Rank & Review: Spider-Man
The early Spider-Man films are rightfully attributed to kicking off modern superhero cinema. "Blade" and "X-Men" had something to do with it, too, but when Sam Raimi's 2002 film came out, the genre had fully come back to life, as evidenced by the critical reviews and box office revenue. As time has gone by, the character, or rather Peter Parker's version of the character, has gone through many interpretations. Only recently have we been able to get a Spider-Man film that's not centered on the Peter Parker alter ego.
Currently, the Spider-Man film franchise is very healthy, with two concurrent iterations. One sees Parker as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, while the other sees Miles Morales as the star of a shared, animated Spider-Verse. Though the character is prospering now on the big screen, Spider-Man has certainly had his share of low points, and those occasions will be outlined as I proceed. Also, if you're wondering, no, "Venom" will not be found on this list as it doesn't include Spider-Man.
8. The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Many of the same sins of the past were repeated with the second and final installment of Marc Webb's short-lived "Amazing Spider-Man" series. It's too overstuffed for its own good. While other superhero films, ones that have a lot going on, are able to keep all its moving pieces in check, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is all over the place, constantly shifting, and has nothing to tie it all together. Additionally, unlike the similarly ailed "Spider-Man 3," "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" also commits the fatal sin of being an extended trailer for a Spidey-centered cinematic universe that, because of this failure, will never happen. This was the first major instance of something like this happening, and it happened again with other franchises, including "Transformers" and Universal's Dark Universe. "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" has little-to-no story of its own to tell. It's a sequel that's a placeholder more than an actual step forward in Peter Parker's story. It confuses genuine plot progression for repeating information that we already know. There isn’t much in the way of new reveals or surprises.
The villains are all letdowns. Not only are there too many villains for one film, they're all poorly-conceived adaptations of well-crafted characters. Jamie Foxx's Max Dillon/Electro starts as a boring nerd with dull motivations and transforms into a wildly inconsistent super villain. You're not sure whether to laugh at him or take him seriously. Dane DeHaan is a mediocre Harry Osborn and a way silly Green Goblin - I can't imagine how that design made it to the finished film. I'm not sure what Paul Giamatti was going for as Aleksei Sytsevitch/Rhino. He seems to have fun hamming it up, but he's never given any direction or role in the story.
Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy are going through the motions in their relationship, which is good, but all of it amounts to a death that was obviously foreshadowed at the opening. It's not like I want Stacy to die and their relationship was strong, but because it’s rushed and we don't see the full effect Stacy's death has on Parker, ultimately, her death rings hollow. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” still benefits from the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and Garfield delivers a great performance as both Parker and the web-slinger. I also enjoy the stylistic action and effects, but revisiting the film feels pointless because we'll never see its questions resolved. We'll never know who the Shadow Man is and his relation to the Parkers, we'll never see this iteration of the Sinister Six, and we'll never see Garfield get the closure he deserved.
7. Spider-Man 3
As the sequel to one of my all-time favorite films, aspects of "Spider-Man 3" are disappointing, yet the film is not a complete failure. When the movie sings, it's some of the best material out of any of the Spider-Man movies. On the flip side, when it doesn't, it's some of the worst. Need I remind you of the dance sequence or this film's interpretation of Eddie Brock/Venom and Gwen Stacy?
Now, "Spider-Man 3" is not without its inspired moments. Sandman's birth, in which the villain's motivations and struggles are shown with only haunting visuals and sweeping music, is a scene that would win an Oscar if scenes could win Oscars. In addition, having gotten past the secret identity phase, the film develops Peter Parker and Mary Jane’s relationship, and the film details what a tricky relationship that can be. If "Spider-Man 3" were about their relationship and Peter's struggle with the Black Suit, provided the Black Suit storyline in the film reflected the dark nature of the comic saga, this would've been one of the best superhero movies ever. Sadly, that's not all that we have.
We have three different villains, two love triangles, and one hero who goes through a painful yet oddly meme-worthy emo phase. All of this is too much for even a 139-minute film. The writing has a way of being so smart in some moments, yet so dumb in others. If you were to tell me, having not seen this movie, that the Sandman birth scene took place in the same film as Parker's emo strut, I wouldn't believe you because they don't mix at all. In spite of all this fault, the film manages to hit its mark. It should feel unearned, but I still get excited when I see Peter and Harry team-up and I still tear up during Harry's farewell. Despite all its faults, I like seeing the story wrap up. Yes, I know many were expecting a fourth film, but the musical cues and the ending all signal a finality to this story and these characters. Certainly a messy conclusion, but "Spider-Man 3" has enough to narrowly get by.
6. Spider-Man: Far From Home
"Spider-Man: Far From Home" is another good Spider-Man movie. It's funny, has good action sequences and creative visuals, but the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that I'm excited more for the Spider-Man movie this one sets up, not so much for the one I just saw. As a Spider-Man film, it doesn't do anything that new. It's another Spider-Man film about how Peter Parker doesn't want to be Spider-Man. Granted, his motivations are somewhat different this time - Parker is feeling pressure to follow-up Tony Stark's legacy after his death in "Avengers: Endgame." Notwithstanding, he also wants to be normal and figure out his relationship with Mary Jane. These are concepts that have not only been done before, but done better.
I like Tom Holland and I like Zendaya. I like seeing them interact, even if it's awkward at first, considering Peter was obsessing over a different girl in "Homecoming." Their relationship is one I look forward to seeing more of, but in this film, it's not as good as it could've been. I think MJ pushes her cynical side too far and Peter is almost too clueless for my taste. Ned is someone I tolerated in "Homecoming." Here, he seems like a terrible friend to Peter, all but abandoning him at the start of the field trip. At first, I liked seeing the "Infinity War"/"Endgame" effect applied to high school life, but all it does is add a Flash Thompson-lite character. How convenient that no one in Peter's class didn't blip. Not Ned, not Flash, not even Betty or any of the teachers. Wouldn't it have been interesting to see more changes to the line-up? I feel like something as monumental as the Snap/Blip would warrant that kind of change.
Finally, a lot of people seemed to love Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio and I like his performance. However, as I revisited the film, I realized he's not really an intimidating presence. I love the illusions being brought to life in film, but Mysterio himself is kind of a weasel, always hiding behind technology and never risking his own life for his cause. While that is something different, that leaves our hero to battle drones the whole movie and that gets stale fast. Not having an intense hero/villain conflict robs the final act of its suspence.
Though I may not love it quite like many others do, "Far From Home" is a good installment in the franchise. Although, coming off the heels of a Spider-Man film that pushed itself all the way, seeing this one relatively play it safe, I feel, does it a disservice. For the upcoming third film, I hope director Jon Watts maximizes the scope and the threat, which, if the end credit stinger is any indication, could very well be in store for us.
5. Spider-Man: Homecoming
The title "Homecoming" suggests more than one thing. Yes, it suggests the high school dance, but also the homecoming of Spider-Man to the MCU. When we saw Tom Holland's debut in "Captain America: Civil War," we went nuts, and eagerly awaited his own solo film.
As the third reboot of Spider-Man in fifteen years at the time, I understand the decision to go smaller in scope with "Spider-Man: Homecoming," but I feel that creates a divide between this iteration and other Spider-Man movies. Where the Sam Raimi and Marc Webb films had style and a big sense of scope, this one has neither. It's simpler, smaller-stakes, and has a scope on-par with the "Ant-Man" films. While that suited the state of the Spider-Man movies at the time, it doesn't accurately represent what a major superhero Spider-Man is. Rather, "Homecoming" takes Spider-Man and makes him more like just another hero in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Admittedly, it's entertaining to see Parker dealing with the typical high school troubles. When you think about it, you never saw Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield do much of that, and Tom Holland is young enough to be a convincing high school student, something neither Maguire or Garfield completely sold. Holland also crafts an eager to help, albeit naive hero, who still is inexperienced in his vigilantism. It's fun to see him be so youthful, but Holland seems to lack a certain maturity, essentially the "Man" part of Spider-Man. In both "Homecoming" and "Far From Home," he looks and sounds more Spider-Boy than Spider-Man. I guess that can be attributed to this portrayal being primarily set in high school, but his occasional voice cracks and whinny demeanor also speak to a more childish hero. If Holland does stick around for more movies, it'll be interesting to see his portrayal grow up, eventually becoming that true Spider-Man.
Where "Homecoming" has the edge over "Far From Home" is the villain. I never thought I could take an adaptation of Adrian Toomes/Vulture seriously, but Michael Keaton accomplished just that by playing up his entertainingly unhinged acting persona. In retrospect, the “father of the crush” twist isn't that surprising, but the script keeps you occupied with so many details that it enables you to forget that one clue. Seeing Keaton, the super villain, also play chaperone to a dance is simultaneously hilarious and frightening. "Spider-Man: Homecoming" may not be the grand or epic MCU debut for the comic book big shot, but it succeeds at operating at a smaller, more neighborhood-focused level, with a Washington D.C. field trip on the side.
4. Spider-Man
It's hard to oversell what a game-changing film "Spider-Man" was. Richard Donner's "Superman" may have started the entire thing, but the superhero genre was losing steam in the mid to late-90s. As mentioned in the opening, the genre saw hits like "Blade" and "X-Men," but "Spider-Man" hit like none of them had before, being the first movie to clear a hundred million in its opening weekend. As the superhero genre took a more serious approach in the years that followed, it's nice to revisit a superhero film that didn't take it so seriously. It's light-hearted and campy fun. It's not ice puns and "anatomically-correct" costumes campy, yet it's still silly enough to have lines like, "It's you who's out, Gobby. Out of your mind!" There's nothing wrong with having that element of silliness as it's part of the movie's appeal.
Tobey Maguire got a solid origin story in "Spider-Man." Some early bits feel rushed, but otherwise, this is the iteration that most Spider-Man fans consider doctrine. Though clearly too old for high school, Maguire does well as the high school nerd. He looks like he came direct from Amazing Fantasy #15, the comic that introduced Spider-Man to the masses. Parker may not ever question his newfound powers, but seeing his joy in exploring his abilities is infectious. Kristen Dunst got a good start as Mary Jane. There's a few awkward lines between them, but I buy their chemistry, and Dunst is better than most people give her credit for. I love how she can express herself around Peter, but when the popular high school jock comes knocking, she feels compelled to put on the "cool girl" facade in order to get by. Such a subtle and tragic display of high school social life today, and this movie came out in 2002!
Willem Dafoe was born to play Norman Osborn/Green Goblin. He has the cheekbones to prove it. All he has to do is just crack a smile, and he's automatically menacing. The Goblin suit ain't terrifying, but it's still a good performance from Dafoe. As for J.K. Simmons’s J. Jonah Jameson, he may be the best-cast comic book character ever. It's a casting so perfect, the only other film iteration of Spider-Man to have Jameson on-screen just brought back Simmons again. His humor is impeccable and his attitude is so lovable, despite the fact that Jameson is supposed to be such a repellant character.
Despite some aged CG, a few awkward line deliveries, and a poor mid-act action set piece, "Spider-Man" is a classic of the superhero film genre.
3. The Amazing Spider-Man
As much as I like the Sam Raimi films - okay, two and a half of them - they were just barely before my time. I was born a month after the first one was released, so I wasn't the target audience for that set of movies, but I was for "The Amazing Spider-Man." I had just turned ten when this movie came out and funnily enough, when I saw the film in theaters with my older brother, my family and I were visiting the state we're currently living in all these years later. I believe my affinity for this film, however, reaches beyond some fond memories.
"The Amazing Spider-Man" made the controversial choice to retell Peter Parker's origin story all over again. For those who were already familiar with Spidey's origin story, either because they've read the comics, grew up on Raimi's trilogy, or both, they were likely disappointed in this film. For me, at the time, I had a vague idea of who Spider-Man was. I had seen clips of the Raimi films, and I had a basic understanding of his personality and rogues gallery, but I never knew much about the character. When I went to see "The Amazing Spider-Man," it was my first time really getting to know the character, and it didn't disappoint in my eyes. Where Raimi's origin story was more light and goofy, this origin story was darker and more real, and it's done better than other superhero films that also took a similar approach. I like how, in this adaptation, Parker has to face the consequences of being a vigilante and how his pursuits can often interfere with police cases, not just cause property damage or the deaths of innocent bystanders.
Again, like Maguire, Andrew Garfield was too old to be in high school, yet he still gives a memorable interpretation of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Both he and the writing gave a different enough spin on to differentiate this series from the others. I appreciate giving him more inner angst, and when he lashes out, you feel his inner pain. Garfield’s Parker and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was a great match, even if the high school awkwardness did also stick around for this interpretation. Stacy's definitely a different love interest from Mary Jane. She’s more Parker’s intellectual equal as the best science student in school, with Parker being the second. Additionally, where MJ was always needing saving, Stacy is actively trying to help Parker where she can. I like to think that this choice was this series acknowledging that she could be Spider-Woman in another universe, though it never officially went down the multiverse route. Another change in this iteration is that Parker's secret identity is revealed to Stacy right out of the gate, not saved for another film, and it's done in its own unique way.
"The Amazing Spider-Man" may have its share of detractors, but it’s endearing and endures in my mind. Garfield may have gotten the short end of the stick in feature films, but his impact is still a lasting one in my mind. Plus, it's got one of the best Stan Lee cameos, so there's that as well.
2. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Nobody could have predicted what a powerhouse "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" ended up being. Oddly enough, it is the least successful of all the Spider-Man movies, financially speaking, but the critical hype that followed this movie was wild, deservedly so. It was the film to break Disney/Pixar's interchanging record of winning the Best Animated Feature Oscar, and it gave us not just one new Spider-Man, but several, and there's something rather funny about it.
You see, we criticize "Spider-Man 3" and "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" for how stupidly overcrowded they are, yet here "Spider-Verse" is, the most jam-packed "Spider-Man" film of them all. For as packed as the cast may seem, the film balances the many characters and story points with the utmost ease. It helps that each hero is likable, full of personality, and has a compelling background to get involved in. I'm glad Miles Morales finally got his time in the sun, and his debut added something new to the well-worn superhero origin story formula. Shameik Moore's voice work compliments the writing perfectly, and in a film with some major stars, it's quite an accomplishment that he still is the highlight.
The fact that the other Spider-People are just as developed as Miles, despite not being the main characters, is most impressive. You have three different Peter Parkers, and they're so different from each other in both personality and distinct character features. When it comes to Gwen Stacy, Peni Parker, and Peter Porker, they're (almost) entirely new faces, which you think would call for major character development. Instead, their backstories are reduced to bullet points, yet they're so well-defined by those bullet points and have compelling mini-arcs throughout the story that those mere bullet points are all they needed. On the villain side, you have a fully formed Sinister Six team, with Kingpin at the lead. Tombstone, Scorpion, and Green Goblin may not have gotten much development, but Kingpin, Prowler, and a surprise Doc Ock are so well-defined through the writing and character design.
In a time where the individual animation companies continued to develop their own style with deserved success, Sony Pictures Animation took a great idea and ran with it, creating a glorious feast for the eyes. The animation, combined with Daniel Pemberton's score, make you feel as if you're in an alternate dimension yourself. There's nothing like “Spider-Verse,” and I'm very nervous for the same creative team to follow up this masterwork. All I know is that if they keep this same quality up and find room for Maguire, Garfield, and Holland to cameo, it will be the greatest movie of all time.
1. Spider-Man 2
So, having given "Spider-Verse" considerable praise, I now find myself called to defend "Spider-Man 2" as my number one choice. It's really a matter of preference, rather than a slight against "Spider-Verse." I find that this film presents the epitome of superhero duality, a true exploration of an everyday person trying to fulfill both ordinary and extraordinary desires. The first film was campy and Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker definitely inhabits a light-hearted world, but that didn't mean the second film couldn't get more real.
Superheroes all learn, at some point or another, that the life of a hero has more downsides than upsides. I feel "Spider-Man 2" captures this the best because, unlike all other superheroes, Parker is the most human and the most alone. Many other superheroes have someone to confide in when things get tough. Parker doesn't have that luxury. The film beautifully displays how Spider-Man is ruining his life. Parker can't hold a job, he's missing classes, his aunt is facing eviction, and he's so desperate to express himself to Mary Jane that he keeps messing up. A wise man once said, "If you keep something as complicated as love stored up inside, it can make you sick." Sure enough, Parker's personal life starts affecting his superhero duties, and his capacity to save the day starts to dwindle. I love the way this plays out, eventually leading to some great introspection as Parker's self interest and responsibility to serve clash within him.
"Spider-Man 2" has the best Spider-Man film villain of them all in Doctor Otto Octavius, played by a magnificent Alfred Molina. He was as good as Heath Ledger's Joker before Heath Ledger had even played the Joker. People often talk about how villains are the heroes of their own story. Well, from his point of view, Octavius is the hero, the scientist who'll create long-lasting energy for New York. The film spends ample time establishing what a passionate man he is before he becomes the film's villain, and what a great one at that. His action sequences with Spider-Man are incredible, the best this franchise has ever gotten. His tentacles, a hybrid of puppet work and CG, are some of the best effects in a film, let alone superhero film. Octavius's redemption arc is something you typically don't get in a superhero film. Usually, the villain dies or lives to scheme another day, and though he does die, Octavius gets to rectify his mistake, choosing to save the city and redeem his soul.
Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man 2," more so than its predecessor, took comic book movies to an elevated level. It proved that superhero movies could be more than mere action capers, which they had long been denounced as. In the same year that saw the release of the worst superhero film ever made - a true catastrophe that was and still is - "Spider-Man 2" is exactly what we needed.
Comments
Post a Comment