Which one is the best Spider-Man movie?

Marvel Studios’ Spider-Man: Homecoming is finally with us. You might have heard of it, thanks to the massive marketing campaign that has been badgering us with tons of trailers, commercials and interviews in the past months. Well, now that it’s in theatres worldwide, yours truly decided to go against the flow this time, and saw it yesterday... like the second day it was on. So not only did we decide to tell you if it’s any good, but we also thought it would be a worthwhile waste of time to rank the Spidey movies appeared so far.
As far as we know, there are now six Spider-Man films out there; however, we believe the role of our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man in Civil War was so prominent but mostly so cool that we have decided to include it in our list.
So, without further ado, let’s start our list, from the very worst Spidey movie to the one that made us fall in love again (and again) with our wallcrawler.


7# The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Vinny: OMG. What a trainwreck. Seriously, I hardly know what to say about this film. It doesn’t capture the spirit of the comic, it doesn’t tell a good story and it’s just....boring. What a mess. Also, is that really the fracking Green Goblin?! It looks more like my cousin Calogero when he's sick.
Fred: I couldn’t agree more. The flashy bluish Electro is horrible. His traditional five-pointed masked costume would have been more credible. I remember one of the few things I used to like in the ASM films was the relationship between Peter and Gwen, but this film basically takes that chemistry, adds a silly plot and savagely throws it out of the window with THAT DEATH SCENE. No mercy for messing with Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin.

6# Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Fred: I admit to my memories of this film being blurry, but maybe that’s already proof that this flick wasn’t memorable for anything at all. The black costume/Venom saga is one of the most sacred arcs in Spider-Man’s history. This movie definitely did not handle it well, totally miscasting Eddie Brock with Topher Grace, and having lousy action scenes. Still, I’d rather rewatch it over ASM 2. It must count for something.
Vinny: I really can’t help mentioning the sequences with ‘emo’ Peter...not only it doesn’t make much sense (you are possessed by an alien symbiote and you start acting like a freak?) but it looks REALLY SILLY. However, for me that is not the real deal-breaker; what I can’t stand is how it throws at the audience so many events, characters and story arcs in just one film. We have the previously mentioned black costume saga and Venom, Sand-Man (bring me a dream….) and Harry Osborn becoming the second Green Goblin! More focus on just one villain would have improved this film greatly.

5# The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Vinny: I have to admit I really like the suit in this incarnation of Spidey, and the POV sequence of Peter discovering his powers and jumping here and there at the beginning of the movie is breathtaking! The actors are good and the writing is decent. Unfortunately, having plunged the wallcrawler into a dark and gritty atmosphere was not a wise decision. It definitely works in relation to Batman, but doesn’t with Spidey. I know Peter goes through some tough times, but there is always hope in his adventures. Also, another origin story?! No thanks.
Fred: Internet wiseacres have said that Andrew Garfield wasn’t a good casting choice for the leading role. I respectfully disagree, as I think he did a pretty good job in this film. Setting the needless origin story aside, Garfield is credible as the young boy coming to terms with his powers. His almost childish romance with Gwen is probably the freshest thing about this film. Also, Lizard’s choice as the main villain proved new enough, with a credible yet not memorable performance. All in all this film, while entertaining, fails to excite as one would expect from a wallcrawler movie. It just isn’t that colourful nor funny.


4# Captain America: Civil War [The Spidery Bits] (2016)

Fred: When I first heard there was going to be a NEW Spider-Man in CW I was scared that they would screw up. After the pain of ASM 2, my philo-arachnid heart would not have sustained another shock. However, Marvel Studios got him right. Of course, the length of his appearance on screen cannot justify considering it as a single film, however what I saw was very entertaining. Everything feels fresh about him. The facts that Tony Stark himself visits him at home to recruit him, and that aunt May is played by a young (and hot) (and half-Tuscan) Marisa Tomei are just the icing on the cake.
Vinny: So far, Civil War is one of the most entertaining products of Marvel Studios and this is also thanks to the amazing (pun intended) inclusion of Spider-Man. It could have been a disaster to re-reboot the franchise so soon, but this time our dear filmmakers did their job right and went for something ‘revolutionary’, bringing to the silver screen a teenager Peter Parker full of wit and nerdiness. Also, the moves of our beloved web-head during the battle royale at the airport are sweeeeeet: they get your blood pumping and it really looks like Spidey is finally there, going head to head with all the other, less cool Marvel heroes. Yes, I am a Spidey fanboy. Got a problem with that?



WARNING: Vinny and Fred cannot agree on number 3# and 2#, so they will now each explain their picks for these positions. They both have strong motivations for their opinions, though in the end they’ll just decide with head or tails. Or rock-paper-scissors.

Vinny: #3 Spider-Man (2002)

#2 Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Usually I’m the kind of guy that prefers the ‘classics’, but this time I have to admit that the third cinematographic incarnation of Spider-Man is superior to its first. Nowadays cinemas are flooded with superhero movies and it is getting harder and harder to create something new and fresh. When in 2002 our dear Sam Raimi decided to temporarily abandon horror film and make a superhero film the genre was still in its early stages, and the film was a brand new product which made thousands of fans of the wallcrawler happy, myself included.
Well, Homecoming succeeded in something even harder than that: it has made fans happy again after decades! I want to make clear that I think Spider-Man is a great film, but I believe Homecoming is a better film: it is faithful to the comics, while at the same time updating them and placing them in our current time period. The old film is in some moments a bit too cartoonish, sometimes even ‘camp’, and this may distract the viewer and take the epicness out of the film. Homecoming is, despite being a superhero film, grounded in the real world and manages to tell a somewhat plausible story of a kid dealing with amazing powers. Ok, uncle Ben is not there to make us cry, but I feel this time his death would have been redundant and heavy-handed. Homecoming is telling a different story of a different Peter, which will probably resonate more with the younger generations, at the same time bringing back bittersweet memories to those who wish they were still teenagers.
On a less apologetic note, the action sequences are almost perfect: while the plane sequence may be a bit chaotic, the others are among the best you could find in any superhero film. Last, but definitely not least, the writing is finally really good, especially during the ‘dad talk’ before Peter goes to the school party. Maybe screenwriters are realising that the viewers have a brain?

Fred: #3 Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

#2 Spider-Man (2002)

After long pondering, I pick the first Spider-Man film over the latest one. Of course I really enjoyed Homecoming, with its new take on a younger Peter Parker learning the ropes of the superhero business, and other new paths the film explores. However, to me it just doesn’t have the flavour of the first of the Raimi films. I’m aware that it might have to do with the nostalgic awe of watching my favourite Marvel hero brought faithfully to the silver screen fifteen years ago, but I still think that film captured the cartoonish gist of the hero better.
Although Tom Holland is more believable as a high-schooler in Homecoming, Tobey Maguire is totally credible as the teenager Parker struggling to make sense of his identity. Also, the origin story feels quite in place. It adds a touch of sentiment and guilt to the character, which is a fundamental trait in the comics, but lacks in the 2017 version. Yes, I know that Homecoming couldn’t feature uncle Ben and the origin story, and rightly so, but still I feel that the hero’s pain in Spider-Man is more prominent.
Also, the film directed by Raimi, though flawed, better captures the cartoonish nature of the character, with a lot of jokes (which appear in Homecoming too, to be fair) and just a good bit of camp colourfulness and exaggeration in the action. I still remember the actions scenes from Spider-Man, especially in the last fight with the Green Goblin, which owes a lot to the “The Night Gwen Stacy Died” story arc. The action scenes in Homecoming feel a bit all over the place and confused towards the end. I’m not sure I can be at peace with that. In conclusion, both films are really enjoyable, and do different things with the character, both succeeding albeit with ups and downs. Spider-Man is a memorable first film, and Homecoming does a great job in adapting the wallcrawler’s world to the current scene. However, Spider-Man still comes more strongly to mind, and heart, when thinking about which film is more faithful.

#1 Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Vinny: When I think about the perfect superhero film, I cannot help thinking about SM2.
Fred: When I think about Spider-Man 2, I think about the perfect superhero film.

Vinny and Fred: So say we all.

Vostri,
Fred and Vinny

The Rules of Gaming Engagement

 Hola! As people in Italy say to say "hi." Or is it Spain? I don't know. They're all the same country to me. Anyway, I'm back to writing here on the best blog on earth 616. But before delving into any (un) structured rambling, let me first write a big literary hug to my colleague Vinny! Thanks for the call, and care, brother.

And now, for some serious stuff. Serious indeed, because we're talking videogaming... and the church! Wait, the two things don't have nothing in common? It may appear so, at first glance, but bear with me a second here. Videogaming is everywhere now, from mobile softwares that keep casual gamers entertained for halves of hours while commuting on the train, or waiting in line, to massive open-world products that last hours and hours, and hours. What's more, in addition to new games coming out every month, companies are re-mastering old masterpieces, enhancing them in graphics and gameplay (When they're not lazy). Not only that, most triple-A games produced nowadays offer big, immersive worlds players can explore in all their recesses, where they can always find new things to do and craft besides the main adventure; where they can easily spend tens and tens of hours. 

So, with so much stuff to choose from every month, it goes without saying that it’s easy to feel confused. The contemporary gamer is faced every time with stifling dilemmas like “Should I play a new game that just came out, or should I go back to that old gem of gaming history that just got republished?” Or, even worse, after how many hours can one feel satisfied enough with a very long game that would take ages to beat?

Well, have no fear.

These have been crucial questions plaguing our daily lives, until now. I can boldly say that these aren’t a problem anymore, all thanks to the church. Yes, because I have just recently unearthed and translated an old ecclesiastical document of the utmost significance and stature, that will definitely put to silence all these doubts. Yes, it is true. It so happens that I, Fred, came into possession of the fabled chart of the rules of gaming, or the charta ludorum. This mythical document was written as a section of the much bigger De rerum budellorum matrum vestrarum, the famous encyclical written by the anti-pope Cervosi in the 15th century. There exists more legend than fact around this mysterious encyclical, which was initially written as a manual covering all aspects of practical life in admonishment for the corrupt customs of the time, but which then got lost in the sands of time, though after having wreaked havoc in the contemporary ecclesiastical community. The figure of  Cervosi himself is shrouded in mystery too. According the most reliable sources, he was the third Tuscan antipope, the first of the Livorno line, elected after the two Pisa antipopes Filargo and Cossa. However, different and contradictory accounts of his life exist, causing scholars endless debate as to what really happened.

However, this is not the main point here. What is important is that after long and painful research I have brought to light an excerpt of the gaming document. How this came to pass is of small concern here, and the details cannot be disclosed at the moment, as the truth would probably shake the foundations of our society. Therefore, I will concentrate on reporting the contents here, with its main articles translated from ecclesiastical Latin into modern English. Here they are:

1) The game does not dominate you. You dominate the game.

2) Fun is the core of gaming. This should be the principle of all your gaming enterprises.

3) When the fun stops, it is allowed that you may stop the game.

4) Second chances may be given to games reputed dull or boring, but only in the exceptional circumstances that the tedium originated from the player being tired, upset or, more in general, in any perturbed state that prevented his full lucidity while gaming.

5) When in doubt between a game for a current-gen console, and a past gem that everybody tells you you should play, always prefer the current generation one. You paid for the new machine, so you’d better get your money’s worth.

6) As for those who tell you you should have played this and that, well, just to hell with them.

7) In considering when you should deem yourself satisfied with an endless open-world RPG, and whether you got your money’s worth, apply the golden rule of "one hour of playing for each monetary unit you paid": so, 1 hour for 1 Euro, 1 hour for 1 Dollar, and so on. When you have played as much as you have spent, you can rightfully say you completed the game. Woe betide to anyone who says the contrary.

8) In the case of borrowed games, the rule obviously does not apply. Simply starting the game once will suffice.

9) HD remasters are to be considered worthy only when there is a considerable gameplay improvement, together with the graphical one. Or if it’s Final Fantasy, of course.

10) Local multiplayer is the only truthful form of multiplayer. No other form shall ever exist.

These where the first articles that I got. But Cervosi is thought to have written a good deal more. I will do my best to report his other words on these pages later on, as soon as I acquire larger parts of his encyclical. Yet, even in the present form, I guess they simplify things a great deal. If we stick to these rules, we’re all going to be happier gamers. Thank you for your wisdom, Cervosi.

Alla prossima,

Fred