Estimated read time: 7-8 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
AUNT MAY'S PLACE — With the release of “Spider-Man: Homecoming” this week, we’ve now seen big-screen versions of Spider-Man played by three different actors since 2002.
That’s almost an average of one new Spider-Man movie every other year for the last 15 years and one new Spider-Man actor every five years. If it seems excessive, you’re right — it is. Especially, considering the fact that the first six movies, (not counting “Spider-Man: Homecoming” because it has not released yet) have made nearly $1.6 billion at the domestic box office.
So while we may feel like there are too many of these movies, the fact is, we keep going to see them, and believe you me, this new one is going to make a killing at the box office as well.
With all this Spider-Man mania going on, we thought it was a great time to rank the films from worst to best and make a few enemies along the way.
I know already that I am going to upset more than a few people with my rankings, but this is the way I feel and I’m sticking to it.
What can I say other than “Spider-Man 3” is truly terrible. While it had the makings of a really exciting Spider-Man movie, the third installment of Sam Raimi’s trilogy was a laughable mess.
Everything was off; the casting of Eddie Brock and the portrayal of Venom, the emo Peter Parker, the multiple villains and the strange demise of Harry Osborne. It was a disaster from start to finish and easily earns its spot on this list as the worst of the bunch.
I really liked Andrew Garfield as the quick-witted web-slinger and was looking forward to “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” but boy was I disappointed. The only thing keeping this film from being the worst of the lot is the fact that “Spider-Man 3” exists, but you have to try pretty hard to beat that movie out.
“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” suffered from the “too many villains” issue that so many superhero movies fall victim to. It also had pacing issues, tonal issues and Jamie Foxx’s Electro was insufferable. Garfield and Emma Stone managed to keep this movie from being a complete failure, but not by much.
In my original review of the film, I actually liked it, but I realized afterward I was duped by the chemistry between Stone and Garfield (which we'll talk about later), but overall, I was wrong and this is not a good movie.
Bryan Singer’s “X-Men” reminded us that comic book movies didn’t have to be all bad, and Sam Raimi drove that point home with “Spider-Man.”
The movie is fun and captured the imagination of audiences across the world and kick-started the superhero movie insanity we’re living in now.
Overall, the movie is a lot of fun, but I still don’t think Tobey Maguire or Kirsten Dunst were the best choices for the leads, and the film gets a bit cheesy at times. But overall, it’s a solid movie that earns a higher spot on this list.
This is where I think I’m going to upset a lot of people, and I’m OK with this because I’m sticking with this choice. “Spider-Man 2” is a fine movie, but it is not the best Spidey film.
“Spider-Man 2” is a marked improvement from the first film and boasts a solid story and some really interesting characters. Alfred Molina is a great Doc Ock and Peter Parker’s internal struggle with who he is and what he wants to be is intriguing and motivating.
What keeps this from the top of the list for me again comes down to Maguire and Dunst, as well as character shifts that happen a little too quickly and easily to really make sense. I know we’re dealing with a movie where a boy is bitten by a spider and gains superhuman strength, but I still think Doc Ock’s turn from loving husband to super villain was weak and that will always bother me.
When we found out we were getting a new iteration of Spider-Man just five years after the nightmare that was “Spider-Man 3,” I think we were all a little wary. Can’t we just leave poor Peter Parker alone?
Well, Marvel Studios had reminded Sony, who owned the film rights to Spider-Man, that there is a lot of money in superhero movies, so another version of Spidey was in the works.
“The Amazing Spider-Man” has a lot going for it. The story is interesting, even though it’s another origin, the direction is great from Marc Webb and the underlying question of “what happened to Peter’s parents?” is really intriguing. But one thing made this film both watchable and wildly enjoyable: the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. The casting choice was brilliant and it absolutely made the movie.
These two could have just been sitting in a room talking about what Spider-Man means on a spiritual level, and I still would have enjoyed the movie. The leads alone are what elevate this one above “Spider-Man 2” for me and I’m willing to stand by that. For me, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is the most rewatchable film in the series. Well, was the most rewatchable until this week.
I don’t want to give anything away here, but I had the chance to see “Spider-Man: Homecoming” last week and as soon as it ended, fellow KSL.com movie critic Travis Poppleton and I looked at each other and said, “This is the best Spider-Man movie to date.”
The humor, the tone, the casting, the intimacy of the world and the ties to the Marvel Cinematic Universe are all pretty close to perfect. This movie is a blast, and I feel Tom Holland is now the de facto Peter Parker, and I’m looking forward to what else this Spider-Man universe is going to offer.
Make sure to catch Poppleton’s review on Thursday for a full breakdown of “Spider-Man: Homecoming.”
What do your rankings look like? Where did I get it totally wrong? Let us know in the comments.