>>212679482
>>212680666
Yes, and despite all the problems involving its structure, the excessive number of plotlines in the same story, the studio’s terrible interference in demanding Venom in a movie where he didn’t belong just to sell toys, there is still cohesion, a story to be told, values to be conveyed, a good soundtrack, and it’s a better, more beautiful, and more enjoyable film to watch than most modern superhero movies. There is still integrity, honesty, and a genuine artistic vision coming from the director that, even though it is still being interfered with by the studio, you can still see some remnants emanating from it. That’s my point. I could look for examples that expose more the difference between past critiques and modern ones, classic movies with bad or mediocre ratings, and directly compare them with terrible modern films that have better ratings and a larger audience, but I think this fits better, especially with the popularity that old bad/mediocre films are gaining again due to the lack of creativity in Hollywood, like star wars ep 3 coming back to theaters, for example, and being well received. I’m not trying to prove that spider 3 is a classic, a great film without flaws, the audience and critics had some reason to criticize what was wrong with the movie, but it’s still a decent film, which at the time was received worse than THE MARVELS was received by today’s critics and audience
https://youtu.be/SH93SGdsOAE
https://youtu.be/MPvCcpE1SP8
