What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[Unlucky Bastard 8,324]

I don't mind being made fun of. Just today, I slipped out a huge fart during pilates class in front of a bunch of women but nobody else seemed to notice.

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

1 minute ago, Glóin the Dark said:

But would you disapprove of any criticism I received from others? And, if so, would that also apply to any other joke on any other matter?

 

My point is, it wouldn't matter whether I thought your joke as inappropriate, or whether I approved or disapproved of any criticism you got. You have a right to inappropriate humour, they have a right to criticize it.  Those are choices for individuals to make. I'm just saying I don't join censorious mobs.  

 

1 minute ago, Edmilson said:

What if the person who gets bothered with the joke about a child dying from leukaemia is the actual parent of a child dying from leukaemia? Would he or she be right about being mad with a comedian making fun of their child's suffering?

 

I don't know what you mean by "right". I know if I were that parent, I'd be mad about it, and let that person know. I mean, I wouldn't begrudge anyone being "mad" about that joke, or any other joke.  As I said, what we find funny is subjective.  I'm just saying I don't join censorious mobs.  

[Davis 2,749]

2 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

If I were to start making joke posts mocking, say, a child with leukemia

Why would you do that? Why would anyone do that? Did Monty Python do it in LIFE OF BRIAN? In one scene they joke with a man who had leprosy and was a begger, then Jesus came and healed him, and since then he can’t beg anymore, thus Jesus took away his livelihood. That’s a mocking of the absurdity of old times when public stoning was a common thing, and people with leprosy in cities (and everywhere) were also an “accepted” thing. They don’t mock the illness, but the absurdity - according to them - of how Jesus healed an ill man and doing so (an objectively good thing) taking away his livelihood. It’s the typical MP absurd sense of humor that not everyone gets.

 

Again, oversensitivity, political correctness kills comedy, because everything can be offensive for someone. In a normally functioning society people should have enough self criticism to accept that they may be the object of humour, even if it’s not pleasant for them. No one likes being mocked, yet without criticism there can be no democracy. 

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

27 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

 

Which is why I think people who argue that humor must have no bounds only say that when it's not them the target of the joke. If you had a dying son or daughter you wouldn't think it's so funny. 

 

I really don't think this is much of an argument. If we personalized everything in this way, then you really couldn't have any kind of comedy at all. If someone makes a lawyer joke, and my son or daughter is a lawyer and so I take offence, does that mean lawyer jokes are "out of bounds"? 

 

To take the example to another extreme. If there was someone held hostage by terrorists, and those terrorists were making outrageous demands for their release, I think most people would say "you can't negotiate with terrorists". But if it were their child being held hostage, they'd probably be willing to give the terrorist anything they wanted to get their child back. Does that mean, say, the President of the United States should make policy based on how he'd feel if it were his kid? 

[Edmilson 8,180]

3 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I'm just saying I don't join censorious mobs.  

Oh, I hate those too. Cancel culture is a plague that, unfortunately, did more harm to the causes it was supposed to protect (rights of LGBTQ people, feminism, etc) than good. And yeah, censorship is a horrible thing, as is trying to destroy the lives and careers of those that some people who spend way too much time on Twitter happen to disagree with.

 

I just think that those who argue for unlimited free speech (like our pal Elon, who loves to say he's a free speech absolutist but has no problem silencing his critics) only say that because, like Dave Chappelle's character in The Nutty Professor, it was never them the target of humiliation - and I'm not saying just a silly joke or two but actual cruel humiliation. When him became the target of the joke by Eddie Murphy in that movie he didn't like it.

[Jurassic Shark 12,618]

Anyone wanna place bets on who will be the first to get banned in this thread?

[Davis 2,749]

I think we should separate art from reality. Just because we laugh at a joke in a film, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we agree with it in real life.

 

Woody Allen mocks Jewish people in ANNIE HALL, and I laugh at the jokes, yet neither him nor I am antisemitic. We basically laugh at the “truth” that no one dares to say out loud in the real world, yet when they hear it in a film, they know it’s true and laugh because of it. The same reason why intelligent people can and like to laugh at themselves. 

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

12 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

 those who argue for unlimited free speech

 

Most people claim they're fore "unlimited free speech" are talking rubbish. I roll my eyes when people they're a "free speech absolutist". Again, rubbish. There are very, very few true free speech absolutists. I'm not one. And Elon Musk certainly isn't one, no matter what he says.  If you're a free speech absolutist, that means you have no problem with slander, libel, death threats, etc. Elon Musk would be the first person to sue if someone slandered him. Ask any "free speech absolutist" whether they think child porn should be legal and see what happens to their absolutism. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Glóin the Dark 1,241]

20 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

My point is, it wouldn't matter whether I thought your joke as inappropriate, or whether I approved or disapproved of any criticism you got. You have a right to inappropriate humour, they have a right to criticize it.

 

This is basically the point I'm making, in response to posts criticising the criticism of humour.

 

17 minutes ago, JTN said:

Why would anyone do that?

 

I don't know, but I did give a real-life example of it in a vain attempt to preempt the implication that it was a strawman argument.

 

17 minutes ago, JTN said:

Did Monty Python do it in LIFE OF BRIAN? 

 

No. My point is that everyone has their own lines, and "It's a joke!" should not be considered as a magical shield against criticism any more than "I'm offended!" should be considered incontestable grounds for censure.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,324]

7 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Anyone wanna place bets on who will be the first to get banned in this thread?

 

There's no humour more universal than flatulence.

[Davis 2,749]

55 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

My point is that everyone has their own lines, and "It's a joke!" should not be considered as a magical shield against criticism any more than "I'm offended!" should be considered incontestable grounds for censure.

I agree. Good humor requires talent. Monty Python is very talented, and their jokes aren’t just for laugh, they usually have some subtle subtext to them, e.g. in LOB. 

Bottomline is, humor is a very subjective thing, and if you always had to keep in mind whom you might offend, there would be no more jokes. Society should be much stronger. Without humor life would be miserable. 

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

2 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

 

There's no humour more universal than flatulence.

 

Or a banana in the tailpipe.

[Davis 2,749]

2 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

There's no humour more universal than flatulence.

That’s why children love and laugh at fart sounds. 

[Unlucky Bastard 8,324]

1 minute ago, JTN said:

That’s why children love and laugh at fart sounds. 

 

I never grew up.

[Jurassic Shark 12,618]

6 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

 

There's no humour more universal than flatulence.

 

Agreed.

[Chen G. 4,315]

I laugh at and/or make Jew jokes, Holocaust jokes, the works...

[Naïve Old Fart 10,055]

10 minutes ago, JTN said:

That’s why children love and laugh at fart sounds. 

 

Not just children 

 

Man has been around for a wee while, and in that time, he has accomplished countless things, from sailing oceans, to flying through the air, to splitting the atom. He has created profound works of art, in all respects. He has theologized and philosophied and said things of deep originality, and meaning.

Despite this, with all of our "evolved sensibilities", what is still the funniest sound ever? The sound of gas escaping from an anus.

Go, figure.

[Edmilson 8,180]

8 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

 

There's no humour more universal than flatulence.

Or dick jokes!

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I laugh at and/or make Jew jokes, Holocaust jokes, the works...

 

To say nothing of Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Mel Brooks, etc. You've said this before, and I was going to mention that, but I didn't want to drag you into it.

[Davis 2,749]

34 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

 

I never grew up.

 

[Unlucky Bastard 8,324]

Draxing Back Home

[Mr. Hooper 2,681]

Well, guys, I don't know if I should say this here, but—

 

The last older movie I saw was 'Farewell My Concubine'.

 

I was quite taken with it back in the '90s, and it introduced me to the music of Zhao Jiping...

 

It follows the lives of two stage brothers in the Peking opera and their tumultuous friendship, set against a historical backdrop of political upheaval in China.

 

Some will find it a little too melodramatic for their tastes, but it's visually intoxicating, and the haunting quality of Jiping's music (that successfully blends eastern and western styles) hits me right in the feels.

 

It was a new 4K restoration, and the first time the original cut has been shown theatrically in North America.

 

I was used to the Miramax cut, and the additional scenes didn't add anything to the story really, but it was nice to see the excerpts of operas that were included on the import OST (i.e., not the Varèse release) I had listened to for so long.

 

One touch/difference I also noticed was the addition of red in the sepia-toned opening scene, similar to the effect used in 'Schindler's List' (that, incidentally, came out the same year).

 

The Criterion Collection is set to release this version in July.

 

 

[HunterTech 1,102]

I've long decided that my sense of humor is an enigma, since so much of what is considered funny in popular media tends to just get no reaction out of me. Even when I fully get what the joke is supposed to be, it can only muster a chuckle at most on a subsequent rewatch. I imagine this is part of why Ghostbusters matched the "supernatural spectacular" tagline for me growing up, since I more enjoyed it as these fun romps of guys catching ghosts before I did a master class of deadpan humor (which admittedly would go over a kid's head anyway). Whose Line Is It Anyway is maybe the one thing I can point to as being something that can consistently make me laugh, and I suspect that's more because of the talent involved than the actual craftsmanship of the jokes. Oh, and YTPs, but only one other guy here knows what those are.

 

So given this, it becomes a lot easier for me to recognize when a joke is merely just a superficial attack at something. I did go out of my way to read a transcript of Dave Chappelle's The Closer, since I figured I was best off forming my own opinion with how much controversy the special caused. The only time I laughed was a comparison made that was so utterly inane that I couldn't help but giggle at such an absurd equivalency being made unironically. Everything else reeked of someone who actively refused to actually understand any of the targets he was discussing, so a lot of it rang hollow to me as a result. I strongly suspect the only reason it even could make an impact is because Chappelle remains incredibly compelling as a performer (which I would certainly also extend to Gervais, who was mentioned earlier), so there definitely would be pushback if you were critique him in any form. Does that make me a pushover then when I agree that its disgracefulness is all it has going for it?

 

So no, I'm not entirely convinced that puritanical outrage is the primary pushback that we get towards some forms of humor. I can't imagine that many folks have the same sort of perspective I do, but I do think people are more capable of seeing beyond what the joke is supposed to be than we might give them credit for. Am I severely overthinking this? Yes, but that's only because I often am just left with mere statements whenever I don't get the humor, so I often do wonder what others in a similar position tends to think when something doesn't hit for them.

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

 

22 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

I'm not entirely convinced that puritanical outrage is the primary pushback that we get towards some forms of humor.

 

Is neo-puritanism the only reason for the pushback? No. The primary reason? Probably. Especially given the "pushback" comes from a relative minority (albeit a very vocal one) of social media scolds. The kind of supposedly moralistic and high-minded people, to quote Dr. Zhivago, "who the world pretends to admire but in fact despises".

 

They used to wear religious cloaks, today they're mostly secular. The sides change, but the censorious mindset remains the same.

 

 

[HunterTech 1,102]

My social media use is so selective that I will admit a large disconnect when it comes to assessing common forms of outrage, since I often know better to just stick to key personalities in regards to discussion of media. Hell, I'm sure that's probably why the problem seems especially prominent nowadays, since the early Internet was largely carried by a bunch of disparate communities/niches like this one, instead of everything being in one hub like Xitter or YT. Put too many people together, and you get a whole lot of exhaustion after a while.

[Mr. Hooper 2,681]

31 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

So given this, it becomes a lot easier for me to recognize when a joke is merely just a superficial attack at something.

 

Yeah, the intent behind the joke counts for a lot.

 

Is the intent just to make you laugh? Is there criticism also mixed in there (which you may or may not agree with)? Or maybe a thinly veiled attack.

 

If I get a sense from a comedian that he's got an axe to grind and is punching down in the name of humour, I'll be disinclined to laugh. But a guy like Ricky Gervais, for example, just seems to me like someone who'll stop at nothing to make us—and himself—laugh. And he'll grope in some uncomfortable corners to find the humour in any subject.

 

So while I don't agree with any of this "cancel culture" business, I especially don't like guys like him being targeted by the purveyors of moral outrage. The man just wants to make us laugh.

 

[Chen G. 4,315]

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

You've said this before, and I was going to mention that, but I didn't want to drag you into it.

 

As I say, what man is a man who is not game to poke a little fun at himself?

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

As I say, what man is a man who is not game to poke a little fun at himself?

 

Some men have longer sticks to poke with than others.

[bollemanneke 3,468]

Narnia 3. This is a film review of Narnia 3, in which I will review Narnia 3.

 

Well, I’m glad I’m done with them now. I just can’t get into these stories. It’s too moralising. It wants to convey messages, lots of them, but instead of conveying them, we need to SPELL EVERYTHING OUT. MULTIPLE TIMES. BECAUSE THEN YOU MIGHT GET IT. SEE? It’s too unashamedly Christian. Or, again, it tells you that it’s about Christianity in a way that really destroys any mystery it might otherwise have held. I’m not saying I wasn’t moved as the mouse went away, but I don’t understand why it had to happen, or why Aslan can’t just eradicate evil with one spell. Ah, but of course. Yeah, I won’t go down this path for forum policy reasons. When’s the next movie coming in which they explain it’s a movie?

 

The score is mostly wonderful, especially the use of woodwinds, bass flute in particular. But some majestic cues sound as though someone forgot to add some layers. Weird.

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,515]

45 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

 

Yeah, the intent behind the joke counts for a lot.

 

Is the intent just to make you laugh? Is there criticism also mixed in there (which you may or may not agree with)? Or maybe a thinly veiled attack.

 

If I get a sense from a comedian that he's got an axe to grind and is punching down in the name of humour, I'll be disinclined to laugh. But a guy like Ricky Gervais, for example, just seems to me like someone who'll stop at nothing to make us—and himself—laugh. And he'll grope in some uncomfortable corners to find the humour in any subject.

 

So while I don't agree with any of this "cancel culture" business, I especially don't like guys like him being targeted by the purveyors of moral outrage. The man just wants to make us laugh.

 

 

Saw him live last year, and as I posted on FB at the time 'Ricky Gervais has just made jokes about terrible things for 80 minutes, and I lolled throughout because they're ONLY. FUCKING. JOKES.'

[filmmusic 2,109]

 

I was obsessed with this film back when it was released!

I played certain scenes over and over. I cried in others etc.

Well, it's silly entertainment but I still love it. The quick editing becomes a bit tiring for me now.

The Visual effects I think hold up well till now..

The music score is good but it sounds like all samples to me..

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

 

59 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

 

Yeah, the intent behind the joke counts for a lot.

But a guy like Ricky Gervais, for example, just seems to me like someone who'll stop at nothing to make us—and himself—laugh. And he'll grope in some uncomfortable corners to find the humour in any subject.

 

10 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Saw him live last year, and as I posted on FB at the time 'Ricky Gervais has just made jokes about terrible things for 80 minutes, and I lolled throughout because they're ONLY. FUCKING. JOKES.'

 

Yeah, I don't sense any mean-spiritedness, or spite in his comedy. As soon as I think something is coming from a bad, or spiteful place, I stop thinking it's funny.

 

[Marian Schedenig 8,580]

3 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Yeah, the intent behind the joke counts for a lot.

 

Is the intent just to make you laugh? Is there criticism also mixed in there (which you may or may not agree with)? Or maybe a thinly veiled attack.

 

Exactly. Intent and context. I can laugh at a very distasteful joke (if it's funny), as long as I know it's not meant in a harmful way. See e.g. dark jokes about Jews by Jews. Thing is, the same kinds of jokes are made by very different people who mean them in very different ways. As a citizen of one of the countries that started the Holocaust, I've become rather sensitive to how these comments work and are used. And if someone throws a distasteful, offensive joke out there without any clear context, they shouldn't be surprised if they're criticised, even if it was never meant in a hurtful way.

 

Because ultimately it's about how it's perceived. The usual argument "*they* have no right to be offended because *we* have a right to joke about whatever we want" doesn't fly, because why is your right to just say everything, regardless of what impact it may have on other people, greater than someone else's right not to be hurt? It's not about people being "offended" anyway, it's about people being hurt (often repeatedly, often for their entire lives). Naturally, if people keep arguing that others should not be "offended" by things they actually perceive as hurtful, and therefore keep at it, some people on the receiving end will become oversensitive to these things (although where oversensitive beings and who decides that is hardly something that can be solved). Those cases can and should be argued in a calm manner. But it's rarely about censorship, it's simply about people being fed up with being bullied and ridiculed, and the bullies then overreacting that they're being cancelled. In very few cases have the supposed "victims of cancel culture" actually been prevented from saying anything and repeating it over and over again anyway - often they just get even more opportunities to repeat it on talk shows etc.

 

 

7 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Unfortunately I watched the film so many times as a child that the jokes don't have the same impact on me anymore, and I've only watched the DVD once since I bought it ages ago.

 

Watching it with other people often helps. Jokes that you're familiar with can sometimes be much funnier again when you have other people laughing at them. I still remember how I once watched Holy Grail with some friends and had to pause the film for ten minutes after the opening credits because we were laughing so much.

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

13 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The usual argument "*they* have no right to be offended because *we* have a right to joke about whatever we want" doesn't fly

 

This is a strawman. I don't think anyone is saying people don't have a "right" to be offended. I personally couldn't care less if something offends someone or not. The problem comes when the people who are "offended" try to censor, cancel, or otherwise silence those who they're offended by. And that I do have a problem with.

 

13 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

why is your right to just say everything, regardless of what impact it may have on other people, greater than someone else's right not to be hurt?

 

In a liberal democracy, one that values the freedom of expression, the right to say (almost) anything is, in fact, greater than the right of someone not to be hurt. Historically, there is no "right" to not be hurt by someone else's words, but there is a human right of freedom of expression, that goes back to antiquity.

 

The greatest "right" we all have to not be hurt by someone else's words is our own agency...to ignore them. Or at least, not let the words of someone we neither know or respect impact us. If you let someone else's words...particularly a f*cking comedian's...ruin your day, well, that's on you. Even children know about sticks & stones.

 

[Chen G. 4,315]

1 minute ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The problem comes when the people who are "offended" try to censor, cancel, or otherwise silence those who they're offended by. And that I do have a problem with.

 

Quite. Like, oh I don't know, a segment of the Rings of Power community applying pressure on a certain fan-group to exclude a certain Israeli member...

[Marian Schedenig 8,580]

3 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The greatest "right" we all have not be hurt by someone else's words is our own agency...to ignore them. Or at least, not let the words of someone we neither know or respect impact us. Even children know about sticks & stones.

 

It's maybe easy to say "just don't be hurt by what I say" for some. Especially for those not part of fringe groups, who haven't had to live with it for all their lives. But that doesn't mean others are not hurt by it nevertheless, or that they can simply decide whether or not to be hurt by it.

 

And it's not about being "allowed" to say something anyway. Hardly anybody will actually campaign to lock you up if you make a joke about a child dying from leukaemia (to bring back that example from above). It's about whether you *should* make the joke. And whether you should be given the platform to make it to a large audience.

[Nick1Ø66 5,357]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

It's maybe easy to say "just don't be hurt by what I say" for some. Especially for those not part of fringe groups, who haven't had to live with it for all their lives. But that doesn't mean others are not hurt by it nevertheless, or that they can simply decide whether or not to be hurt by it.

 

I fully understand words can be hurtful. And using words with the intent of hurting someone, particularly a vulnerable person, is wrong.  At least, I don't like it. But the potential for hurting someone, emotionally, is not enough of a reason to censor. And it's incredibly subjective. What if I'm hurt by joke someone makes about John Williams?  That's a slippery slope no one should want to go down. 

 

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Hardly anybody will actually campaign to lock you up if you make a joke about a child dying from leukaemia (to bring back that example from above).

 

In most places, at least most liberal democracies, no, being locked up isn't the issue.  

 

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

It's about whether you *should* make the joke. And whether you should be given the platform to make it to a large audience.

 

We're back to "should". Lots of things are should. Should comedians make tasteless jokes? Maybe yes, maybe no. But when you're talking about deplatforming someone because their words might hurt someone's feelings, that's another matter entirely. That's a form of censorship.

 

And with that, I shall self-censor and away from this conversation, because this thread has been derailed enough already. 

 

 

 

[HunterTech 1,102]

Intent seems to have a greater hold in comedy than any other medium, which I find quite fascinating. We are so quick to claim "death of the author" with books and movies, yet it matters far more what the comic meant to say than it does the actual execution and delivery of the joke. Yes, I understand that the aim of making the audience laugh is inherently much simpler than making a full program of television, but a divisive response to a routine apparently says more about the naysayers than it does the defenders.

 

I did see an interview quote from Gervais stating that he doesn't mean to go after marginalized groups of people in his routines, but rather he's attacking the sorts of prudes that claim to stand up on their behalf. And yet the stuff I've seen of his more recent material feels as if he's not really delivering on that premise, since he seems more concerned about reinforcing the outdated notions about said groups than he does pointing out how people often do allegedly charitable acts out of self-interest than out of genuine concern. Am I too ingrained in new think to see that his supposed point is being conveyed? Perhaps, but still, it's maybe not your best work when I'm more left confused than amused.

[Mr. Hooper 2,681]

While we can claim freedom of speech as a "right", absolute freedom of speech doesn't really exist anywhere in society. There's always a line drawn somewhere, and some kind of reprimand if you cross it.

 

Parents censor their children; institutions and businesses have codes of conduct; television networks have Standards and Practices; films have censorship boards; and comic books at one time had the Comics Code Authority to protect young, impressionable minds.

All good things, when applied reasonably. But as @Nick1Ø66 pointed out, censorship can be a slippery slope...

 

Case in point, Scotland's got an Orwellian hate crime law now where a citizen can report another for saying something that can "incite hatred."

 

J.K. Rowling was apparently reported for making comments on social media deemed by some to be hateful, and she basically challenged the government to charge her under the new law...

 

But sanity prevailed and the police said her tweets were not criminal.

 

I hope that sets a precedent for future cases...

 

Slippery slope.

 

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And with that, I shall self-censor and away from this conversation, because this thread has been derailed enough already.

Ditto.

[Marian Schedenig 8,580]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And it's incredibly subjective. What if I'm hurt by joke someone makes about John Williams?  That's a slippery slope no one should want to go down. 

 

Subjective, certainly. But it seems to me that when topics of a personal nature are concerned (i.e. something that people do not choose, are often criticised for, and may as a result even suffer from), then maybe that's something that can quickly become hurtful for a large number of people.

 

Although I do concede that our community can be particularly sensitive (and perhaps even traumatised from how people reacted to our musical tastes during adolescence) when it comes to making fun of our musical tastes. Maybe that's somehow related to how we seem to (my impression at least) have an above average percentage of members from fringe groups. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

 

As for hate speech… there are plenty of cases where it tends to get excessive, especially on social media, and people have in fact been driven to suicide by it. It's of course not easy to decide where to draw lines, but I don't think criminalising severe cases is Orwellian, as long as the decisive factor is excessive aggression against individuals. But that's going into yet another specific topic, so:

 

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And with that, I shall self-censor and away from this conversation, because this thread has been derailed enough already. 

 

I concur.

[HunterTech 1,102]

It's pretty clear that we've all cemented our positions on the topic (even if I'm getting the impression some points weren't properly addressed), so I'll move on as well.

 

I haven't been great about discussing stuff I've watched/listened to on the forum, so I'll probably take this opportunity to mention that I've caught rescreenings for the first 5 Spider-Man movies from the marathon Sony is doing for live-action Spidey!

 

Spider-Man (2002)

Probably the most reinvigorating revisit, since the big screen certainly did wonders for this movie. For being the one of the three that I might have the most nostalgia for, I don't think the dialogue quite popped as much as it did this time. Some might consider it simplistic and/or too fast paced, but just about everything clicked here. Peter is incredibly refreshing as a protagonist, given his overt geekiness is not the sort thing you would see in the overly polished heroes you sort of get in a lot of modern superhero media. The next two iterations certainly give it their go, but I don't think either quite got the "friendly neighborhood" aspect as well as this did.

 

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Honestly don't have a ton to say about this one, since this definitely was the one where I just sat back and relaxed for the whole runtime. This movie is just great, even if the music situation is incredibly unfortunate (seeing as I've only grown even more fond of Elfman's efforts for the series after getting to listen to them individually).

 

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

This was such a confusing watch, as, after two screenings with a decently well behaved audience, the crowd were left a lot more puzzled by the picture after a while. It almost left me feeling embarrassed that I ever gave this movie much admiration at any point, since it felt for a moment like this was just a movie to laugh at for 'normal people.' And yet it's got too much going for it for me to dismiss in any capacity, even if the story absolutely does not hold together as well as it should. The heart and passion of the cast and crew are very evident, and I can't stay mad at a movie that gave me a score I love this much (even if it's much stronger in its unaltered form, which at least I am able to watch). It's a mess, but an incredibly admirable one at that.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

After 3 movies that left me feeling a lot, this can't help but just be merely decent in comparison. The biggest draw here is that Garfield and Stone work incredibly well in their parts, and there's plenty here that helps gives it a bit of its own flavor. That, and it probably is the best Spidey score despite only ranking second in my personal list. However, seeing this and SM1 so close together does highlight how much the film still adheres too strongly to the same structure, only with a considerably weaker villain. So it probably would rank fairly low for me (if still beating out something like FFH), but I think it does deserve a fair shake.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

This movie is terrible, and I think I love it. It is perhaps the most blatant any of these have been in being a byproduct of corporate interests, yet in a similar vein to SM3, the cast and crew are too talented for me to essentially not care. Garfield and Stone remain the highlights with a generally decent love story, and the tone is the right kind lighthearted that I think the character should have. This is perhaps amongst the most inventive Spidey has been in live action in terms of the visuals. And the score is undoubtedly underrated, for as obnoxiously eclectic as it might be. The actual story is a serious mess, with the villains certainly coming off even worse than last time, but I legitimately don't care while I'm watching. I just end up having fun every time.

 

I'm less interested in catching the MCU entries (especially when I've already seen all of them in the theater), but I might go see NWH again, if only to see how it plays with the previous films fresh in my head.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,324]

[Brock Lovett 7,034]

[Unlucky Bastard 8,324]

[Groovygoth666 907]

 

[Mr. Hooper 2,681]

I hope it's at least a grapefruit spoon.

 

[Edmilson 8,180]

3 hours ago, HunterTech said:

 

Spider-Man (2002)

Probably the most reinvigorating revisit, since the big screen certainly did wonders for this movie. For being the one of the three that I might have the most nostalgia for, I don't think the dialogue quite popped as much as it did this time. Some might consider it simplistic and/or too fast paced, but just about everything clicked here. Peter is incredibly refreshing as a protagonist, given his overt geekiness is not the sort thing you would see in the overly polished heroes you sort of get in a lot of modern superhero media. The next two iterations certainly give it their go, but I don't think either quite got the "friendly neighborhood" aspect as well as this did.

 

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Honestly don't have a ton to say about this one, since this definitely was the one where I just sat back and relaxed for the whole runtime. This movie is just great, even if the music situation is incredibly unfortunate (seeing as I've only grown even more fond of Elfman's efforts for the series after getting to listen to them individually).

 

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

This was such a confusing watch, as, after two screenings with a decently well behaved audience, the crowd were left a lot more puzzled by the picture after a while. It almost left me feeling embarrassed that I ever gave this movie much admiration at any point, since it felt for a moment like this was just a movie to laugh at for 'normal people.' And yet it's got too much going for it for me to dismiss in any capacity, even if the story absolutely does not hold together as well as it should. The heart and passion of the cast and crew are very evident, and I can't stay mad at a movie that gave me a score I love this much (even if it's much stronger in its unaltered form, which at least I am able to watch). It's a mess, but an incredibly admirable one at that.

I love this trilogy. Saw all three of them at the movie theater. Such an essential part of my childhood, especially the first one which I later rewatched it countless times on DVD. 

 

70s kids had Donner/Reeve Superman, 80s/90s kids had the Burton/Schumacher Batman films and us 2000s kids had Raimi/Maguire Spiderman trilogy. They may not be perfect, but I love them anyway.

 

The Amazing movies... eh, not so much. I don't care for any of them, especially the second one which I consider pretty awful. However, I do like Garfield as an actor and as Peter and Horner's score for the first TASM is pretty good.

 

Overall, I don't think there is a truly terrible theatrical Spiderman movie aside from TASM 2. They all range from just okay to great, including the Tom Holland trilogy and the Spiderverse toons.

[Mr. Hooper 2,681]

Tom Holland's wide-eyed and awkward Parker/Spidey was cute, but I'm looking forward to a more mature portrayal from him next. Should be interesting.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,324]

He was terrible as Nathan Drake.

[Groovygoth666 907]

Been a couple years since I saw the Raimi trilogy and feel like the it holds up really well, with the third though I'd say the Editors Cut is the better version and definitely worth a watch.