The reasons why Spider-Man 2 (2004) is the best superhero film of all time & Everything Wrong With Modern Cinema

[Willie Oleson]

A double thread, how novel of me.

In a nutshell, Spider-Man '04 is the baby of Batman '66 and Batman '89, and nobody plays a baby better than Tobey Maguire because he always looks like he's about to drool - but in a very attractive way.
If I'd have to mention a flaw then it would be that the actor in the "pizza on balcony" scene was not a well-known celebrity which is why they missed out on a nod to sixties Batman's infamous window-cameos.
According to IMDB he appeared in EVIL DEAD and there is a connection with that film in the planned operation on Dr. Octavius, with all the hilarious screaming and chainsaws and whatnot.

Alfred Molina is an obscure casting choice for the supervillain, but on closer inspection I think his features are somewhat similar to Disney's URSULA. Or maybe he's Spider-Man's answer to Tim Burton's PENGUIN.
His tentacles sometimes display a Muppet-y personality. Not in a big jokey way, it's just one of the many, many details that makes this such a rich superhero film.
Peter's laundry ruined by his spider-man outfit, the landlord's skinny and clumsy daughter, the deadpan elevator scene and so many other funny things that are simply given to the audience.

Now, compare that to Benedict Cumberbath's scene in Spider-Man No Way Home.

Scooby Doo this crap.

This signals, in a very obvious way, two jokes: Scooby Doo as verb and the crude word crap.
And why use it only once when you can use it twice. The kids don't like to be bossed around, accept that they're not. They only act like it because it makes for a super-super-super funny exchange.
And so Benedict Cumberbath's rephrases his previous sentence as:

Please, Scooby Doo this crap.

That's three jokes: the wisecrack kid forced this All Powerful Creature to say "please" plus the repeat of Scooby Doo and crap.
And this essentially what's wrong with modern cinema.
It's not a lack of talent or creativity, it's the determination to hammer home how the film should be interpreted.
Maybe it's a strange thing to say but I think modern films are too perfect. Everything looks exactly the way it's supposed to be, every facial expression perfectly framed, and accompanied by the perfect soundtrack.
The worst part is that it is often at the expense of the actors who have been reduced to models in a perfect montage. The very idea of ad lib must give many modern filmmakers nightmares.
And the same is happening in music. Back in the good ol' days a melancholic song could still sound like an uplifting sing along-song (a.k.a. The Mary Hopkin Effect) but now the audience needs to drenched in anguish. And the ones who still don't get it will see it in the music video.
People are going to comment "So powerful!" "Every time her voice is about to break I can feel the pain" "It's still so relevant todaaayy".
Again, it's at the expense of the talent of the singers because they don't sing it, they construct and craft it to perfection. And it just takes all the fun and genuine passion out of it.

There are many people who love Spider-Man 2, but I don't know if they love it for the very same reasons I do.
I love TAXI DRIVER but I have no idea whatsoever what other people see in it.
The very idea that every single person considers a piece of art/entertainment in exactly the same way must be the worst thing that can happen to the artist. Not that an artist should aim for being misunderstood, but isn't it more rewarding if an artistic work has more than just one effect?

Peter Parker, like most superheroes, faces an identity crisis. Tobey Maguire gets misty-eyed, but that's not self-explanatory enough for the Amazing Spider-Man, he needs sob. Every member in the audience needs to understand precisely when and why and how much our hero is suffering.
Now, not to diss Andrew Garfield.
Sure, his Spider-Man looks like a cross between Teen-Wolf and a Indian taxi driver with a back problem, but credit must be given for his remarkable transformation.
Some actors gain muscles, some actors lose weight but Andrew Garfield upped the ante by reversing his aging process.
I had to double-check if he was indeed the twenty-something looking Andrew Garfield from the first RED RIDING TRILOGY film.
And I'm still not sure.

Kirstin Dunst was born to play the role of a superhero's girlfriend and it's the old-fashioned simplicity of that romance that makes it such an entertaining cinematic experience.
She asks Peter to kiss her because (presumably) that will tell her if he's her True Love, regardless of if or how that relationship is going to develop.
And I was screaming at the screen "Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!" I wanted it so badly.
These emotional scenes usually happen somewhat unexpectedly, for example, when Aunt May insists that Peter takes the money for his birthday. It's over before it begins, but that's what I meant with adding great details for the Greater Good rather than the scene itself.

And then, last but not least, the greatest scene in the history of superhero films.

Even though this was a re-watch, I didn't see this one coming.
Imagine this same scene in a 2023 version. The anguish and pomp & fanfare would be OFF the charts in case one person wouldn't get it. And it still would be all about the scene anyway.
In Spider-Man '04, it encapsulates three seasons of sixties Gotham City and, in my opinion, the very core of superhero fandom: worship. And it's done almost quietly and I was thinking, why is nobody crying, somebody needs to cry. Well, then I'll do it myself. It wasn't very hard.

And J.K. Simmons was great as the snappy and over-the-top newspaper boss straight out of a 1950s comedy.
I guess now is the time to proofread my post but I'm going to eat a piece of cake instead.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Maybe it's a strange thing to say but I think modern films are too perfect. Everything looks exactly the way it's supposed to be, every facial expression perfectly framed, and accompanied by the perfect soundtrack.
The worst part is that it is often at the expense of the actors who have been reduced to models in a perfect montage.

It's a series about angels and the apocalypse, and of course the big joke is to humanize these epic characters in the most flawed way possible. Perhaps there are some parts in it that kind of succeed in creating caricature for the good and bad angels, but overall it just looks very irritating.
However, what looks irritating to me may look very funny to someone else, I'm not an authority on humour.

The real problem in these scenes aren't the jokes, it's the constant signalling that what's happening is funny. Basically, the actors perform both the characters and audience. The body language, hand movements and facial expressions substitute for a laugh track.
It also has lots of those unnecessary-explanations-delivered-as-cynical-quasi-questions moments ("errr....maybe causssse....we are?").
When I watched this video I felt I was dying inside, little by little. Please John Hamm, stay away from comedy even if that means we'll never get to see your rear Gabriel costume again.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that a lot of "bad cinema" is unfairly attributed to the tastes of the modern audience a.k.a. Generation Z.
They simply watch what's available but unfortunately that also means it sells, thus incorrectly confirming that's what they want - meaning there needs to be more of it.
I think young people are massively underrated and then being called out on it for adjusting themselves to these new and vastly inferior "upgrades". It's like blaming the customer for the trash they're buying because their options become more and more limited.

 

[ArchieLucasCarringtonEwing1989]

I actually find comic book movies from
The 2000s much better than the ones made in the 2010s onwards.

There was something fresh and new about such films in the 00s, for me the 2004 to 2007 era of superhero films was the peak of the genre, they never took themselves too seriously.