some issues. I liked Dafoe as the Green Goblin, but the film is really lacking any sort of interesting plot once he finishes wiping out the Oscorp Board of Directors. The whole bit of him wanting Spider-Man to join him and then wanting to kill him once he refuses never worked for me.

I do really like Spider-Man 1, but I definitely don't think it is anywhere near as good as Spider-Man 2.

 

[spider-neil]

My opinion of the Raimi movies is the same as it was then;

Spider-Man 1 - Solid first movie - CG lacking when Spider-Man is jumping around (the swinging is quite good).

Spider-Man 2 - One of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. People want to that that movie is overrated and that's fine but that movie blew me away back in the day and still holds up even now.

Spider-Man 3 - Entertaining but bitterly disappointing.

 

[The Batman]

The first two are as good or better than most of the CBMs we've seen this decade, IMO.

HiTop Films has made some pretty good youtube videos about the Raimi films. Disagree about his general view of Spider-Man 3, but still.

 

[spider-neil]

The first two are as good or better than most of the CBMs we've seen this decade, IMO.

HiTop Films has made some pretty good youtube videos about the Raimi films. Disagree about his general view of Spider-Man 3, but still.

HitTop can defend Spider-Man 3 till the cows come home but I can't even finish that movie when I watch it.

 

[Nardz937]

Masterful filmmaking is timeless.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

These three movies are classics, memorable, brilliantly memeable, and are still referenced fondly. They stand so well that debates are made of who is the better Spider-Man actor and who had better movies between Tobey Maguire and Tom Holland.

I do find flaws and strength in all three movies, but I still love to watch them equally regardless of how much better one movie is compared to another.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

Eh, the city still looks the same.

But I think the trilogy still holds up, Gobby’s costume still looks silly however.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Just to further my thoughts on Goblin from earlier. I felt that one of the aspects Homecoming did better than SM1 was the villain is the father of my friend angle. I thought they had stronger, more sensible reasons for taking the actions they did, that there was overall more tension (the car scene from HC > the dinner scene from SM1, in particular), and that Keaton/Holland had better chemistry with each other than Dafoe/Maguire.

I do still prefer SM1 as a whole to HC. But I definitely think HC did the whole villain/Peter relationship better.

 

[Chesterfield]

The Raimi films have this grand atmosphere to them that the Garfield and Holland films lack. The Raimi films are deeply flawed but Some aspects are unparalleled, especially considering when these films were made.

One thing I can't get over was how pathetic a character he was as portrayed by Maguire. Yes, Peter was nerdy and a pushover but he still always had a fire in him and he was never this socially awkward. I mean, it was like they were trying to make him in to George McFly mk2.

In any case Spider-Man 1 and 2 are good films and they changed the game moreso than any other comic book property that went on to usher in where we are now.

Personally, Tom Holland is my favourite characterisation of the character. Maguire was too George McFly on a really bad day and Garfield just came off as unlikable.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I mean, it was like they were trying to make him in to George McFly mk2.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

In any case Spider-Man 1 and 2 are good films and they changed the game moreso than any other comic book property that went on to usher in where we are now.

I don't know if we can say that for sure, but they are certainly in the conversation. SM1 was the film that really started the superhero boom. I know X-Men and Blade were successes in this run before that, but SM1 was the one where things really exploded and Hollywood really took notice because of how much money it made.

However, Batman Begins and The Avengers had enormous impact as well. Batman Begins started the gritty reboot craze, which ran rampant for a few years and didn't really start to decline until Fant4stic and Batman v Superman flopped (as well as films like The Mummy). The Avengers started the shared universe craze with every other studio scrambling to start their own while playing catch up.

All three changed the course of the superhero genre and the film industry in general.

 

[Rita Steele]

The first two are as good or better than most of the CBMs we've seen this decade, IMO.

HiTop Films has made some pretty good youtube videos about the Raimi films. Disagree about his general view of Spider-Man 3, but still.

HitTop is the epitome of snobby twitter film savant. Everything pretentious and contrarian, he embodies it.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don’t think any of the films have aged all that well. Raimi’s brand of campy comedy I never found to be a good fit for Spidey, and it’s even more glaringly apparently in the modern day.

SM1 gets big nostalgia points for me, and it’s still fun. SM2 I’ve never been a fan of, far too many mishandlings of the characters and mythos, but technically it’s held up quite well. Even though I don’t think it’s a very good Spider-man film, I can admit that the train sequence is still beautifully done.

SM3 isn’t great, but wasn’t nearly as bad as many made it out to be. Honestly, a lot of the things people freaked out about in 3 the other two films have as well, SM3 just has more of it.

The films are definitely dated, but it’s to be expected. Especially given that for SM1 in particular a lot of the tone was directly influenced by 9/11. They’re still very important movies in Superhero history.

 

[The Joker]

Spider-Man 1 and especially 2 hold up incredibly well. Still among the best in the CBM genre.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

Personally, Tom Holland is my favourite characterisation of the character. Maguire was too George McFly on a really bad day and Garfield just came off as unlikable.

This is so true and now I can’t unsee it lmao. I think that if Holland and all of his personality had Raimi and all the material he gave McFly, we would have dynamite.

Tom is really the first one to actually encompass everything that makes Spidey who he is.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don’t think any of the films have aged all that well. Raimi’s brand of campy comedy I never found to be a good fit for Spidey, and it’s even more glaringly apparently in the modern day.

I thought it was perfect for Spider-Man. He's not Daredevil or Logan. Campy comedy is right in Spidey's wheelhouse.