Superman 3 vs Spiderman 3 vs X Men The Last Stand vs Batman Forever

[Erzengel]

I have to admit it's been a while so my memory of the Clark vs. Evil Superman fight might be a lot better than it is, but I think I'd still take it over the "best fight" in TLS or BF. I think we can debate the Sandman vs. Spider-Man fights.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I still say Spider-Man 3 stands up as a 'decent' conclusion to the series, it's flaws are obvious and plenty but in relative to the other choices, it has more of a 'connective-tissue' connection to the previous films in it's own series, than the other choices do.

 

[Frodo]

Batman Forever- Pure nostalgic factor . I saw it several times in the theater, I listened to the Soundtrack backwards and forwards that summer, Kiss From a Rose is one of my favorite songs period, I liked that they finally introduced Robin, and I liked Kilmer's more heroic and physical Batman .

To me at the time at least, it was the closet Batman to the animated series ,and it also had the action and adventure that was pure 90s. Between the soundtrack, the bombastic action, the virtual reality plotline, the younger cast, and the neon look, you can't get more 90s then BF.

All that was missing was Dick Grayson in a flannel shirt.

Spiderman 3- While I still consider it a step down in the Raimi series, my views on it have soften a bit more after having seen it again recently. Basically it's the middle of the second act to the 3rd act which is where the film gets its reputation.

Spiderman 3 is of a case of missed opportunities , and I can't help but think they could have made two films from all the different plotlines they had going.

Resolve the Peter and Harry conflict and Goblin saga in part 3 ,while introducing Brock as a reporter attempting to expose that Norman Osborn was the GG.

Then in SM4, Tackle the Venom Saga with a disgraced brock and MJ and Peter's relationship struggles.

But, we got the SM3 we got. All in all, it does work as an end to a trilogy imo, even if it isn't as satisfactory as I would have liked.

Superman 3- Like SM3, it's another case of missed opportunities . While the Ross Webster stuff on its face is rubbish, the creepy cyborg his sister becomes at the end, points to what could have been had they gone with their original idea of Brainiac as the villain.

Nevertheless, I do like the evil Superman storyline. Had they ditched Richard Prior, made Robert Vaughan Brainiac , and dealt with Clark's own inner conflict over his own needs to be with Lois ,and how that manifests itself in the Evil Superman, I think they could have had a great 3rd chapter.

X Men Last Stand - I rank this one last not because I think it's the worst of them, but more because it just didn't leave enough of an impression on me. It was more underwhelming than anything else for me.

It didn't have the worse performances, it's didn't have the worse script, etc. I just found it the least memorable of the others on the list.

 

[metaphysician]

Hmm.

1. Batman Forever. Its a fully functional movie, just not the movie people wanted.

2. Spider-Man 3. Flawed and bloated, but still has heart.

3. Superman 3. Its a mess, but it at least has some fun parts.

4. X-Men 3. Awful, simply awful. Even its few and scant good bits largely just emphasize how badly they have been wasted.

 

[Jig96v]

Batman Forever is the best by a long shot.

 

[Drizzle]

1. Spider-Man 3 - I actually feel like time has been kind to this one, especially after The Amazing Spider-Man 2 overtook it as "worst Spider-Man movie". It really isn't as bad as people make it out to be, if you even want to call it a bad movie at all. Its biggest and most obvious issue is that it's bogged down by too many villains and needless plot threads.

2. X-Men: The Last Stand - This one is easier to watch now (if at all) considering Days of Future Past wiped it from canon. It's not necessarily good, but it's not all bad considering it gave us Kelsey Grammer's Beast and Ellen Page's Kitty Pryde, to name a few.

3. Batman Forever - This movie is nothing if not entertaining. The Riddler is Jim Carrey playing Jim Carrey and Two-Face is Tommy Lee Jones playing The Joker playing Two-Face. It's harmless fun now. But Kilmer is possibly the most underrated Batman and up until Batman Begins, this was the film that most explored Bruce Wayne as a character. The Last Stand edges it out because it has more impressive action scenes.

4. Superman III - Unlike the other films on this list, I've only seen this one once. It really isn't good, but as Superman IV showed, the franchise could always see worse. III is a big step down in quality from the first two. Christopher Reeve is good in it and Richard Pryor is entertaining but him being in it feels like gimmicky casting (not unlike Jim Carrey in Forever). The villains were also very weak in this. They weren't brave enough to do Brainiac back in the early '80s but they thought this was a good idea:

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Kilmer is possibly the most underrated Batman and up until Batman Begins, this was the film that most explored Bruce Wayne as a character.

 

[Frodo]

Totally agree Kilmer was underrated as Batman.

Unfortunately, I think Kilmer and Clooney's got kinda melded together in alot of fans minds, when in reality, their performances were quite different.

Kilmer only did one, and in hindsight, he was the transition between Keaton's Batman who was popular, and Clooney's Batman, who was panned.

So Kilmer often gets lost in the discussions of Batman actors in fandom.

It's usually Keaton, Bale, Affleck, then maybe Clooney , but Kilmer is usually forgotten or assumed to be as bad as Clooney's.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Kilmer was not the issue with the movie. The script was the primary issue

 

[henzINNIT]

X-Men: The Last Stand: Guys, why the hate?

Tempers settled after time and DOFP, but there are so many reasons to hate TLS. Just going by character:

Logan - Does the best of the lot, though generally at the expense of other characters. Gets a boring arc about learning to work as a team, then stops the final threat by himself.

Jean - The Dark Phoenix Saga is boiled down into a duel-personality sub-plot. Jean has practically nothing to do in the film and barely any lines. Considering she kills her lover and surrogate father in this film, we never really get in to the emotion of that struggle. We never even see how she feels about the Cure, something she goes to war for, only to stand around.

Storm - Storm is involved in a lot of this film. But she doesn't really do that much. She is woefully under-written, which is most notable when you consider that Jean is a long time friend, yet Storm doesn't seem to care at all about her.

Charles - The film never tackles the morality of his actions with Jean. Logan of all people is the only character to question his ethics, in a brief spat before Charles is killed. He is then mourned as a hero and everyone moves on. He's also uncharacteristically snippy.

Cyclops - Killed super early, off-screen, and barely even acknowledged after. Characters hold a funeral for Charles immediately after his death, but don't even bother with a headstone for Scott, who died sooner, until later on.

Rogue - Sits out the film to queue for the cure, then actually takes it.

Nightcrawler - Gone.

Magneto - Ian McKellen still crushes it, but this Erik is a little more callous and stupid. He ditches his most loyal ally after they took a bullet for him, regards fellow mutants as disposable 'pawns', entertains using Jean as a weapon after witnessing her obliterate Charles but still proclaims "What have I done?" in the final moments.

Mystique - Small role before being cured and replaced by less interesting henchmen.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Tempers settled after time and DOFP, but there are so many reasons to hate TLS. Just going by character:

Logan - Does the best of the lot, though generally at the expense of other characters. Gets a boring arc about learning to work as a team, then stops the final threat by himself.

His choice to move alone and stop Jean was actually handled very well.

I see your points about Scott not having a funeral and Storm not showing much care for her friend Jean,
And some of the decisions Magneto made are indeed out of character.


The rest of the stuff was handled rather nicely, especially Rogue being scared of her powers and wanting a cure.

 

[henzINNIT]

His choice to move alone and stop Jean was actually handled very well.

It was nicely staged and made for a good sequence. I'm not too against it really. It is just symptomatic of the thin, Logan-focused writing that he alone faces down with Jean, when literally everyone else on the team knew her better. Jean was reduced down to Logan's tragic love interest when she should have been a beloved member of a family who has lost her way.

The rest of the stuff was handled rather nicely, especially Rogue being scared of her powers and wanting a cure.

Hard disagree on Rogue. I don't necessarily mind her taking the cure. It's understandable in her circumstances, and you want someone in the story to represent those who would want to be cured. Problem is, we see barely any of Rogue's struggle with this decision. We don't even get to be with her when she makes the choice. Worse still, Rogue's life-changing decision is framed as one made out of jealousy. She decides to get cured after she see's Bobby skating with Kitty, and looks super guilty when Logan suggests she shouldn't do it 'over some boy'.

Kelsey Grammer as Beast was so damn perfect I nearly forgive it all.

 

[NotNickFury]

I go with Spider-Man 3. I genuinely do like a lot of that movie, but one thing I feel it does that a lot of thirds in comic book movies- including the three listed- don't do. It's tonally consistent with the first two. Batman Forever, The Last Stand, Superman III, and even others like Blade: Trinity, Ninja Turtles III, and even recent ones like Thor: Ragnarok all, I feel, have a massive tonal shift. Where yeah, it's a sequel, but tonally it just feels radically different from what came before.

That's not an indictment on the quality of those films, but I never got that vibe with Spider-Man 3. Much of that has to do with the fact that Sam Raimi directed all three, and the only changes are new cast members. I've got my issues with the film, but looking at its tone, I think it's the most consistent compared to many thirds in comic book movies.

 

[Frodo]

I'd agree that tone wise , Spiderman 3 is the most in keeping with its other franchise entry's.

While I prefer Batman Forever to Spiderman 3 by several miles, tone wise, it's like night and day with the previous two, even though the previous two have their own campy moments.

The goal and mandate of Batman Forever was to intentionally go the polar opposite of BR tone wise. So much so, I believe that they deleted the original Arkham opening for fear that it was "too dark"

More action, younger leads, more family friendly vibe, more pop songs associated with the film in a time when film soundtracks were still a big deal, etc.

It was a soft reboot as opposed to a Burton-like sequel consistent with the first two films.

 

[Herofan]

I like and evaluate Spider-Man 3 the best, just above average so kind of good, but X-Men: The Last Stand and Batman Forever are close behind, both average - if you look at and evaluate BF and TLS as movies in themselves rather than adaptations of the comics and characters (as adaptations, SM3 is more so the best and the others are really bad).

Superman III, though sure a few moments, was terrible, painful.

 

[Herofan]

Spiderman 3 is of a case of missed opportunities , and I can't help but think they could have made two films from all the different plotlines they had going.

Resolve the Peter and Harry conflict and Goblin saga in part 3 ,while introducing Brock as a reporter attempting to expose that Norman Osborn was the GG.

Then in SM4, Tackle the Venom Saga with a disgraced brock and MJ and Peter's relationship struggles.

I tend to defend Arad but he was an idiot to think fans would like Venom being stuffed into 10 minutes (and played by Topher Grace) rather than just Eddie Brock being set up to be a villain in a fourth film.

I did like Patrick Stewart in TLS, including his darker aspects and his death, but everyone else was putting in so much less effort.

Problem is, we see barely any of Rogue's struggle with this decision. We don't even get to be with her when she makes the choice. Worse still, Rogue's life-changing decision is framed as one made out of jealousy. She decides to get cured after she see's Bobby skating with Kitty, and looks super guilty when Logan suggests she shouldn't do it 'over some boy'.

So badly done.

 

[Batmannerism]

I love all four movies, I do, but here is how I list them:

X-Men: The Last Stand: Guys, why the hate? A lot of complaints are harsh, the movie is really good and builds up properly on what came before it.

Spider-Man 3: A good movie, seriously good, even Venom is part of what works about it. It's like Alien 3: Assembly Cut, a good movie that is much better than its reputation.

Batman Forever: It has a lot of good ideas and some great action, but man is the execution hilariously wonky, and Val Kilmer is stiff both in and out of the mask. I certainly enjoy it more than Batman & Robin, which is a dumb fun film.

Superman 3: Somewhat mediocre, treads the line between good and bad, but leans more towards bad.

Okay all of these have their pros and cons

1. XMen TLS. Not a terrible film, and surprisingly not the worst adaptation of the Dark Phoenix saga. I liked Grammer as Beast and some good moments. Overall a 5 out of 10.

2. Batman Forever. Not a big fan of Kilmer's Batman, found him boring. TLJ as Two face was possibly the worst performance in a cbm ever, it makes Halle Berry's Catwoman look good. For me the highlight was Jim Carrey, who had to distinguish himself from Nicholson's Joker, and was great fun to watch ( and apparently the only one of the three male leads who wasn't a complete ass hole). Chris O'Donnell was fun as Robin. I give it a 5/10 as well.

3. Spider Man 3. Well, Sandman was such a boring character he was essentially a special effect that had some dialogue. Venom was nasty and IMO should have been the main villain. There's some good, some bad and some just awful stuff in there, but I give it a 6/10 mostly for the penthouse brawl, and evil disco strut Peter Parker.


4.Superman 3. Even when I saw it in 1983 I knew it was bad. The only saving grace is Christopher Reeve. His parts are 8/10, but the rest of the movie is a solid 3 out of 10, so an average of 5.5 I guess.

Soooooo, based on my highly precise mathematical analysis SpiderMan 3 wins.

None of these films are awful, but none of them are good.

 

[Batmannerism]

Batman Forever- Pure nostalgic factor . I saw it several times in the theater, I listened to the Soundtrack backwards and forwards that summer, Kiss From a Rose is one of my favorite songs.....

That is a pretty good point, BF has a great soundtrack, I listened to it many, many times that summer and the following year.

 

[Drizzle]

3. Spider Man 3. Well, Sandman was such a boring character he was essentially a special effect that had some dialogue. Venom was nasty and IMO should have been the main villain.

I didn't think Sandman was boring but he's always been more of a henchman type of villain anyway since he's never been portrayed to be a mastermind in the comics like Mysterio or Ock. But he was still given one of, if not the best scene in the movie:



I agree that Venom should have been the main villain since he/Eddie Brock was the only villain in the Raimi trilogy who wasn't at all sympathetic and just a piece of **** to his core. In a way, the symbiote was the main villain of the movie even though it didn't manifest itself as Venom until the third act.

 

[Fincher]

X-Men: The Last Stand
Batman Forever
Superman III
Spider-Man 3

 

[Captain Tired]

Rather bizarrely, this has had the precise opposite effect to the one you intended, and now I wish to go back and rewatch Superman III. In retrospect, it does seem to have a kind of silver age on steroids charm to it.

 

[Venom75]

Obviously,Spider-man 3 is my favorite of this bunch and quite honestly,it's one of my all time favorite films. Over the years it's been unfairly dismissed as "horrible." But,while it has it's flaws and it sucked seeing my favorite villain(Venom)wasted,in no way is this a bad movie. In fact,I think it's a damn good film. It has some of the best action scenes and moments of the trilogy,as well as some great emotional and heartfelt moments. The film has some great themes there and also contains a lot of heart.

Out of the rest of these films,probably the worst one for me is Superman 3. The junkyard fight is the only part I like watching,but the rest is kinda bad. It's more a Richard Pryor movie than a Superman one. X3 and Batman forever aren't great,but they all have some nice scenes and I can enjoy both movies.

 

[Frodo]

Rather bizarrely, this has had the precise opposite effect to the one you intended, and now I wish to go back and rewatch Superman III. In retrospect, it does seem to have a kind of silver age on steroids charm to it.

Yeah.

As much as we can laugh and be snarky about it in 2020, that scene apparently scared alot of children back then.

The film is still not good, but it has its moments . Its not embarrassing like Batman and Robin was. That film was actually mocked by the press, the fans, and in pop culture in the 90s.

Superman 3 was more just boring, lame, but had a few decent sequences and moments in it.
The Evil Superman vs Clark Kent fight is one of the best sequences of all of the Reeve films imo.