Image by Jason King from Pixabay I’ve mentioned in several previous blogs that the only superhero movies that I grew up with were Sam Raimi’s three Spider-Man flicks released from 2002 to 2007. At that age, I’m quite certain that I could not tell between good and bad movies. So, looking back on these three films, I wonder what about them that I enjoyed. Furthermore, by the time that Tom Holland entered the Marvel Cinematic Universe as the web-slinging teenager in Captain America: Civil War, my love for Spider-Man was rekindled. And yet, I found myself again thinking: what is it about this character on the silver screen that continues to fascinate audiences to this day?
What better way to reflect on this question than to delve into all of the (non-MCU) iterations of Spider-Man, from Raimi’s trilogy starring Tobey Maguire to the modern Venom-centric franchise serving as Sony’s attempt to compete with Marvel Studios and Warner Brothers for a commercially and critically successful comic book film universe. Is Spider-Man 3 truly the worst iteration on the character? Is The Amazing Spider-Man 2 underrated, and The Amazing Spider-Man overrated? Is Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse one of the greatest comic book films ever made? You’ll have to keep reading to find out my takes on these essential questions of cinematic nerddom. 😉 So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! The Sam Raimi Trilogy (2002-2007) Growing up with the original Spider-Man trilogy directed by the one and only Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead, A Simple Plan), I was both incredibly excited and rather nervous about revisiting them nearly twenty years later with what I believe are my more sophisticated cinematic sensibilities. While admittedly these movies (notably the middle entry) influenced the direction of the comic book genre today, the prospect of them failing to hold up relative to films from Marvel Studios and Warner Brothers seemed palpable. Still, I dove headfirst and decided to rewatch the trilogy in one day as part of a weekend movie extravaganza. Before I delve into my criticisms of these films, I greatly encourage those who also grew up with them to go back and rewatch them. If nothing else, the experience will be filled with smiles and laughter if one has the right mindset. That being said, there’s no use holding off any longer. What did I think of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy? … Man, if these movies aren’t the pinnacle of “so bad it’s good” then I’m not sure I understand that phrase anymore. While I did my best to toss the rose-colored, nostalgia-soaked glasses aside, it was difficult to remove my personal biases in favor of these movies. I was simply having too much fun revisiting these characters and reliving the cinematic time capsule that was the mid-2000s defined by retrospectively questionable CGI and special effects, charming homage to old-school acting that now comes off as over-the-top, and the dried-out paper towel of a character that is Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker. Needless to say, I don’t think there was a break in me laughing shorter than 30 seconds while rewatching 2002’s Spider-Man. There is so much that does not hold up in the best way in terms of the characterization of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, his creepy and inappropriate relationship with Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), his quasi-1950s/overtly “Americana” dynamic with Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris), and the utterly cartoonish performance of the one and only Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin. I figured going into Spider-Man that I would find the fight scenes to be the most absurd elements of the film. But there were a number of thoroughly enjoyable character interactions (particularly between Peter & Norman or Spidey and Goblin) that put me into tear-inducing jerks of laughter. No offense to the actors (except Tobey Maguire), but I simply cannot understand how Sam Raimi signed off on these performances in all three films. There is so little humanity to grasp onto as so much of both the 2002 film and its two sequels feels pulled straight out of the original comic book or a Saturday morning cartoon. Again, I had loads of fun watching the movies in this new light. But it doesn’t make them good movies. I do want to devote some time in this section of my blog to the question that (in my humble opinion) not enough comic book movie nerds have been asking recently: is Spider-Man 2 actually good? The short answer is no, but I feel compelled to explain my reasoning based on my rewatch because there appears to be a vocal minority that continues to defend this movie as one of the best comic book movies ever made in spite of films such as The Dark Knight, The Avengers, and Logan existing now. To highlight the best aspects of Spider-Man 2, it is undeniably a fairly well-structured story focusing on Spidey’s fall with some truly compelling action sequences between him and Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina) such as the famous train sequence. Furthermore, it is the only film in Raimi’s trilogy where Peter has some actually good character moments (I really like seeing him run into the burning building to save those children without his powers because it’s basically the only time we see Peter Parker prove that he’s the hero and not Spider-Man). But everything else about the movie is passable, mediocre or straight-up bad. The humor is very hit-or-miss, Doc Ock’s character leaves something to be desired in light of other comic book movie villains in recent memory (Two-Face in The Dark Knight and Michael Keaton in Spider-Man: Homecoming, just to name a few), and Raimi’s exploration of the theme of what it takes to be Spider-Man lacks a fulfilling end. The answer is essentially that Peter Parker just has to sacrifice being any semblance of normality for his future in order to be Spider-Man, which is a pretty unsatisfying conclusion for the middle entry in this trilogy. Which brings us to one of the contenders for the “black sheep” of comic book movies that is 2007’s Spider-Man 3. To be clear, I am not going to defend this movie as being objectively better than the other two of Raimi’s trilogy. But does it have some redeeming qualities? I think so, and those who have piledrove this movie into the abyss of rejection over the years have failed to acknowledge what it does just as well (in some cases better) than its two predecessors. Notably, Spider-Man 3 is easily the best looking of the films. Not just in terms of special effects and CGI, but its cinematography is damn good (which makes sense as it was done by Bill Pope who also shot The Matrix, 2016’s The Jungle Book, and Baby Driver). I also found the sympathetic angle on the villain Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) to be refreshing as it was severely lacking in the first two films (I particularly appreciated Sandman’s “birth” scene that holds up to this day and is also emotionally resonant). Finally, I am a sucker for Spider-Man teaming up with Harry Osborn/New Goblin (James Franco) in the third act even though it’s pretty unearned. On that note, shout-out to Peter’s fight scenes with Harry which stand out as some of the better action sequences of the trilogy. All in all, Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy is stuck in a moment in time in so many respects that they fail to outmatch many other comic book movies from this century. But, at the end of the day, they are quite rewatchable for the sheer fun of seeing some ridiculous superhero antics play out on screen. They’re by no means quality films, but (in my humble opinion) they perfectly fit the popular concept of movies that come full circle from being so bad that they actually become good again. The Marc Webb Duology (2012-2014) While I grew up with Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, the opposite is true for Marc Webb’s two Amazing Spider-Man movies from the early 2010s starring Andrew Garfield. I never saw them in theaters nor on television or DVD. Simply put, I had never seen either of these films until this year. I had heard a plethora of mixed opinions about their strengths and weaknesses, and thus kept an open mind while watching them. I was pleasantly surprised by 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the caliber of actors is top-notch thanks to the sweet, father-son-like chemistry between Garfield’s Peter Parker and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and the charming, youthful dynamic that Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) has with Garfield. These three actors make Peter’s struggle to accept Uncle Ben’s death and the refreshingly modern take on Peter’s love life palpable and enjoyable to watch. As an origin film, I think that The Amazing Spider-Man does some things better than the 2002 film and some things equally amateurish. For example, the scene where Peter’s powers kick in on the subway was certainly different and less cheesy than Tobey Maguire’s spider-infested dream state in 2002’s Spider-Man. However, it was still pretty awkward and felt out-of-place in what ended up being a fairly dramatic movie. On that point, I know that some people find the darker origin story for Spider-Man to be blasphemous to his comic-book roots. But like other elements of The Amazing Spider-Man it came off as refreshing to me. It added to the movie’s (somewhat) unique identity in the pantheon of superhero films. Certainly not all of it worked, however, such as the involvement of Peter’s parents (which I’ll address more with the second Marc Webb film). I don’t want to move on without highlight the superior writing of Gwen Stacy as an intelligent woman with agency who recognizes when Peter or her father (Denis Leary) are undermining her. I particularly appreciated the moment towards the end when Gwen realizes why Peter is trying to distance himself from her. Such a small change from the stereotypical portrayal of Mary-Jane that we got in Raimi’s trilogy, but it resonated with me and enhanced The Amazing Spider-Man even more for me. I also thought that Peter’s relationship with the villain, Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard (Rhys Ifans), achieved what the Spidey/Doc Ock relationship in Spider-Man 2 failed to do in fostering a genuine, believable sympathy that Spider-Man has for his nemesis. Again, just another example of the better writing in this movie compared to other attempts by Sony Pictures to bring the famous web crawler to the silver screen. Unfortunately, my unexpected respect for The Amazing Spider-Man was significantly undermined by the utter travesty that is 2014’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2. With so many solid emotional stakes that were left hanging at the end of the first film, the sequel essentially threw it all out the window in favor of what amounts to a high-budget cartoonish continuation of Garfield’s Spider-Man with a superfluously long runtime. I was really hoping that I would like The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but it just squandered any hope I had for Webb’s duology having anything akin to timeless appeal. From the underwhelming use of Electro (Jamie Foxx) failing to fulfill the potential of the villain’s presence to Peter’s distracting investigation into his parents’ past to the cheap use of Gwen’s death in the climax in an attempt to evoke sadness out of the audience, the film felt like it was trying to do so much without putting any serious effort into any of it. It stretched itself too thin, and fell flat on its face as a result. So, compared to Raimi’s trilogy, Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man films ultimately lack a cohesive identity of their own to help them stand apart. Despite some intriguing elements from the first film and some well-done action in both films, they ended up doing very little for me in the long run. I may rewatch Raimi’s trilogy in ten or twenty years just to laugh out loud; I’ll probably never rewatch these movies again. Venom (2018) When it comes to Sony’s latest attempt to jumpstart a cinematic universe of its own, the 2018 Tom Hardy vehicle Venom is a blasé place to begin. Despite its unforeseen (and, in my humble opinion, undeserving) financial success (it grossed over 850 million dollars at the box office), Venom was critically panned when it was released yet retains some devoted defenders of it to this day. Is it the new Spider-Man 2? Perhaps. 😊 To speak first of the positives, I was somewhat entertained by the quirky relationship between Hardy’s Eddie Brock and the symbiote that infects him. It was certainly a different angle characterizing a parasitic and sadistic alien creature as a lonely underdog who becomes emotionally attached to helping Brock in his fight against Carlton Drake/Riot (Riz Ahmed). Their back-and-forth (particularly in the back half of the movie) was mildly amusing at times. Also, I noticed on my rewatch of the movie about a year ago that Eddie never goes through some sort of fantastical physical transformation into something akin to Chris Evans in Captain America: The First Avenger. He is never sexualized or objectified in that way, which felt different and needed in this modern environment so keen on doing so with many other male superheroes. Onto the negatives, which are plentiful. Overall, I think that Venom is not an utterly horrible and irredeemable movie. But it is nothing if not uninspired, unoriginal, and bland. First off, Brock’s origin story becoming Venom lacks any engaging beats (besides the grim, whacky humor that defines his relationship with Venom) which is never bolstered by nor supplemented with a compelling villain performance from Ahmed. If anything, I would have loved to see a Willem Dafoe-esque performance for Ahmed’s character to at least add some charming camp to the mix of this movie. Instead, he plays it aggressively straight so as to avoid being anything more than a piece of emotional cardboard whenever he’s on screen. Venom is also a prime example of relying far too much on fight scenes dripping with CGI. Obviously, this is needed to an extent when showing a fight between two non-existent alien slime monsters but a more creative and inspired approach to this story would have done unexpected things to make the action more fun and interesting to watch. Alas, we never really get that here. Finally, in terms of its central character and protagonist, Hardy’s Brock lacks any semblance of charm or likeability so as to make him an endearing anti-hero. Rather, he’s a washed-up, incompetent failure of a journalist and relationship partner that I never was rooting for in the film. But maybe I’m being too harsh, and Venom actually is the masterpiece that some people claim it is. How does the sequel fare? Does Venom: Let There Be Carnage justify Sony’s attempt at a Spider-Man cinematic universe without Spider-Man? Before I get to that, I want to first talk about a good Sony Spider-Man movie. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) I recall walking out of the theater nearly three years ago after seeing Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and knowing that I liked it. But I thought very little about it again until a couple of months ago when I decided to rewatch it for this blog. While I enjoyed the movie in the theater, I did not necessarily believe it to be the true masterpiece that many people thought it was. So, have my opinions of Into the Spider-Verse changed with a rewatch? In some ways, yes. Having developed a keener appreciation for the visual art of film animation (from impressive Japanese anime like Only Yesterday and Your Name to breathtaking CG animation like Finding Nemo and How to Train Your Dragon), I did come away this time really loving how Into the Spider-Verse serves up a truly one-of-a-kind style of animation. Not only is it a stunning visual feast (albeit a bit of sensory overload at times), but it succeeds at putting the style of comic book illustrating to the big screen in a way that no other movie that I’ve seen has done and may never will (at least for the foreseeable future). In terms of its story, Into the Spider-Verse may not be the most revolutionary origin story but certainly stands toe to toe with the number of great superhero origin movies made in the last decade plus. It is certainly original in that it uses the premise of a multiverse with other Spider-People to show smart yet reluctantly brave Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) what it means to be a hero. Of course, the standout Spidey mentors are the lonely sad sap Peter B. Parker (Jake Johnson) and the kick-ass, empathetic web slinger Gwen Stacy (Hailee Steinfeld) whose experience and youth, respectively, balance out well to offer Miles two compelling versions of the kind of hero he could become (and a taste of what to avoid later in life, in the case of Peter B. Parker’s hilarious apathy). Unlike most of the other Spider-Man movies that Sony has given us, Into the Spider-Verse grounds Miles’s burgeoning superhero life with the presence of his family who serve to either inspire him or challenge him. On this second viewing, I particularly enjoyed Miles’s dad Jefferson Davis (Brian Tyree Henry) reaching out to Miles in the wake of his uncle’s death and the morally complex dynamic between Miles as an emerging hero and his Uncle Aaron (Mahershala Ali) as the Prowler. For Miles, seeing these two very different yet equally important father figures take different paths and have different outlooks on life was really effective at making his choice to be a hero both convincing and a great bouncing-off point. At the end of the day, I think that my favorite element of Into the Spider-Verse was how the filmmakers knew what they were doing and the time and place they were in. By 2018, so many moviegoers are intimately familiar with the basic structure of a superhero origin story on film and have it seen it done expertly, competently, and poorly many times over. So, instead of do that exact same template again with Miles, they subvert our expectations. Not only do they acknowledge how smart their audience is in the first five minutes by making fun of other takes on Spidey’s movie origins (notably the Raimi trilogy), but they introduce these whacky variants of it like Penny Parker (Kimiko Glenn), Peter Porker/Spider-Ham (John Mulaney), and Spider-Man Noir (Nicolas Cage) to go all-out insane with how the Spider-Man character can be done in fun ways that we haven’t seen before. All that being said, I understand why many fans of the character and of comic book movies in general hold up Into the Spider-Verse as one of the greatest comic book movies ever made. In terms of its cinematography and visual style, I wholeheartedly agree. In terms of its story and characters…let’s just say I like the movie. But I don’t love it. In fairness, I can’t quite put the words why this film doesn’t hit with me in the way it does for others. I respect what it’s doing for the genre and have fun with it every time I watch it, but there’s something about the sum of its parts that leave me expecting something more that I can describe as pure, undeniable greatness. Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Venom: Let There Be Carnage.” You have been warned.] Going into the movie theater to watch Venom: Let There Be Carnage, I was hopeful that director Andy Serkis and star Tom Hardy would double down on the off-beat “bromance” between Eddie Brock and his symbiote, improve the action set pieces, and rid themselves of the rest of the poorly-executed trash from its predecessor. And while it mostly did that, it also had some other problems that keeps it from surpassing Sony’s other Marvel movies that are now nearly two decades old. Regarding Eddie’s “bromance” with Venom, much of it worked for me in this movie. In many ways, Hardy’s fairly impressive performance playing off his own disembodied voice keeps the first act moving pretty well. And their “break-up” scene is ridiculous enough to be amusing and enjoyable (even though their third-act reunion feels rushed and forced just to get the two of them to the final action sequence). Without question for me, the other star of this film besides Hardy is Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady/Carnage. Is his characterization well-written or well-executed in this movie? Not at all. But Harrelson does his damnedest to distract me from thinking about the piss-poor writing behind his demented serial-killer character by having a blast mocking Eddie Brock from behind a jail cell, breaking out his psychotic lover Frances/Shriek (Naomie Harris), and joy-riding around San Francisco while running from the police and FBI. Easily for me, however, the standout scene of this ultimately mediocre film was the full-on introduction of our villainous symbiote Carnage. During Kasady’s execution scene, he holds nothing back to help him break out of San Quentin while murdering as many prison guards (and causing as much chaos) as humanly possible…off-screen. Which gets to one of my major issues with Venom: Let There Be Carnage: its PG-13 rating. For some reason, I didn’t care as much about this in the 2018 Venom movie, but it felt much more noticeable here due to the nature of Kasady’s character and Carnage’s love of murder sprees. There were just too many times where Serkis cut away from Carnage right before he bites someone’s head off or rips someone apart. It felt cheap, and I wanted Sony to differentiate themselves from Marvel Studios by committing to a more serious, violent aesthetic but they did not. My more minor critiques of Venom: Let There Be Carnage have to do with the movie’s unbalanced tone and its supporting characters. Regarding the latter, Eddie’s subplot involving him trying to make amends with his ex-fiancée Anne (Michelle Williams) treads too much familiar ground from the 2018 film and feels just unnecessary in this specific movie. I also feel so bad for Naomie Harris because she deserved better treatment as Tia Dalma in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and certainly deserves better in this movie. But her side-villain status lacks justification to be there. Regarding the former, while Venom and Eddie’s dynamic carried this movie’s first act the consequences of their “break-up” in the second act is some of the worst examples of this rom-com trope wherein the two characters spend time alone to help them realize that they need each other. While I won’t delve too deep into this, all I’ll say is watching Venom give an inspirational speech at an underground rave is far too cringe to be funny or entertaining in any way, shape, or form. The last thing I want to say about Venom: Let There Be Carnage is MAJOR SPOILERS regarding the post-credits scene. STOP NOW IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW. … After reflecting on the reveal of Eddie/Venom being transported to the Marvel Cinematic Universe on the drive home, I’ve decided that I have enough faith in Kevin Feige and his creative team to integrate Hardy’s absurd take on the character into the world of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man well enough. However, I fear this is a sign that Sony has gained too much power due to their ownership of Spidey’s film rights to the point that this Venom’s presence in New York City post-Avengers: Endgame will inevitably taint Holland’s very special corner of a fantastic film franchise. But, I suppose only time will tell. … So, when it comes to movies featuring Marvel’s various web-crawlers, my favorite remains Spider-Man Homecoming for reasons that I have addressed before and will address in the near future (CAN’T WAIT for Spider-Man: No Way Home!!). Simply put, the Raimi movies are anachronistic, the Webb movies are disjointed, the Venom films are bland and boring, and Into the Spider-Verse is very good but lacks the emotional punch that better superhero films give me. Will Sony put something forward outside of their collaborations with Marvel Studios that will top Homecoming for me? I doubt it, but I would love my faith in this studio’s mixed bag of a cinematic universe to be restored someday. With all that being said, here is my ranking of Sony’s Spider-Man films:
What are your thoughts on Sony’s Spider-Man films? Who is your preferred Spider-Man? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|