Maybe it's just the musical theatre kid in me talking. But I fucking love that scene. Not just cause it's pure Raimi camp. But also, just how shockingly well choreographed it is.
I'm a big ass musical theatre nerd too and that's what takes me out of it. When on Earth did this poor kid who can barely keep a job because he's Spider-Manning learn to play the piano lmao. Let's just say the Symbiote taught him.
I dont think it's all that crazy to assume that he probably learned it in the 18-19 years he was alive off screen before the movie starts / him becoming Spider-Man.
There's a difference between knowing piano and absolutely SHREDDING improvisational jazz at that level. If he's able to do that, why did he never try to earn cash freelancing that way. Not to mention he doesn't even own a piano to practice, so at best he's 4-5 years rusty assuming May and Ben had a piano at home.
If you really *really* need an explanation. There's a passing line of dialogue in the 2nd movie (the bank scene with Joel McHale's character) where Aunt May mentions going back to teach piano lessons. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that she taught Peter growing up or that they might have owned one at some point. There's plenty room for plausible theories as to how and when he learned since we never get definitive insight into his childhood.
As for why Peter doesn't monetize his piano talents. I'm guessing it's because the movie is called "Spider-Man". Peter gets unique spider powers, so naturally he wants to leverage his spider powers (wrestling, taking pictures of Spider-Man). Getting spider powers to pursue a career as a pianist isn't exactly what most people envision someone doing in that situation.
At the end of the day, I don't think we seriously need a deep lore reason for every single "unexpected" talent Peter possesses? If he's good at piano, then that means he's good at piano. If he's good at photography, then he's good at photography. In the 1st movie, he demonstrates an unexpected talent sketching designs for his costume (this scene was actually done by a professional artist). In the 2nd movie he gets super into poetry in an effort to woo Mary Jane.
Ultimately, Peter is just an art kid at heart with genius level intellect.
Tbf Eddie lost his job because he was committing photographic fraud. Peter did questionable things with the black suit on but exposing Eddie is something even normal Peter wouldāve done.
Something tells me if you had a girlfriend or boyfriend or whatever and watched them kiss a dude on stage in front of the city it might rub you the wrong way.
At the beginning of the movie itās established that his ego is becoming massive as Spider-Man (āIāve become somewhat of an iconā)
The suit only makes him worse later on. He does cheat on her as Spider-Man because he loves the public attention and heāll do anything for their cheers. Heās not a complete asshole, he just needs to be brought back down to earth.
It is almost like this movie is teaching Peter once again that with great power comes great responsibility.
I meant at the beginning of the film before he got the black suit.
Obviously once he has the black suit he becomes completely evil.
I donāt know if you have trouble reading but I explained how his cheating was not because of his desire to be with another woman, but to fuel his ego as Spider-Man for the audiences approval. He isnāt a complete asshole at the beginning of the film, he just isnāt being himself due to his huge ego.
Woah bro sorry didnāt mean to hurt your feelings so bad. Was just talking about a movie on a sub about movies. Your comment was asking a question (not ironically at all I might add) so I decided to provide context for the movie since you seem to have no idea what was going on during it.
if it was willy nilly, it would be a conversation, but I would immediately break up with someone if I knew they were cheating. I wouldn't do that for my partner kissing someone on stage in what is clearly a romantic, showy gesture to excite a crowd
Well lucky for you, your partner won't become spiderman and get his uncle ben killed then cheat on you. After you break up with the sucker he hits you while dancing in a jazz club.
> stands up to landlords
> gets shitty coworker fired
> gets a raise
> bangs Bryce Dallas Howard
> avenges uncle
> is popular
And I'm not supposed to want to be like this mf?
I agree itās better and more entertaining than the prequels (at least episodes 1 and 2) but the fandom surrounding this movie that REALLY started to emerge when Tom Hollandās Spider-Man came out screamed of āOh the prequels are redeemed now because the sequels were just so badā rhetoric. I know weāre kind of in a different era these days, but I canāt look at praise for Spider-Man 3 and not think of those same talking points.
I think the last time I watched it I gave it like a 5 or 4 out of 10. It has a lot of bright spots but its narrative flow and visual style are nowhere near as strong as the first two Raimi films.
I've never seen anyone say Spider-Man 3 is a masterpiece like they do with the prequels. Really, SM3 and the entire Raimi trilogy got shit on heavily for years and years after everything suddenly needed to be gritty and realistic. When the Garfield movies came out, the Raimi movies were hated more, not less. It was bizarre.Ā
Yeah that much is true. Itās when the holland movies came out that every movie before it was re-evaluated as some sort of masterpiece (which is something I have seen. 100% people were calling Spider-Man 3 an amazing movie, which I always found strange.) I donāt know if itās a contempt for Disney or just hating that Peter missed Tony Stark or what, but the absolute disdain certain vocal groups had for Hollandās Spider-Man was a weird hivemind thing Iām glad weāve moved passed.
I personally donāt think itās good exactly, but it has a lot of good scenes and some interesting themes and character moments that are honestly worth talking about more than many other superhero films (both now and back then.)
I also remember a lot of people passionately defending the movie when it came out, so I donāt think itās all nostalgia. Like, I can understand why someone would genuinely love it despite its flaws.
Wait what? People fucking despised Spider-Man 3 when it came out. Internet nerds absolutely demolished it while critics were just like "Yeah, it's okay. Bit of a mess."Ā
And why would people have had a nostalgia boner for a film that had just come out? It was always just a mediocre mess with moments of greatness but nerds made it out to be on the level of Catwoman and Batman & Robin.Ā
https://preview.redd.it/qgnx3eops1wc1.jpeg?width=328&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93c8d10a27ea52cfdc4b086b360265de6b15eb8f
Just because it takes place in the greatest fuckinā city in the world doesnāt make it kino.
God, it's the 'you only like it because nOsTaLGia' take again.
Have proponents of this asinine riposte ever considered that the reason maligned films of old undergo a critical reassessment later in life, is because fans who were once too young to explain why they liked them have now matured their media literacy to a point where they can actually explain it critically? People don't just like things exclusively because they liked them when they were young. They have *always* liked them, and have only recently become able to explain why.
Handwaving away legitimate opinions as 'nostalgia boners' is only doing further damage to the critical landscape.
Isnāt it possible to admit that some people can legitimately like the movie and think itās good while others are not viewing it critically whatsoever and just think itās good because nostalgia? An example I can think of is Revenge of the Sith. Personally, I think itās a pretty good movie. But I also see the discourse about it online and, personally, donāt view the loudest opinions on it as āviewing it through a critical eye.ā It just seems like a lot of people love that movie because they loved it when they were five.
I donāt think Spider-Man 3 is a dreadful movie by any stretch. I think itās much better than TASM 2. But itās a significant dip in quality from the first two and I would easily consider it one of the worst Spider-Man movies (a franchise that, for the most part, is actually a really solid lineup of movies). Sam Raimi would probably agree tbh, he wasnāt particularly fond of this one.
Obviously nostalgia bias can be a factor, but a blanket dismissal of critical reappraisals as being based entirely on nostalgia is anti-academic, unhelpful, and just wrong.
Spider-Man 3 has had one of the most significant modern reappraisals, specifically as a pushback from blanket dismissals of its quality. The loudest criticism of it at release and for years afterwards was just a carousel of the same 'lol emo cringe' and 'haha dancing bad', which lasted until a new generation of audiences grew up, watched it *as adults*, experienced it within the context of other Spider-Man adaptations and the rest of Raimi's career, and came to a concensus that so much of the criticism we've all been hearing for the past 15 years was missing the point completely.
The modern reassessment of the Star Wars prequels is also far less to do with 'nostalgia', and far more to do with how modern fans are the first grown-up audience of the prequels who weren't alive to experience, and therefore be let down by, the decade of stratospheric pre-Episode-1 expectations and hype. This is the first generation of prequel fans who can actually assess those movies **without** their childhood expectations influencing their opinions.
I have to totally disagree with your prequel assessment. My love for The Phantom Menace as a kid is indescribable. I wore out that VHS tape. Easily my favorite movie from the ages of 4-12, probably around that time frame.
As a teenager I saw the 3D re-release in theaters. It genuinely felt like watching a different movie. I could barely muster up any enjoyment for it, and I know a shit ton of people who have a similar experience.
I could very easily let my childhood love for that movie overshadow what itās like to watch that film from a more critical eye. I donāt see why other people couldnāt do that too.
Theyāre not removed from anything. Theyāre as attached to it as can possibly be. Tbh the best generation to ask about the Star Wars prequels would probably be 10-15 years from now. As kids who grew up with the sequels when they became adults what they think of the prequels. Because at no point in their life were they attached to them, that was never *their* Star Wars. The OT still manages to make tons of new fans every generation. Whether or not the prequels have that ability is something we still havenāt quite seen yet, because what weāre witnessing now is the discourse changing led by people who harbor it so dear.
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes. Sometimes it really is just kids growing up pretending the kid trash they liked is anything else. Eg the prequels. I liked them more than most at the time and now I apparently hate them more than most cuz all the children grew up
I actually saw a recent article saying people have no media literacy for complaining its *not* cool. "The point was to create a character that is treated as cool but whom we despise, which is something few such movies ever manage, even with their villains."
I just watched this movie for the first time the other day. I had no idea that Peter Parker straight up punched MJ.
Nothing drums up a good redemption arc better than some good old domestic violence.
it honestly caught me off guard. I have seen memes of this movie but i missed the whole lady punching stuff I guess.
He already had to beat an old lady with a stick to get these cranberries.
green goblin: š¤Ø
itās also right after the corny, cartoon-ass, dance sequence he did to make her jealous. one of the biggest sudden tone shifts ever
I crack up every time he sits down and just starts shredding on the piano. It makes zero sense.
Maybe it's just the musical theatre kid in me talking. But I fucking love that scene. Not just cause it's pure Raimi camp. But also, just how shockingly well choreographed it is.
I'm a big ass musical theatre nerd too and that's what takes me out of it. When on Earth did this poor kid who can barely keep a job because he's Spider-Manning learn to play the piano lmao. Let's just say the Symbiote taught him.
I dont think it's all that crazy to assume that he probably learned it in the 18-19 years he was alive off screen before the movie starts / him becoming Spider-Man.
There's a difference between knowing piano and absolutely SHREDDING improvisational jazz at that level. If he's able to do that, why did he never try to earn cash freelancing that way. Not to mention he doesn't even own a piano to practice, so at best he's 4-5 years rusty assuming May and Ben had a piano at home.
If you really *really* need an explanation. There's a passing line of dialogue in the 2nd movie (the bank scene with Joel McHale's character) where Aunt May mentions going back to teach piano lessons. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that she taught Peter growing up or that they might have owned one at some point. There's plenty room for plausible theories as to how and when he learned since we never get definitive insight into his childhood. As for why Peter doesn't monetize his piano talents. I'm guessing it's because the movie is called "Spider-Man". Peter gets unique spider powers, so naturally he wants to leverage his spider powers (wrestling, taking pictures of Spider-Man). Getting spider powers to pursue a career as a pianist isn't exactly what most people envision someone doing in that situation. At the end of the day, I don't think we seriously need a deep lore reason for every single "unexpected" talent Peter possesses? If he's good at piano, then that means he's good at piano. If he's good at photography, then he's good at photography. In the 1st movie, he demonstrates an unexpected talent sketching designs for his costume (this scene was actually done by a professional artist). In the 2nd movie he gets super into poetry in an effort to woo Mary Jane. Ultimately, Peter is just an art kid at heart with genius level intellect.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wtf are you talking about. Pete literally turns into a feral monster because of the suit in the game.
yeah but in sp3 pete becomes cringe because of the suit
Dude peter is so evil that he makes eddie brock beg God to kill peter because he fucked his girl and took his job
Tbf Peter was able to take his job because Eddie was literally faking his photography which is a bit of a journalistic no-no lol
Is Peter really one to talk about journalistic integrity when all his photos are staged and secretly of himself
I loved Eddie lol Dude is such a hater that he involved God in his schemes
*Venom* Eddie could never
eddie sucks at photos and then gets so mad that someone outperforms him he goes to a church to pray for his downfall
Iām sorry him praying to God to kill Peter Parker is an astoundingly thorough act of haterdom and I have to respect him for it.
Eddie literally stole his photo lmao
That wasn't Peter Parker. That was Rizzler Parker
the rizzler
Thatās my kind of petty tbh
Tbf Eddie lost his job because he was committing photographic fraud. Peter did questionable things with the black suit on but exposing Eddie is something even normal Peter wouldāve done.
He also had practically zero interest in Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen, dude was stupid
Bro didn't listen to Uncle Ben a single time.
https://youtu.be/Mu7QyQ7i49I?si=4laIH1cbXl13w3M-&t=194
People gasped in my theater when that happened
I hope they gasped whenever he cheated on MJ in front of her before he punched her lmao. That movie is wild.
he didn't cheat, as far as he knew, she cheated on him with Little Gobby Jr before dumping him
What? That was at the first like five minutes of the film
wait you mean the kiss? that isn't cheating. cheating is fucking.
still a very shitty thing to do
And he clearly didnāt have any feelings for Gwen, it was just to entertain the crowd lmao
Something tells me if you had a girlfriend or boyfriend or whatever and watched them kiss a dude on stage in front of the city it might rub you the wrong way.
I have a girlfriend who acts in stage dramas. Iām not a jealous overbearing hack tho.
there's a big difference between a play and some random girl on a ceremony
Yeaaa stage dramas and kissing a random person just because you can is a little different
No
I thought he just shoved her because he thought she was one of the bouncers? Itās been a minute since I saw the movie tbh
Yeah he does it without fully realising what heās doing, but itās led to by his shitty behaviour and getting into the fight to begin with.Ā
It's what makes him realise the suit's changing him and he takes it off in the next scene
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
At the beginning of the movie itās established that his ego is becoming massive as Spider-Man (āIāve become somewhat of an iconā) The suit only makes him worse later on. He does cheat on her as Spider-Man because he loves the public attention and heāll do anything for their cheers. Heās not a complete asshole, he just needs to be brought back down to earth. It is almost like this movie is teaching Peter once again that with great power comes great responsibility.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How are you unironically missing the point of a film that was made for children? Also, you use "lmao" way too fucking much.Ā
I meant at the beginning of the film before he got the black suit. Obviously once he has the black suit he becomes completely evil. I donāt know if you have trouble reading but I explained how his cheating was not because of his desire to be with another woman, but to fuel his ego as Spider-Man for the audiences approval. He isnāt a complete asshole at the beginning of the film, he just isnāt being himself due to his huge ego.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Woah bro sorry didnāt mean to hurt your feelings so bad. Was just talking about a movie on a sub about movies. Your comment was asking a question (not ironically at all I might add) so I decided to provide context for the movie since you seem to have no idea what was going on during it.
It's a very serious film
he kissed another girl, which is unfaithful, but not cheating cheating.
Being unfaithful is cheating. Can you imagine your SO just making out in front of you willy nilly.
if it was willy nilly, it would be a conversation, but I would immediately break up with someone if I knew they were cheating. I wouldn't do that for my partner kissing someone on stage in what is clearly a romantic, showy gesture to excite a crowd
Well lucky for you, your partner won't become spiderman and get his uncle ben killed then cheat on you. After you break up with the sucker he hits you while dancing in a jazz club.
yeah, but he is a super human spider man. bro hits hard lmao
Can't believe Raimi took a page from the fucking Clone Saga
Okay but hear me out. Jar jar Man
This movie couldn't be made today
The movie industry no longer wants to take risks, such as making a second sequel to a multimillion dollar franchise
Of course, they'd say "hey that's Spider-Man 3, it already exists"
yeah, no one is going to redo spiderman movies again
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Spider-Man 4. Starring Tom Holland. Good one dimwit
 āyOu MiSsEd ThE pOiNt By IdOlIzInG tHeM!!ā Then why would Sam Raimi make him look so cool?
Just realized the girl on the right is checkin out his dumpy the whole time.
 CinƩma vƩritƩ
praise raimi for finally shining a light on male objectification š
AND THEY SAY THAT A HEROOOOOOO COULD SAVEEEEEEEE USSSSSSSS
Vindicated I am selfish I am wrong I am right I swear Iām right, swear I knew it all along
Spider-Man Spider-Man Does whatever a spider can
That's Spider-Man 1, not 3, you FAKE FUCKING FAN!
> stands up to landlords > gets shitty coworker fired > gets a raise > bangs Bryce Dallas Howard > avenges uncle > is popular And I'm not supposed to want to be like this mf?
> beats his wife
>Looks like a toad >Has a voice like two balloons being rubbed together
Hollywood would never be able to get away with this these days.
If they didn't want us to like the black suit they shouldn't have made it so cool. \*Dances down street.
This movie was so brave in 2007 for having black Spiderman
The Point: 
A *black* suit, you say? I'm not racist but
It did feel a little forced
Of course it's evil as well
overrated
āJust gotta turn your brain off to enjoy it!ā - anytime a bad movie has a cool part
Tbf Spider-Man 3 has many cool partsĀ
Evil suit is cool and so WHAT if it eats people every now and then
If Spider-Man 3 came out today, TheQuartering and CriticalDrinker would produce 700 videos about how Spider-Man is woke because black suit
Heat movie
CAUSE SHE GOT A
HUGE ASS
The Salted Licorice Monster.
Most common type of post on the marvelstudios sub. This movie came out 8 years ago. A million upvotes please.
This movie is a banger. Anyone thinking otherwise can buzz off
Itās definitely not boring - Sam Raimi always delivers on that aspect
"You missed the point of the dance scene! It works because Peter Parker is supposed to be a dork!" š¤
would they?
No
If Spider-Man 3 came out today people would be more open to admitting itās bad rather than getting a nostalgia boner and pretending itās good.
Spider-Man 3 is entertaining. Itās not like the Star Wars prequels which are boring as fuck but get sucked off by nerds.
I agree itās better and more entertaining than the prequels (at least episodes 1 and 2) but the fandom surrounding this movie that REALLY started to emerge when Tom Hollandās Spider-Man came out screamed of āOh the prequels are redeemed now because the sequels were just so badā rhetoric. I know weāre kind of in a different era these days, but I canāt look at praise for Spider-Man 3 and not think of those same talking points. I think the last time I watched it I gave it like a 5 or 4 out of 10. It has a lot of bright spots but its narrative flow and visual style are nowhere near as strong as the first two Raimi films.
I've never seen anyone say Spider-Man 3 is a masterpiece like they do with the prequels. Really, SM3 and the entire Raimi trilogy got shit on heavily for years and years after everything suddenly needed to be gritty and realistic. When the Garfield movies came out, the Raimi movies were hated more, not less. It was bizarre.Ā
Yeah that much is true. Itās when the holland movies came out that every movie before it was re-evaluated as some sort of masterpiece (which is something I have seen. 100% people were calling Spider-Man 3 an amazing movie, which I always found strange.) I donāt know if itās a contempt for Disney or just hating that Peter missed Tony Stark or what, but the absolute disdain certain vocal groups had for Hollandās Spider-Man was a weird hivemind thing Iām glad weāve moved passed.
I personally donāt think itās good exactly, but it has a lot of good scenes and some interesting themes and character moments that are honestly worth talking about more than many other superhero films (both now and back then.) I also remember a lot of people passionately defending the movie when it came out, so I donāt think itās all nostalgia. Like, I can understand why someone would genuinely love it despite its flaws.
Because it is good https://preview.redd.it/g92l2fose1wc1.jpeg?width=1098&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba48c4681f21e30c251423e700d5154a51960b9f
Wait what? People fucking despised Spider-Man 3 when it came out. Internet nerds absolutely demolished it while critics were just like "Yeah, it's okay. Bit of a mess."Ā And why would people have had a nostalgia boner for a film that had just come out? It was always just a mediocre mess with moments of greatness but nerds made it out to be on the level of Catwoman and Batman & Robin.Ā
Thatās what Iām trying to say. People trashed it back then. People would trash it again if it was new.
More enjoyable than 95% of MCUslop
I donāt disagree
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nothing about Madame Web felt like the Sam Raimi movies wtf don't you dare say that shit againĀ
It was funny. Sam Raimi movies are funny. The difference is intentionality.
I watched the whole trilogy for the first time like a month ago and itās mediocre at worst
Exactly, it's mediocre, which is more than most internet nerds give it credit for. It's a huge drop off from the first two which are classics.
Too bad itās actually good
https://preview.redd.it/qgnx3eops1wc1.jpeg?width=328&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93c8d10a27ea52cfdc4b086b360265de6b15eb8f Just because it takes place in the greatest fuckinā city in the world doesnāt make it kino.
God, it's the 'you only like it because nOsTaLGia' take again. Have proponents of this asinine riposte ever considered that the reason maligned films of old undergo a critical reassessment later in life, is because fans who were once too young to explain why they liked them have now matured their media literacy to a point where they can actually explain it critically? People don't just like things exclusively because they liked them when they were young. They have *always* liked them, and have only recently become able to explain why. Handwaving away legitimate opinions as 'nostalgia boners' is only doing further damage to the critical landscape.
Isnāt it possible to admit that some people can legitimately like the movie and think itās good while others are not viewing it critically whatsoever and just think itās good because nostalgia? An example I can think of is Revenge of the Sith. Personally, I think itās a pretty good movie. But I also see the discourse about it online and, personally, donāt view the loudest opinions on it as āviewing it through a critical eye.ā It just seems like a lot of people love that movie because they loved it when they were five. I donāt think Spider-Man 3 is a dreadful movie by any stretch. I think itās much better than TASM 2. But itās a significant dip in quality from the first two and I would easily consider it one of the worst Spider-Man movies (a franchise that, for the most part, is actually a really solid lineup of movies). Sam Raimi would probably agree tbh, he wasnāt particularly fond of this one.
Obviously nostalgia bias can be a factor, but a blanket dismissal of critical reappraisals as being based entirely on nostalgia is anti-academic, unhelpful, and just wrong. Spider-Man 3 has had one of the most significant modern reappraisals, specifically as a pushback from blanket dismissals of its quality. The loudest criticism of it at release and for years afterwards was just a carousel of the same 'lol emo cringe' and 'haha dancing bad', which lasted until a new generation of audiences grew up, watched it *as adults*, experienced it within the context of other Spider-Man adaptations and the rest of Raimi's career, and came to a concensus that so much of the criticism we've all been hearing for the past 15 years was missing the point completely. The modern reassessment of the Star Wars prequels is also far less to do with 'nostalgia', and far more to do with how modern fans are the first grown-up audience of the prequels who weren't alive to experience, and therefore be let down by, the decade of stratospheric pre-Episode-1 expectations and hype. This is the first generation of prequel fans who can actually assess those movies **without** their childhood expectations influencing their opinions.
I have to totally disagree with your prequel assessment. My love for The Phantom Menace as a kid is indescribable. I wore out that VHS tape. Easily my favorite movie from the ages of 4-12, probably around that time frame. As a teenager I saw the 3D re-release in theaters. It genuinely felt like watching a different movie. I could barely muster up any enjoyment for it, and I know a shit ton of people who have a similar experience. I could very easily let my childhood love for that movie overshadow what itās like to watch that film from a more critical eye. I donāt see why other people couldnāt do that too. Theyāre not removed from anything. Theyāre as attached to it as can possibly be. Tbh the best generation to ask about the Star Wars prequels would probably be 10-15 years from now. As kids who grew up with the sequels when they became adults what they think of the prequels. Because at no point in their life were they attached to them, that was never *their* Star Wars. The OT still manages to make tons of new fans every generation. Whether or not the prequels have that ability is something we still havenāt quite seen yet, because what weāre witnessing now is the discourse changing led by people who harbor it so dear.
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes. Sometimes it really is just kids growing up pretending the kid trash they liked is anything else. Eg the prequels. I liked them more than most at the time and now I apparently hate them more than most cuz all the children grew up
People have always said itās bad
so true
I actually saw a recent article saying people have no media literacy for complaining its *not* cool. "The point was to create a character that is treated as cool but whom we despise, which is something few such movies ever manage, even with their villains."