The Amazing Spider-Man Rank all of the Spider-man movies (including ASM)

[flickchick85]

Out of curiosity, why do you think TASM is the best? As a fan, I can see why people prefer this interpretation, but personally the movie doesn't really have the energy or scope of Raimi's first two.

I guess I am asking if you ignore faithfulness, why do you think TASM is a better made film? Just curious.

For me, it's all about the casting and characterization that really made the difference. This was the Peter Parker I had always wanted to see, and I thought Stone's Gwen Stacy was lightyears beyond Raimi's version of MJ in all 3 movies. I bought the romance so much more in TASM. And I felt like Peter's motivations in this one were a lot more organic and better-developed as well. In Raimi's origin story, I felt like Peter was portrayed as a goody-goody who didn't even need that lesson in responsibility except for the one time he had a lapse in judgement for the sake of the plot. In this one, Peter needed that lesson, period. He really did need to grow up and learn some responsibility, so the the journey he took throughout the film felt more real and natural to me.

-I LOVED the fact that Gwen wasn't the damsel in distress, and I also loved that she fell for Peter Parker from the beginning.

-Also, I'm weird in that I don't really care about villains in comic book movies, as I think they almost always suck. Heath Ledger's Joker was the rare exception for me, but even when I think a CBM villain is well-acted (like Loki, for example), I don't find them to be anything special, and they're not who I'm going to the movie to see. That old phrase, "a hero is only as good as his villain?" I totally disagree...at least when it comes to superheroes. They're just another obstacle for me to watch the heroes overcome in order to go through whatever emotional journey they're on for that installment. If they're fun to watch on their own, that's a bonus, but a rare bonus for me, I'm afraid. I'm saying all this because TASM's greatest weakness is it's villain. Alfred Molina's Doc Ock was a much better version of this villain story. But as that's the element of the story that I care the least about, it's not enough to sway my opinion in favor of SM2.

-Then there's the tonal shift. I've only unabashedly loved one Sam Raimi movie, and that's Army of Darkness. His Spidey movies had a little bit too much of the earnest, cartoonish camp for my liking. I LOVED the action sequences (still do), but every time there was a scene with characters just talking (or even Spidey's "quipping" at villains), I constantly found myself cringing. It was a perfectly valid approach, given the source material, just not one I was on board with. The appeal of Spidey's story for me as a kid was that he always seemed so relatable, and I just had a hard time relating to Raimi's candy-coated universe at all. So I guess Marc Webb's more "grounded" approach was immediately gonna be more my cup o' tea.

But here's The Big One: The main reason I was never able to fully warm up to the Raimi saga is because I always hated the casting of Tobey and Kirsten. I have nothing against either of them as actors, but I just always felt they were all wrong for those characters. This version remedied that problem to such a degree I want to jump for joy.

As for your comments about the energy and scope, I agree...but I don't think that's a bad thing. This one felt like a smaller, more intimate portrait of Peter Parker and his journey to becoming Spider-Man, and that's one of the things I prefer about it. But once the action kicked in, I found it to have plenty of energy. I just loved the way Webb displayed Spidey's movement. He was so fast and fluid, I had a grin on my face the entire time. The score helped, too, imo.

 

[def28]

My ratings from before I believe were:

SM1 9/10
SM2 10/10
SM3 6.5/10

so now that I've seen TASM

7/10

It's certainly better than SM3, which just was sort of a jumbled mess. TASM is a jumbled mess of sorts as well, but it's better acted, and not as much of a downer as SM3. My biggest problem with SM3 is I was not only let down by the plot, but the ending was just so weird.

Agreed and coming off Spider-Man 2 just made expectations higher for 3, especially with the Black suit and Venom story. That was the one everyone was waiting for.

While Garfields performance is def the high point in ASM as well as the Gwen Stacy relationship the overall script for ASM didnt bring anything too new to surpass Raimis imo. I thought Goblin and Doc Ock were better developed villains. Lizards motivation seemed to come out of nowhere.

 

[dru-zod2501]

my ranking:!! I wasn't any better or worse than the supper sandal sandall

 

[Tony Stark]

Agreed and coming off Spider-Man 2 just made expectations higher for 3, especially with the Black suit and Venom story. That was the one everyone was waiting for.

While Garfields performance is def the high point in ASM as well as the Gwen Stacy relationship the overall script for ASM didnt bring anything too new to surpass Raimis imo. I thought Goblin and Doc Ock were better developed villains. Lizards motivation seemed to come out of nowhere.

That's the biggest disappointment to me is how badly they screwed up Conners.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

It's probably a 6/10 but I just can't rank Spidey that low when the film isn't bad. I love the character too much. It's a thumbs up but that's my heart and not my head talking.

I'm kind of in the same camp, that still didn't stop me from tanking the second half of OMD 5/10

This.

I'm glad ASM is getting such positive reviews from fans and critics alike, but as a lifelong Spidey-fan I couldn't help but feel a bit indifferent as I left the theater.

Maybe you guys would appreciate it more if you watched it more? I couldn't appreciate Nolan Batman films before watching each a second time, so I probably won't bother watching TDKR in theaters knowing there's a possibility I wouldn't like it much in first view

 

[DACrowe]

For me, it's all about the casting and characterization that really made the difference. This was the Peter Parker I had always wanted to see, and I thought Stone's Gwen Stacy was lightyears beyond Raimi's version of MJ in all 3 movies. I bought the romance so much more in TASM. And I felt like Peter's motivations in this one were a lot more organic and better-developed as well. In Raimi's origin story, I felt like Peter was portrayed as a goody-goody who didn't even need that lesson in responsibility except for the one time he had a lapse in judgement for the sake of the plot. In this one, Peter needed that lesson, period. He really did need to grow up and learn some responsibility, so the the journey he took throughout the film felt more real and natural to me.

-I LOVED the fact that Gwen wasn't the damsel in distress, and I also loved that she fell for Peter Parker from the beginning.

-Also, I'm weird in that I don't really care about villains in comic book movies, as I think they almost always suck. Heath Ledger's Joker was the rare exception for me, but even when I think a CBM villain is well-acted (like Loki, for example), I don't find them to be anything special, and they're not who I'm going to the movie to see. That old phrase, "a hero is only as good as his villain?" I totally disagree...at least when it comes to superheroes. They're just another obstacle for me to watch the heroes overcome in order to go through whatever emotional journey they're on for that installment. If they're fun to watch on their own, that's a bonus, but a rare bonus for me, I'm afraid. I'm saying all this because TASM's greatest weakness is it's villain. Alfred Molina's Doc Ock was a much better version of this villain story. But as that's the element of the story that I care the least about, it's not enough to sway my opinion in favor of SM2.

-Then there's the tonal shift. I've only unabashedly loved one Sam Raimi movie, and that's Army of Darkness. His Spidey movies had a little bit too much of the earnest, cartoonish camp for my liking. I LOVED the action sequences (still do), but every time there was a scene with characters just talking (or even Spidey's "quipping" at villains), I constantly found myself cringing. It was a perfectly valid approach, given the source material, just not one I was on board with. The appeal of Spidey's story for me as a kid was that he always seemed so relatable, and I just had a hard time relating to Raimi's candy-coated universe at all. So I guess Marc Webb's more "grounded" approach was immediately gonna be more my cup o' tea.

But here's The Big One: The main reason I was never able to fully warm up to the Raimi saga is because I always hated the casting of Tobey and Kirsten. I have nothing against either of them as actors, but I just always felt they were all wrong for those characters. This version remedied that problem to such a degree I want to jump for joy.

As for your comments about the energy and scope, I agree...but I don't think that's a bad thing. This one felt like a smaller, more intimate portrait of Peter Parker and his journey to becoming Spider-Man, and that's one of the things I prefer about it. But once the action kicked in, I found it to have plenty of energy. I just loved the way Webb displayed Spidey's movement. He was so fast and fluid, I had a grin on my face the entire time. The score helped, too, imo.

I'm torn on this. I do think Andrew Garfield is a much more faithful rendition of the character and I do prefer him. I also prefer Stone to Dunst (though neither actually play their respective characters from the comics, but oddly a reversal of them). At the same time, I do think Raimi did the origin much better and I like how in the Raimi films he brought that sense of a sprawling melodramatic supporting cast in Peter's life (Ben, Aunt May, MJ, Harry, Norman Osborn, Jameson, even Betty Brant) while I feel like the focus is so intimate in TASM that it's a bit smaller in scale than even the regular comics as it's just really about Peter and Gwen and everything else is serving them (hence my apathy to Captain Stacy biting it).

I'm not sure which is the more faithful adaptation of the comics. I understand and even agree that Peter/Spidey is characterized better here and Stone is more endearing than Dunst's performance(s). Still, if I remove fandom from it, I do think SM1 and SM2 are much sharper films. They both have a cleaner narrative arc, and are told with more energy and confidence/vision/whatever. It also lends itself to more memorable things (Peter trying out his powers for the first time, the wrestling costume, the upside down kiss, Norman's death, the final swing). While the only scenes I really keep going back to in my head for TASM are Peter and Gwen talking. It's a strange tear because I think Garfield is the better Spidey, but even just comparing origin films, Tobey/Raimi made the better film, in my opinion.

Very odd.

 

[TheGuy]

My ranking:
SM2 - 9/10
TASM - 8.75/10
SM1 - 8.5/10
SM3 - 6/10

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

1. Spider-Man 2 9/10
2. Spider-Man 8/10
3. Spider-Man 3 6/10
4. The Amazing Spider-Man 5/10

 

[the.wolf]

TASM, Spider-Man 1 - 9/10

Spider-Man 2, 3 - 4.5/10

 

[AbsractPo3tic]

Amazing Spider-Man 9.5/10

Spider-Man 2 8.5/10

Spider-Man 8/10

Spider-Man 3 5/10

I haven't watched the first 3 in a long time so those are my ratings as of the last time I did watch them which was probably in 07. I've seen Amazing twice now and I gotta agree with FlickChick85 on why I prefer Amazing over the other 2.

 

[Jexx]

Spider-Man: 4/5
Spider-Man 2: 4.25/5
Spider-Man 3: 3/5
The Amazing Spider-Man: 4.5/5

 

[Superhero 101]

Here is how i Rank mine
SM2
TASM
SM1
SM3

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Tasm - 9/10
sm 1 - 8/10
sm 2 - 9/10
sm 3 - 4/10

 

[flickchick85]

I'm torn on this. I do think Andrew Garfield is a much more faithful rendition of the character and I do prefer him. I also prefer Stone to Dunst (though neither actually play their respective characters from the comics, but oddly a reversal of them). At the same time, I do think Raimi did the origin much better and I like how in the Raimi films he brought that sense of a sprawling melodramatic supporting cast in Peter's life (Ben, Aunt May, MJ, Harry, Norman Osborn, Jameson, even Betty Brant) while I feel like the focus is so intimate in TASM that it's a bit smaller in scale than even the regular comics as it's just really about Peter and Gwen and everything else is serving them (hence my apathy to Captain Stacy biting it).

I'm not sure which is the more faithful adaptation of the comics. I understand and even agree that Peter/Spidey is characterized better here and Stone is more endearing than Dunst's performance(s). Still, if I remove fandom from it, I do think SM1 and SM2 are much sharper films. They both have a cleaner narrative arc, and are told with more energy and confidence/vision/whatever. It also lends itself to more memorable things (Peter trying out his powers for the first time, the wrestling costume, the upside down kiss, Norman's death, the final swing). While the only scenes I really keep going back to in my head for TASM are Peter and Gwen talking. It's a strange tear because I think Garfield is the better Spidey, but even just comparing origin films, Tobey/Raimi made the better film, in my opinion.

Very odd.

I think Marc Webb is getting a little bit short-changed on the "vision" aspect because his style is much less melodromatic and over-the-top than Raimi's. Yes, the original trilogy were obviously Raimi films and his vision was clear and well-defined. No argument there. But I think Webb's approach was clear, too. His style/stamp is just naturally much more modest - somewhat akin to Jon Favreau's, imo. This film was very clearly the work of the man who gave us (500) Days of Summer, the guy who likes to play with fantastical elements but ground them in a very naturalistic universe and emotional realism. Sam Raimi wields the camera as a weapon - it's just as much a part of the scene as the characters. Whereas the action sequences in this film had a very "step back and forget the camera's even here" quality to them, letting the (extremely well-choreographed) action happening in front of the camera do all the talking, which I found very refreshing, even though all the angles were well-chosen and the camera in fact rarely stopped moving. It's a modest style, one befitting the more intimate take on the origin, I thought - a no less confident or clear vision that I appreciated just as much, if not more than, Raimi's more grandiose approach.

And I liked the lack of emphasis on the supporting cast. It feels streamlined, and more like it's solely Peter's story that way to me. Ben, Aunt May and Gwen are pretty much his world in this one, and I cared when Capt Stacy died because like Peter, I actually cared about Gwen, and hated the thought of her losing her father, especially after she confided her fears of that earlier in the film. The ability to get me actually caring about what few characters it did showcase made all the difference in the world for me.

 

[DACrowe]

Fair enough. I do agree Raimi is much more grandiose. I like you saying he wields the camera like a weapon. I do think that works for Spidey though, because I think all the fight senes and major set-pieces of SM2 and SM3 were far more memorable and exhilarating than the Spidey scenes in TASM. That said, TASM is better than SM3 and if you just watch SM1, you'd never suspect you'd get things like the train scene in SM2. So, Webb has a chance to improve there like Raimi did. Even so, I do remember certain shots in SM1 that took my breath away in 2002 and still impress now. I didn't get that from TASM other than when Spidey was striking some awesome poses during his crane swinging.

Even so, I was talking more how SM1 worked as a well told movie with a great pace and structure, even if GG's motives in Act 2 are vague to say the least. TASM doesn't have that confidence and has an editing/pace that's all over the place for me.

 

[Picard Sisko]

1. Spider-Man 2
2. Spider-Man
3. The Amazing Spider-Man
4. Spider-Man 3

The thing is, TASM to me is actually a better film than SM1. However, I ranked SM1 higher because it was more memorable, and made a huge impact on me when I first saw it. They are really kind of tied in the end, but I think TASM2 will have a bigger chance at competing with Spider-Man 2.

 

[Micromind]

As I said in the other thread this movie felt like it was taking certain elements from four sources - Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy, Batman Begins, 500 Days of Summer and Ultimate Spider-Man comics.

 

[flickchick85]

Fair enough. I do agree Raimi is much more grandiose. I like you saying he wields the camera like a weapon. I do think that works for Spidey though, because I think all the fight senes and major set-pieces of SM2 and SM3 were far more memorable and exhilarating than the Spidey scenes in TASM. That said, TASM is better than SM3 and if you just watch SM1, you'd never suspect you'd get things like the train scene in SM2. So, Webb has a chance to improve there like Raimi did. Even so, I do remember certain shots in SM1 that took my breath away in 2002 and still impress now. I didn't get that from TASM other than when Spidey was striking some awesome poses during his crane swinging.

Even so, I was talking more how SM1 worked as a well told movie with a great pace and structure, even if GG's motives in Act 2 are vague to say the least. TASM doesn't have that confidence and has an editing/pace that's all over the place for me.

That is one thing I will agree is a weakness in TASM - the editing in the first half. I had no problem with the pacing however, but there were a couple of transitions I found odd. The only spot in the entire film that the pacing seemed off for me was Uncle Ben's death. The aftermath did feel a little rushed to me, but otherwise, I found the movie almost perfectly-paced.

 

[YJ1]

This movie reminded me why I liked the Spider-man cartoons
from the 90s.

I guess that does sum it up best. ASM is written like a limited Saturday morning cartoon. I didn't hate it but it's just so shallow and every character that's not MJ or Peter are shallow and useless. I guess ASM can seem authentic if you're stuck in high school.

I feel that Raimi's trilogy has many intelligent moments, themes and scenes. There were some slips in SM3 but overall, there's so much more emotion and real heart in the Raimi trilogy.

I can't believe anyone thinks that there is any chemistry between Peter and
Gwen in ASM. Peter is basically a nerd stalker who takes photos of a girl he hasn't even had a conversation with before he stuck up for that one kid. I find it to be tremendously weak writing the way they set up that "relationship". Raimi did it so much better as the girl next door.

Aunt May and Uncle Ben are nothing but empty set pieces in ASM. Raimi used real emotion and truly used them to develop Peter and his moral compass in his films. May and Peter mourned and missed Ben (at Graduation and beyond) and Peter actually felt guilty and responsible for Uncle Ben's death in Raimi's films. In ASM, what's to feel guilty about and the film shows more anger than guilt. That's terrible writing as well.

The Lizard is a terrible and shallow villain. Compare him to Ock or Norman and it's not even a debate.

I know Sony spent more on SM2 and SM3 so maybe it's not fair but the action was WAY better in those two films then in ASM.

Also, Raimi used cheese in a good way while this film is just as cheesy but does so in an awkward forced way. (EX: Raimi after the events of 9/11 had the New Yorkers take on The Goblin and yell "if you mess with one New Yorker, you mess with all of us." In ASM the construction workers lining up cranes for no real reason is bad cheese)

Raimi's trilogy trumps this movie at every turn.

 

[Eddie Brock]

I can't believe anyone thinks that there is any chemistry between Peter and
Gwen in ASM. Peter is basically a nerd stalker who takes photos of a girl he hasn't even had a conversation with before he stuck up for that one kid. I find it to be tremendously weak writing the way they set up that "relationship". Raimi did it so much better as the girl next door.

Who says that they never talked before? They were on the Debate team together, and she knew exactly who he was (not just his name, but also his standing in his class).

 

[grieven]

Tasm - 9.5
sm2 - 9
sm1 - 8
sm3 - 7

 

[WolfCypher]

I currently like ASM as much as I once liked SM2. To be honest, I dislike all of Raimi's SM flicks, so I'm wondering if given time if the same will be said about ASM.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I currently like ASM as much as I once liked SM2. To be honest, I dislike all of Raimi's SM flicks, so I'm wondering if given time if the same will be said about ASM.

probably depends on how the sequel is handled. This movie is getting great box office results already, so it would be wise to put all their best efforts in the sequel

 

[<(o_o)>]

I currently like ASM as much as I once liked SM2. To be honest, I dislike all of Raimi's SM flicks, so I'm wondering if given time if the same will be said about ASM.

A person will eventually get burnt out on any movie that they used to love if they watch it too much so there is always a possibility that the same will be said about Amazing Spider-Man one day.

 

[kedrell]

SM1- 6/10
SM2 - 7/10
SM3 - 4/10
ASM - 7/10

It's up there with the best of the bunch but that isn't exactly saying much, IMO.