Hated Movies That You Legitimately Like

[Avaitor]

I still say that 2 is the weakest of Raimi's trilogy.

[talonmalon333]

Spider-Man 2 is one of my favorite superhero movies.

But 3 is certainly hated far more than necessary. It's not bad. I don't even consider it just "decent". It's legitimately good. The only big problem I have with it is Venom which, I mean, wasn't even intended to be in the movie. I'd take it over the reboot from a few years ago any day.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I agree with Avaitor, actually. I like 2, but I will never understand how so many people seem to consider it a masterpiece. It was just as silly in tone as the other movies, but had some of the most contrived and cliche writing of the entire trilogy. It also had less heart than the first movie, and the action wasn't nearly as exciting as in the third movie. It had great moments, like Peter's confession to Aunt May and Doc Oc sacrificing himself as a form of redemption in the end, but it also had some really boring parts that kind of dragged.

I also think that 3 has some of the most legitimately funny (and very Raimi-style) lines and moments in any superhero movie. A lot of people seem to overlook that.

[Dr. Insomniac]

The only thing the director's cut adds to Daredevil is Coolio. It doesn't enhance the plot or smooth out Matt's life. It only adds Coolio. Trust me, because I sat through that director's cut and had to watch scene after scene of Matt Murdock trying to acquit Coolio of something.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

From what I hear, that subplot is very important as to how Matt gets Kingpin arrested. In the theatrical version he just leaves him there, which doesn't make any sense, but I've heard that the subplot basically does what the Netflix series did, in which Matt finds evidence about his money-laundering from the guy who does his finances and uses that to get him convicted. If that's true, then that IS certainly a pretty big departure from the theatrical version. That said, the film had a lot more problems than just not having the plot make any sense, from what I remember.

That said, I actually didn't mind Ben Affleck as Daredevil. He wasn't given much to work with in terms of decent dialogue, but he himself did a pretty good job of playing the character, IMO. The writing really killed the movie more than anything else, though.

[Foggle]

Didn't Sam Raimi specifically set out to make a "bad" movie with Spider-Man 3 because he hates Venom? I think I read that somewhere. You can kind of tell throughout the film that he was trying to parody the first two movies and the Spider-Man mythos in general. It's hilarious now that I'm older, but you have to remember that a lot of us saw this film when we were kids. Kids don't generally understand this kind of humor as well as adults do, and if they love the character, they're not going to respond well to it. I mean, I adored the 60's Batman show and Batman Returns as a kid... because I thought they were legitimately great and accurate. Nowadays I appreciate them for what they really are, and SM3 as well, but I just don't think the latter can be unironically loved by children like those can.

[Foggle]

It's a lot like what we said about Gamers and Nintendo in the E3 thread.

Also, in reference to this analogy... yes, I am saying that most of the people who complain about Nintendo are children. Or at least manchildren.

[Spark Of Spirit]

No, he wanted to do a different take on "Angsty" since the symbiote changes you to reveal your darker side. So instead of Generic Angry Peter, he went all out with Jerkwad Peter. Sure it was funny, but it had the same end result whether he was pure evil or sleazy liar. The latter was just a more fun and original take.

You can tell he wanted it to be in line with the other movies, I mean everything with the Sandman and Harry was in line with the first two movies. But since he was mandated to use Venom he wanted to do something fun with it instead and I think it worked great. People just didn't want Emo Peter to act that way instead of the generic obvious way that has been done to death. They'd also apparently not paid attention to any Raimi film before.

But as someone who grew up with Darkman and Army of Darkness nothing about the movie felt off or made me flinch. It was Spider-Man 3. More of the same.

[Foggle]

Yes, but Jerkwad Peter is inherently stupid and funny. It's impossible to take at all seriously if you want to enjoy the film. I'm pretty sure it's a pisstake on how lame he thinks the Venom storyline is.

They'd also apparently not paid attention to any Raimi film before.

But I don't think people who were kids at the time of SM3's release would be at all familiar with Sam Raimi's previous work outside of the Spider-Man films. The film is extremely cringe-worthy at times if you can't laugh at it.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I wasn't referring to kids, actually. I meant adults. At the time it was well known what kind of director Sam Raimi was since he was very active at the time even making his own superhero movie a few years before.

Yes, but Jerkwad Peter is inherently stupid and funny. It's impossible to take at all seriously if you want to enjoy the film. I'm pretty sure it's a pisstake on how lame he thinks the Venom storyline is.

If he played the Venom storyline seriously, it would have been the most depressing superhero movie ever. Just look at the rest of the film. His choice was the best one to make.

[Foggle]

Oh, okay. I agree with you then.

If he played the Venom storyline seriously, it would have been the most depressing superhero movie ever. Just look at the rest of the film. His choice was the best one to make.

Absolutely. Sony made a huge mistake by trying to force an edgy character and storyline onto one of the least edgy writers/directors around.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Speaking of other movies that I legitimately like, let's bring up Michael Bay. From Armageddon and onward, he has directed terrible movies consecutively. I agree with this, and even though Transformers used to be a guilty pleasure for me, the horrid sequels have turned me off from even giving it that much credit. Having said that, people apply it to every movie that he has ever made. Personally, I still hold the opinion that his first two movies, Bad Boys and The Rock, were genuinely entertaining 90's action movies. They weren't as good as something like T2 or Speed, obviously, but they were well-done and surprisingly well-acted action thrillers that were still very fun films, especially for their time. And for what it's worth, both movies were initially well-liked by critics and audiences alike at the time, before Michael Bay became the most hated director in Hollywood. No matter how many more bad movies he makes, I will still hold true to the opinion that those two movies are solid entertainment.

[Foggle]

I also hear that Pain & Gain is quite good!

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

As for the Venom and Symbiote story-line, it can and has been done well....in TSSM. That show easily has the best and most definitive version of that story-line that can possibly be done. Sam Raimi's version was just a fun spin on the dark and depressing comic book version of that arc.

[Foggle]

As for the Venom and Symbiote story-line, it can and has been done well....in TSSM. That show easily has the best and most definitive version of that story-line that can possibly be done. Sam Raimi's version was just a fun spin on the dark and depressing comic book version of that arc.

SSM really did that storyline justice, and even included elements from the Raimi film in it! I also liked the way Venom was done in the Ultimate Spider-Man comic book (which seemingly was also used as an inspiration for SSM's version of the events).