Worst live action DC and Marvel comic films

[The Joker]

Only listing films I have actually watched...and pretty much wish I had never seen them:
X-Men 1-3

What's your problem with X-Men 1 and 2?

 

[C_Carmichael]

What's your problem with X-Men 1 and 2?

Just wasn't a fan. I think it was the casting. I really enjoy Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, but the rest aren't my cup of tea.

And like the awesome Dr. Cox (Scrubs) I hate Hugh Jackman. LOL

 

[OcStat]

Seeing some of the mentioned films pop on the worst lists is laughable in my opinion; but to each their own.

 

[CountOrlok]

I don't think any comic book movie could be worse than CATWOMAN. Man, that movie is ****ing wretched.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

And like the awesome Dr. Cox (Scrubs) I hate Hugh Jackman. LOL

IMO he's the best of the X-Men movies cast, followed by the two you like, and then the other Sabertooth

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Seeing some of the mentioned films pop on the worst lists is laughable in my opinion; but to each their own.

Which do you feel shouldn't be on such lists?

 

[Squaremaster316]

DC:

Batman and Robin
Batman Returns
Jonah Hex
Catwoman
Supergirl
Superman 3
Superman 4
Green Lantern


Marvel:

Iron Man 2
Iron Man 3
Thor
Thor 2
X-Men: The Last Stand
Spider-Man 3
Elektra
Daredevil
Fantastic Four 1
Fantastic Four 2
Punisher 1
Punisher 2
Ghost Rider 1
Ghost Rider 2
Howard the Duck


And the worst of the worst... X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

 

[Loki882]

You're right, origin films don't automatically suck. But it's hard to argue that an origin film is good, if it comes reasonably soon after an origin film
that's slightly better, and tells pretty much the same story.


I disagree on the origin being better in TASM, IMO the origin in Raimi's SM was better, mostly because I actually liked Peter Parker.
Tobey Maguire's Peter was a much more relatable character.

Plus it's more faithful to the comics (which doesn't always matter) because it happens on a school trip.

The idea of Peter being able to sneak into a top secret research wing of a huge corporation and then sneak out, was a bit ridiculous. Kind of like him being able to invent the web-shooters. I thought that the webbing being a part of him actually made more sense (although if we were going for realism, I suppose he'd end up shooting webbing out of his ass, like a real spider).
But, hey, that's just IMO.

Anyway, Iin my original post, and I didn't say it sucked, I didn't think it was very good, but it was far from the worst movie ever, my main problem is that it was totally unnecessary) and while I hated Garfield as Peter Parker, I thought he was a pretty good Spider-Man (except when he took his mask off, that was just stupid).

The Lizard was a pretty awful villain really, not evil enough to hate and not sympathetic enough to feel sorry for. He was just sort of there, which is a shame, because Rhys Ifans is such a good actor.

However, it's unnecessary, they didn't need to re-do Spiderman's origin,
again.

They could have gone over it with a one minute montage in the opening credits, and then started from there.

My big problem with the film was that it tried to reboot an origin, and a series that didn't need rebooting -well not for a few more years.

If they'd waited until maybe 2015 or 2016, and given the last Spiderman film some time to settle in the dust, and even more time for us to
leave the previous origin behind.

In fact, because it tries to be an origin film, there's even more reason for
them to NOT make it just 10 years after the first origin film, and wait a bit
longer.

Batman Begins was 2005, 8 years after the awful Batman and Robin,
but 24 years after the first Batman origin film (in 1989)

Man of Steel was 2013, 7 years after the awful Superman returns (and
35 years after the first Superman Origin film.

Even Incredible Hulk, 4 years after Hulk, wasn't an origin film.

Maybe my problem with it is that I thought it sucked when compared to the first Spiderman film (which had a more likeable lead, a better villain and was kind of new and exciting ).

It would be like if Batman Begins came out in 2005, and it was good, and then a couple of years later someone came along and told the same story with better special effects but a less interesting story and worse performances.

You'd be sitting there going "Hey, haven't I seen this just a while ago ? "
It's not the same as "Wow, this movie sucks" but it's more like "Why am I watching this? "

Which is why they didn't need the reboot. I don't have a problem with reboots, some of them are fantastic (like Batman Begins) but I still think they need to give the original origin film some time (especially if it was good - I guess if Raimi's origin film was awful they wouldn't have to wait so long).

Again, that's all IMO.

I disagree. I think that TASM was a better film in pretty much every way than SM 1. The plot was better, the dialogue was better, the romance was infinitely better, the characterizations were better, Gwen was WAY BETTER than MJ, and Garfield was a better Peter Parker and Spider-Man than Tobey was. Heck, the even gave Flash Thompson some depth and a mini-character arc, bravo movie. The origin was NOT the same, besides the basic "boy gets spider-powers, uncle dies." Everything else about it was quite different. Sorry, but I found Garfield's Peter to be a much more relatable and interesting character than Tobey's Peter. Garfield's Peter felt like an actual human being, where as Tobey's felt like a 1960's caricature of what a "nerd" is, actually all of TASM characters felt more like real people than SM 1's. Peter inventing the web-shooter is comic-book accurate (in case you forgot) and is plausible since he's supposed to be a scientific prodigy (something that TASM actually showed us unlike the Raimi films). He didn't really sneak into anything, the Indian guy deliberately let him into that room. Also, at least the Lizard had an actual plan (and a comic book accurate one btw). What was the GG's ultimate plan again, because the movie never gave him one. Overall, TASM is just a better movie. SM 2 is still the best though.

 

[CountOrlok]

Don't know why Supergirl is getting such hate. Sure, it's not the best comic book movie ever made, but it's hardly the worst either. With a great performance by Helen Slater as Supergirl, a wonderful score by Jerry Goldsmith and some pretty cool sequences, this is definitely an underrated movie.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I disagree. I think that TASM was a better film in pretty much every way than SM 1. The plot was better, the dialogue was better, the romance was infinitely better, the characterizations were better, Gwen was WAY BETTER than MJ, and Garfield was a better Peter Parker and Spider-Man than Tobey was. Heck, the even gave Flash Thompson some depth and a mini-character arc, bravo movie. The origin was NOT the same, besides the basic "boy gets spider-powers, uncle dies." Everything else about it was quite different. Sorry, but I found Garfield's Peter to be a much more relatable and interesting character than Tobey's Peter. Garfield's Peter felt like an actual human being, where as Tobey's felt like a 1960's caricature of what a "nerd" is, actually all of TASM characters felt more like real people than SM 1's. Peter inventing the web-shooter is comic-book accurate (in case you forgot) and is plausible since he's supposed to be a scientific prodigy (something that TASM actually showed us unlike the Raimi films). He didn't really sneak into anything, the Indian guy deliberately let him into that room. Also, at least the Lizard had an actual plan (and a comic book accurate one btw). What was the GG's ultimate plan again, because the movie never gave him one. Overall, TASM is just a better movie. SM 2 is still the best though.

THAT and TASM's villain had a goal better than becoming Spider-man BFF.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

They kinda wrote themselves into a corner with SM3. They had wasted Venom, wasted Gwen, burned out the MJ relationship and killed off all used villains except sandman.

Rebooting gave them the ability to slowly build more from the ground up. Pete wasn't rushed out of high school, the daily bugle is wide-open for use, the villain is usable again if desired, the relationship with Gwen is still fresh, MJ is usable in future ect...

As for the origin, it wasn't needed for us fans, but it was done most likely for kids going to see their first Spider-Man movie.

 

[Rike]

Worst DC/Marvel movies that I the displeasure to watch
1. Batman & Robin
2. Catwoman
3. Elektra
4. X-Men Origins: Wolverine
5. Green Lantern

 

[Human Torch]

I disagree. I think that TASM was a better film in pretty much every way than SM 1. The plot was better, the dialogue was better, the romance was infinitely better, the characterizations were better, Gwen was WAY BETTER than MJ, and Garfield was a better Peter Parker and Spider-Man than Tobey was. Heck, the even gave Flash Thompson some depth and a mini-character arc, bravo movie. The origin was NOT the same, besides the basic "boy gets spider-powers, uncle dies." Everything else about it was quite different. Sorry, but I found Garfield's Peter to be a much more relatable and interesting character than Tobey's Peter. Garfield's Peter felt like an actual human being, where as Tobey's felt like a 1960's caricature of what a "nerd" is,actually all of TASM characters felt more like real people than SM 1's. Peter inventing the web-shooter is comic-book accurate (in case you forgot) and is plausible since he's supposed to be a scientific prodigy (something that TASM actually showed us unlike the Raimi films). He didn't really sneak into anything, the Indian guy deliberately let him into that room. Also, at least the Lizard had an actual plan (and a comic book accurate one btw). What was the GG's ultimate plan again, because the movie never gave him one. Overall, TASM is just a better movie. SM 2 is still the best though.

Needless to say I disagree with the entirety of this post,but I still don't get this "60's nerd caricature" that Tobey gets saddled with.He was shy,socially awkward and couldn't talk to MJ.Garfield's was kinda shy (I guess),socially awkward and stammered like a fool.I don't see how one is really a "Nerd caricature" over the other.

My only difference was Tobey being more enjoyable to watch/easy to relate to.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Needless to say I disagree with the entirety of this post,but I still don't get this "60's nerd caricature" that Tobey gets saddled with.He was shy,socially awkward and couldn't talk to MJ.Garfield's was kinda shy (I guess),socially awkward and stammered like a fool.I don't see how one is really a "Nerd caricature" over the other.

My only difference was Tobey being more enjoyable to watch/easy to relate to.

Maguire was far more than just shy and socially awkward. He was a complete loser and a social inept. Even the school bus driver bullied him on a daily basis, when he had the chance to talk to MJ he stared at her like a creep and said nothing. I could go on and on. The only way he got to know MJ was because the writers had them running into each other once and again (because even when she lived next door and took the garbage out at the same time, somehow Peter failed to talk to her until he was about to leave school), and MJ was interested in Peter for no visible reason whatsoever (other than the fact that she got attracted pretty much to every guy that crosses paths with her).

I don't even know someone so incompetent, but if I did, I doubt how I could relate to that.

But I wish I was as heroic as Garfield's Peter, even knowing I'm not going to beat the bully. And I can certainly see why Gwen felt attracted to him.

The 60's nerd caricature is, I think, related to Raimi's way to hammer in how inept Peter is, over and over and over for three films. The school bus bullies him, the nerdy girl despises him, the bullies bully him, his best friend got the girl he knew Peter wanted, people would give him less flowers than he wants or empty glasses, when he walks he trips over for no reason, ushers and head waiters troll him for no reason, and a long etc.

The only time I saw getting 'smart' was when he went behind Harry's back and seduced MJ (I say 'seduce' as in 'the closest this guy was able to do).

 

[Human Torch]

Maguire was far more than just shy and socially awkward. He was a complete loser and a social inept. Even the school bus driver bullied him on a daily basis, when he had the chance to talk to MJ he stared at her like a creep and said nothing.

Being shy and unable to find words makes you "a creep".Oh you, Senator.....

I could go on and on. The only way he got to know MJ was because the writers had them running into each other once and again (because even when she lived next door and took the garbage out at the same time, somehow Peter failed to talk to her until he was about to leave school), and MJ was interested in Peter for no visible reason whatsoever (other than the fact that she got attracted pretty much to every guy that crosses paths with her).

Well,if you're shy,when faced with never seeing the girl again,it gives you the impetus to make a move.(Again,relatable.I've been there myself.)

But I wish I was as heroic as Garfield's Peter, even knowing I'm not going to beat the bully. And I can certainly see why Gwen felt attracted to him.

Gwen seemed attracted to him because the script said she was.There was no real character moments to bring them together,which is what made him revealing his identity to her on the fly all the more ludicrous.

The 60's nerd caricature is, I think, related to Raimi's way to hammer in how inept Peter is, over and over and over for three films. The school bus bullies him, the nerdy girl despises him, the bullies bully him, his best friend got the girl he knew Peter wanted, people would give him less flowers than he wants or empty glasses, when he walks he trips over for no reason, ushers and head waiters troll him for no reason, and a long etc.

It's the "Parker Luck".Anything that can go wrong for him,will.That's basically how Stan wrote it.But that's about the extent of it's being related to the 60's.

 

[Human Torch]

THAT and TASM's villain had a goal better than becoming Spider-man BFF.

Goblin wanted to deal with Spidey before taking over the city.Not the most well thought out plan,but he was a psycho.

Compare it to another psycho's plan,the Joker in Batman 89.He wanted to "make art until someone dies" and equally harass Vicki Vale.Not exactly a plot worthy of the Bard.

 

[B]

It would be really hard to pick one outright bad DC/Marvel film as there is such a selection. Now I've managed to sidestep & completely avoid some of the more popular terrible ones based on word of mouth such as Elektra, Catwoman & both reboots of The Punisher to name a couple so here's my top/bottom 5 depending on what way you want to look at it.

1. Batman & Robin - Not much needed to be said on this one, it pretty much was like a parody of the Batman character, not quite as blatant as the 66' film, however far too close for my liking.

2. Watchmen - I've been told this is one of the best comic to movie films that has been made, however I've never read the Watchmen comic(s) & if this movie is close to what's in those comics, I've no intention of ever lifting one. It's all personal taste but to be honest I think this film is crazy bad, it's actually a flip of a coin between this & Batman & Robin for me with the thing that saves Watchmen the top title being it's visuals as some of the shots were fantastic.

3. Superman Returns - So much to say about this film so little time, firstly the film doesn't make sense, it's a sequel.. but not a sequel, what Bryan Singer did was make a film & kinda leave it in the air that he wants you to forget some of the things established in Superman The Movie & Superman II.. but remember this, this & this. This whole film was beyond stupid I felt, Bryan Singer had the chance to envision the Superman character & better the Reeve franchise & utilise the other Superman incarnations both live action & comics from the time period since the last Superman film & instead he tried to latch onto a 20+ year old origin film that I'd say the majority of audiences may not have even seen. Boring story, boring actors/actresses in the film with the exception of Kevin Spacey & just an all round boring film.

4. Green Lantern - I never thought I'd ever see a Green Lantern fim on the big screen & I kinda wish I never had. There was alot wrong with this film.. BUT this film/franchise could arguably have been saved if they'd moved quicker to pump out a sequel with Sinestro as the villian who was expertly cast I might add. However I don't think Reynolds was a good casting, I personally feel he'd be far better suited to a proper Deadpool film or The Flash. Even some of the visuals in this film were a let down, the suit was fine, but the mask irritated me.

5. Spiderman 3 - Hard choice deciding which other one goes in ahead of another but I went for Spiderman 3, I mean were to start on why it was bad.. the dancing scene. That enough right there could be enough to take this to the top of some people's ****list. Then there was Harry Osbourne & his butlers stupidity as well as Sandman's.. there was so much about this film I didn't like.

Honorable mentions: Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Superman IV, Superman III & Iron Man 3.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Being shy and unable to find words makes you "a creep".Oh you, Senator.....

I was referring to the scene where she slipped, Peter held her and she complimented his eyes. She had already broken the ice. All Maguire's Peter did was staring at her and smile like a creep for several seconds without saying anything.

Social inept.

Well,if you're shy,when faced with never seeing the girl again,it gives you the impetus to make a move.(Again,relatable.I've been there myself.)

BS, he just went out and she did after him just coincidentally. He never planned it nor he got the impetus. This social inept wouldn't have had the spine to make a move with her for his very life.

The only "move" he did was to go behind his best friend's back and declare his love to his girlfriend at the hospital.

Gwen seemed attracted to him because the script said she was.There was no real character moments to bring them together,which is what made him revealing his identity to her on the fly all the more ludicrous.

No, she was attracted because she saw that Peter, no matter what, was able to do the right thing and defend someone who was being beaten. He was heroic and so she knew he was not like anyone else.

Maguire's Peter never gave MJ a reason to be attracted (other than, as I said, running into each other and her being attracted to every guy).

It's the "Parker Luck".Anything that can go wrong for him,will.That's basically how Stan wrote it.But that's about the extent of it's being related to the 60's.

If you made that point (he's bullied, he has bad luck), certainly you don't need to repeat it over and over, unless it added something to the story. Which is not Raimi's case.

Goblin wanted to deal with Spidey before taking over the city.Not the most well thought out plan,but he was a psycho.

Taking over the city? Where did you get that?

Compare it to another psycho's plan,the Joker in Batman 89.He wanted to "make art until someone dies" and equally harass Vicki Vale.Not exactly a plot worthy of the Bard.

That's not Joker's plan. That's what Joker said he did on a regular basis. His plan was to have his face on the one dollar bill.

But seriously, Joker has never had a reasonable plan, if any at all. The character is like that. But not every villain has that personality.

 

[OcStat]

Which do you feel shouldn't be on such lists?

It seems to me that some people are listing movies they just didn't like, but I think those would be far from the worst.

Iron Man 3 is, in my opinion, the best Marvel Studios film yet, if I think long and hard I probably prefer it even over Avengers. If you (in general, not you specifically), don't like or agree with some choices they made, that's fine. But it doesn't make it the worst Marvel movie. Not by a long shot!

I haven't even seen all the films listed to have give a valid viewpoint, but I can say I have seen Catwoman, unfortunately. And that movie is terrible. Easily on the worst list. (And I believe this thread was asking for one movie, from each company, not a list). Catwoman would definitely be a contender. I've seen Supergirl, when I was a kid, but don't remember it. Haven't seen Green Lantern, but I imagine it can't be worse than Catwoman. Not a single Batman movie is worse than Catwoman. Steel probably is, but I haven't seen that either, just a hunch. Even Superman Returns has plenty of noteable scenes that make it a worthwhile addition to the franchise.

Spider-Man 3 wasn't as good as the first two, but it isn't a terrible movie, certaily not the worst by Marvel. Same for X-Men: The Last Stand, a very apparent drop in quality, but not the worst Marvel movie. X-Men Origins: Wolverine could be a contender. I have seen about 15 minutes of War Zone and that was bad. But for the worst of Marvel, very few of the modern (2000 to present) movies should even be considered. Have you seen the original Captain America film? Has a good action scene to start it off and then you spend the rest of the film waiting for something, anything to happen. That's another movie I saw as a kid, excited as hell to find the VHS at the rental store. When a 9 year old can tell a movie is terrible, chances are it actually is terrible.

Oh and how could I forget Elektra. Yup, I've seen it. And it put me to sleep. The only comic book film to do so.

 

[Batmannerism]

I disagree. I think that TASM was a better film in pretty much every way than SM 1. The plot was better, the dialogue was better, the romance was infinitely better, the characterizations were better, Gwen was WAY BETTER than MJ, and Garfield was a better Peter Parker and Spider-Man than Tobey was. Heck, the even gave Flash Thompson some depth and a mini-character arc, bravo movie. The origin was NOT the same, besides the basic "boy gets spider-powers, uncle dies." Everything else about it was quite different. Sorry, but I found Garfield's Peter to be a much more relatable and interesting character than Tobey's Peter. Garfield's Peter felt like an actual human being, where as Tobey's felt like a 1960's caricature of what a "nerd" is, actually all of TASM characters felt more like real people than SM 1's. Peter inventing the web-shooter is comic-book accurate (in case you forgot) and is plausible since he's supposed to be a scientific prodigy (something that TASM actually showed us unlike the Raimi films). He didn't really sneak into anything, the Indian guy deliberately let him into that room. Also, at least the Lizard had an actual plan (and a comic book accurate one btw). What was the GG's ultimate plan again, because the movie never gave him one. Overall, TASM is just a better movie. SM 2 is still the best though.

Agree to disagree.

The only thing Lizard had on GG was better CGI (which you would expect ), sure GG didn't have much of a plan, but then again he's a complete nutcase, screwing with Peter was pretty much his plan.
Some villains have plans, some don't.
And personality, the GG was brilliantly acted by Wilem Dafoe, a guy who's missed out on as many Oscars as Tom Cruise. He was nasty, and fun, and we were all really happy to see him die. I didn't find the Lizard scary or detestable enough to want him dead, nor sympathetic enough to feel sorry for him - he was just kind of there.

Also, that final fight where GG and Spidey beat the crap out of each other, no CGI whatsoever, nothing fancy, just an all out fight to the death.
Being totally CGI robbed the Lizard of any personality at all. Sometimes CGI monsters can have a lot of personality, but the Lizard just didn't do it for me. I think he was a poor choice for a Spider Man film as the main villain, and would have been better in a supporting role.

Did Flash Thompson need a story arc ? I guess if they didn't bother with that in the original it didn't leave a gaping hole in the story, Spider Man got
on just fine without him.

While the web-shooter thing is directly faithful to the comic, that's one bit of spider-man I always found a bit silly, as it's one of the most obvious spider-powers that you would think he'd inherit (although I guess he's lucky he didn't actually grow 8 limbs or a bunch of extra eyes).
To be honest I prefer Raimi's interpretation, where he just grew web-shooters on his wrists.



As for Maguire as Peter vs Garfield as Peter that's just personal preference, although if you compare the ending of both movies, I suggest that Maguire comes off as a lot more noble -whereas Garfield comes across as a bit of a *****e bag, having made a promise to a dying man that he doesn't intend to keep. And that stuttering Garfield did was kind of annoying, kind of like a less funny Shia LaBoef.

I had high hopes for Garfield as Peter, having thought he did a great job in the Social Network, but he was way to OTT. Maguire's Peter was just a bit awkward but a nice guy, you had to cheer for him.

I did think Garfield was a good Spider-Man, that bit he got right, but he wasn't much of a Peter Parker - and really, to cheer for Spider Man, you have to like Peter to begin with, IMO.

Same with MJ (if you're concerned with comic book accuracy, that's more comic book accurate) I preferred Kirsten Dunst. Emma Stone is a terrific actress, but I thought she was wasted in that role. Gwen Stacy is probably best remembered for dying, wonder if they'll put that in a future film.

Everything you've posted up there is opinion, and you're totally entitled to it. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong.

Either way, having seen the trailers, I'm looking forward to TASM 2, as it looks like Garfield has settled into the role a bit.

 

[Lantern Venom]

You can accuse me of wearing rose-colored glasses, but I've seen very few bad comic book adaptations. Of that small group, most of those were older, shoestring budget experiments.

Marvel:

Captain America (1944)
The Amazing Spider-man (1977)
Howard The Duck
Man-Thing

DC:

Batman: The Movie (1966)
Superman IV
Supergirl
Batman & Robin
Steel
Catwoman

Misc:

Josie and the Pussycats
Monkeybone
Vampirella


If you're wondering, I liked Spawn, Jonah Hex, Judge Dredd, Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern, and both AVPs.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Thor: The Dark World was a piece of crap saved only by Hemsworth and Hiddleson.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Agree to disagree.

The only thing Lizard had on GG was better CGI (which you would expect ), sure GG didn't have much of a plan, but then again he's a complete nutcase, screwing with Peter was pretty much his plan.
Some villains have plans, some don't.

But GG certainly sounded like he had a plan, and Spider-man as an ally was necessary to accomplish it.

If he didn't have a plan, that just makes GG's obsession with being Spider-man's friend even more ridiculous.

And personality, the GG was brilliantly acted by Wilem Dafoe, a guy who's missed out on as many Oscars as Tom Cruise. He was nasty, and fun, and we were all really happy to see him die. I didn't find the Lizard scary or detestable enough to want him dead, nor sympathetic enough to feel sorry for him - he was just kind of there.

Dafoe had all the charisma Lizard didn't. But the tone of his character (We'll meet again Spider-man) and his lack of goals in the move made him not a very good product, even when attractive because of Dafoe's acting. At many points he felt a caricature of a villain to me.

Also, that final fight where GG and Spidey beat the crap out of each other, no CGI whatsoever, nothing fancy, just an all out fight to the death.

Being totally CGI robbed the Lizard of any personality at all. Sometimes CGI monsters can have a lot of personality, but the Lizard just didn't do it for me. I think he was a poor choice for a Spider Man film as the main villain, and would have been better in a supporting role.

True. All being CGI has its shortcomings.

Did Flash Thompson need a story arc ? I guess if they didn't bother with that in the original it didn't leave a gaping hole in the story, Spider Man got
on just fine without him.

Does any secondary character need an arc. Who knows. But when you repeat the same 1960's bully cliche, one has to also be grateful that someone thought out of the box and added more layers to the classic one-dimensional secondary character.

It showed how Spider-man was a positive influence to some.

While the web-shooter thing is directly faithful to the comic, that's one bit of spider-man I always found a bit silly, as it's one of the most obvious spider-powers that you would think he'd inherit (although I guess he's lucky he didn't actually grow 8 limbs or a bunch of extra eyes).

To be honest I prefer Raimi's interpretation, where he just grew web-shooters on his wrists.

That didn't help much when all that ensued was a much unneeded bunch of bad jokes (Shazam! Up up and away web) and taking out the possibility of Peter running out of fluid.

As for Maguire as Peter vs Garfield as Peter that's just personal preference, although if you compare the ending of both movies, I suggest that Maguire comes off as a lot more noble -whereas Garfield comes across as a bit of a *****e bag, having made a promise to a dying man that he doesn't intend to keep. And that stuttering Garfield did was kind of annoying, kind of like a less funny Shia LaBoef.

Well, when Peter decided to go behind his best friend's back and steal his girlfriend, that came off as a douhe as well. Same as when Peter thought the nice thing to do was to kiss another girl for the kicks before his fiancee.

Garlfields' Peer was heroic (he defended that poor guy from Flash and without super-powers), which gave Gwen a reason to feel attracted to him (why exactly MJ felt attracted to Peter?). And even when shy and nerd, Garfield's Peter was not a social inept, as Maguire's.

I had high hopes for Garfield as Peter, having thought he did a great job in the Social Network, but he was way to OTT. Maguire's Peter was just a bit awkward but a nice guy, you had to cheer for him.

A bit awkward? He couldn't even talk before MJ, just stood staring at her like a creep when she complimented his blue eyes. Even the school bus driver feels he has to make him feel miserable. That sounds like a record in awkwardness and unlikeability.

I did think Garfield was a good Spider-Man, that bit he got right, but he wasn't much of a Peter Parker - and really, to cheer for Spider Man, you have to like Peter to begin with, IMO.

So, in your own words, he couldn't have been a good Spider-man, as he was not a good Peter. Yet you say he was.

Same with MJ (if you're concerned with comic book accuracy, that's more comic book accurate) I preferred Kirsten Dunst. Emma Stone is a terrific actress, but I thought she was wasted in that role. Gwen Stacy is probably best remembered for dying, wonder if they'll put that in a future film.

MJ was great playing with men. The problem was that she was supposed to be noble and good-hearted. I mean, according to them movies themselves.

 

[Batmannerism]

But GG certainly sounded like he had a plan, and Spider-man as an ally was necessary to accomplish it.

If he didn't have a plan, that just makes GG's obsession with being Spider-man's friend even more ridiculous.

To me he didn't seem like he had a long-term plan or endgame in mind,
just reassert as much control over Oscorp (in his Norman persona) and just cause a lot of havoc (as GG).
I don't think he was obsessed with being Spidey's friend, just saw spidey as a potential ally or obstacle - and if he was an obstacle, he had to go.
And that's crazy, but then Dafoe's GG was totally unhinged, so for me that worked.

Dafoe had all the charisma Lizard didn't. But the tone of his character (We'll meet again Spider-man) and his lack of goals in the move made him not a very good product, even when attractive because of Dafoe's acting. At many points he felt a caricature of a villain to me.

fair call, the GG is a bit of a caricature, but then so was Nicholson's Joker, which didn't stop him being an enormously enjoyable bad guy.
Raimi's film came out when super-hero films were still very tongue in cheek, the whole film didn't take itself that seriously (a tone that Marvel has largely continued).

That didn't help much when all that ensued was a much unneeded bunch of bad jokes (Shazam! Up up and away web) and taking out the possibility of Peter running out of fluid.

It worked for me, bad jokes and all. just IMO.

Well, when Peter decided to go behind his best friend's back and steal his girlfriend, that came off as a douhe as well. Same as when Peter thought the nice thing to do was to kiss another girl for the kicks before his fiancee.

Fair call, but was MJ really ever Harry's girl ? She was always keen on PP.
As for breaking a promise to a dying man, I put that in a different category of *****e-baggery. Again, this IMO, but I enjoyed the way the love triangle was handled in the Raimi films, it was one of the only things I enjoyed about SM 3 (particularly Harry and Peter's smackdown).

A bit awkward? He couldn't even talk before MJ, just stood staring at her like a creep when she complimented his blue eyes. Even the school bus driver feels he has to make him feel miserable. That sounds like a record in awkwardness and unlikeability.

So, in your own words, he couldn't have been a good Spider-man, as he was not a good Peter. Yet you say he was.

Yeah, I did contradict myself there. But strangely, although I hated Garfield as Peter, I did actually think he got the right vibe when wearing the mask.

I suppose that's why I'm still keen to seem TASM 2, because the trailers suggest that Garfield is more at home with the role, and does a great Spider-Man.

However, I am more attached to Maguire's Spider-Man, probably because I enjoyed him more as Peter - so I cared more about what happened to him.

MJ was great playing with men. The problem was that she was supposed to be noble and good-hearted. I mean, according to them movies themselves.

Yeah, she was a bit of a tease. What I disliked about her the most was her singing, yuck. I still found her better written (and performed) than Gwen -again which is weird, as I think Emma Stone is the better actress.
Just personal preference I suppose.

 

[Duke]

For me the worst would be:


DC

Steel: (What in the world was W/B or DC thinking when they greenlighted that awful suit & casting Shaq??!!! I mean he's an excellent basketball player, but he's no actor).



Catwoman: I imagine W/B was trying to cash in on Batman's popularity or something when they decided on making this film, ultimately it's complete & utter garbage & totally unecessary. In my opinion, they could've developed another film based on another DC character.



Supergirl: A good concept, but very poorly developed & executed.





Marvel:



Elektra: Waste of time & effort on all fronts, Marvel could've developed another character.


X-Men (all films): Good films, however the characters lacked the proper costumes & also lacked in their abilities. (Rogue & Storm, come to mind)