The "Spider-Man" Franchise (2002 - 2007)

[StevePulaski]

Spider-Man (2002).
Rating: ★★★

Peter Parker is the awkward, neurotic, socially inept teenager, interested in photography, and crushing on the prettiest girl in school, Mary Jane Watson. During his trip to a genetics laboratory, where the class learns all about genetically altered spiders, Peter is bit on the hand by one of the arachnids that escaped and slowly begins to possess powers beyond his wildest dreams. At first, he realizes he can see without the help of his glasses, next, he notices he can leap heights and flip to great lengths, and finally, he starts to acquire the ability to stick to walls and shoot webs out of his hands.

He becomes the notorious and infamous, Spider-Man, where he has proven to be a burden to some, but a hero to others in his hometown of New York City, where he lives with his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris). After his Uncle Ben is shot and killed during a robbery, Peter notices the city is nothing but scum and is determined to take down the cities' worst in the form of secrecy. Meanwhile, his close friend, Harry's (James Franco) father, Dr. Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe) is the president of the Oscorp manufacturing corporation, where they make and supply weaponry to the United States Army. In the mix of it all, Osborn becomes, what newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) dubs, the "Green Goblin" who pilots a glider, and serves as the villain to Spider-Man's hero.

What inevitably follows is a series of unplanned and very physical battle scenes taking place with the backdrop of New York City skylines to handle it all. There's also a subplot, involving Peter, played effortlessly well by Tobey Maguire, trying to impress Mary Jane, played by the talented and attractive Kirsten Dunst, by relentlessly saving her from calamity and trouble by sweeping in at the nick-of-time while she is either being held captive by the Goblin, intimidated by muggers or even falling to her death. The catch is Mary Jane doesn't know this is Peter, but on the side, she talks to him at various points in the film. They've lived next to each other for years, but Peter has always viewed her as the unachievable girl next door and Mary Jane has probably always found Peter to be the unfortunate geek next door. How she doesn't recognize his voice when "Spider-Man" saves her an astronomical three times is beyond me. She should probably stick to staying in doors.

No bother. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man is a fascinating and entertaining work of superhero fiction, collectively doing Marvel and all of its actors justice by blessing them with good material, a straight-shooting script, and action sequences that don't fail to impress. The kinetics and craft of it all are through the roof, and the twenty-five+ years the picture spent in development clearly was for the best. The film spends the first hour or so getting us acquainted with the man behind the mask, much like the original Marvel comics. We see Parker as a human, not an action figure, occupying a mask of uniqueness and power. The film shows the geek in the beginning, sympathetically, and then goes on to showcase him powerfully, where he is a placed in a role of certainty and bravery.

Marvel comics were notorious for paying attention to the character behind the mask and the character in the mask. One thing Spider-Man neglects to showcase in its script and its main character is the agony and pain of it all. The second Marvel feature in 2003, Ang Lee's unfairly bashed Hulk, did a much better job at showing how a superhero's powers were more of a belligerent curse than a stroke of luck in a world of bitterness. Stan Lee infused his comics with so much life and enigma for the characters, plot progression, and the color of it all that the challenge to adapt it to film is definitely there. Raimi handles it appropriately and maturely, not becoming sidetracked with monotonous melodrama or overly-cutesy action sequences.

The ones he does bring to the table are kinetic and stylish, showing off some of the most impressive photography and visual work of the year 2002, and brings two charismatic actors along for the ride. Spider-Man may not have the excruciating depth of Hulk, which created more cons than pros in the job of a superhero, along with establishing a sincere yet distant father and son relationship, but in its own right, it does so much in its two hours that you may need to stop for a breather.

Starring: Tobey Maguire, Willem Dafoe, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, and J. K. Simmons. Directed by: Sam Raimi.

[StevePulaski]

Spider-Man 2 (2004).
Rating: ★★★½

Spider-Man 2 is an adrenaline-packed cinematic delight. A purely functioning superhero film, serving as a sequel to a film that was surprisingly capable after spending a fourth of a century in development hell. Not only is this one of the best sequels I have yet to see, but one of the strongest superhero epics of the decade.

What little Raimi and the writers neglected in the original Spider-Man film is injected into this sequel with full-force intelligence, depth, and attitude. Certain action scenes are so artfully designed and professionally crafted, it appears they could serve as the long-awaited climax in any film of the genre. Scenes themselves play like epics within an epic and some, like the infamous train sequence, are so breakneck and excessive they could use an intermission.

But Spider-Man 2 doesn't have time for preposterous breaks or intermissions. They would disrupt the flow of poetry the film so effortlessly excels at, and for that matter, it is too busy furthering Peter Parker's entertaining story and fueling its action scenes with the coherency and structure they need. The film takes place two years after the events of the first film. We see Parker is still doing vigilante justice around the city of New York, yet we see he is breathlessly struggling to juggle his alter-ego's duties, his schoolwork, his freelance photography job, and his own free time. Because of this, he has long been distant from the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and his best friend Harry Osborn (James Franco).

Now that Harry is the leader of Oscorp, he has been funding research for the nuclear scientist, Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina). Octavius's goal is to perfect fusion power, and he creates and operates a harness equipped with several long, windy robotic arms that seem to take on a mind of their own. Unfortunately, due to a series of disasters, the arms are now sewn to his spinal-cord and have corrupted his mind and are now influencing his decisions and actions. Dr. Octavius, who will later be known as "Doc Ock," serves as the main villain in the story, as one can expect.

Parker not only must try and defeat Doc Ock, but must figure out how to get his spidey-legs working again after numerous web malfunctions, and has just learned that Mary Jane is engaged to an acclaimed astronaut. And don't even get him started about how he must continue to comfort his Aunt May, who is still grieving over the loss of her husband and Peter's uncle, as well as telling her the real truth about his death.

Speaking as a sizable fan of the original Spider-Man, the one part I mentioned in my review was that Raimi showed Parker's newly-discovered powers to be all fun and games with no consequences or brewing agony. It was a chockablock of excitement for him, and never once did the story showcase how these powers would've inevitably burdened Parker with a barrage of responsibility and tribulations. It almost seems Raimi and the writers left that part out on purpose, so they could center the sequel primarily around the agony of being a superhero. If that was their plan, their have succeeded, because not only is this one of the most riveting and entertaining superhero films, it is also one of the deepest.

Tobey Maguire, returning as Parker, bleeds charm and confidence in the role of a character that just has the charm part down. With the new Amazing Spider-Man film just released about two weeks ago, boasting the relatively new star Andrew Garfield in the central role, I can't help but remind readers who I believe is the real Peter Parker. Maguire's Parker has mastered the role of a shy nerd who lacks any and all confidence. Garfield's character was still in that nerd-position, but he was far more secure in his witticisms and his confidence. To me, Peter Parker is and always will be a nerd. Regardless of how tight and brazen his costume is.

When it came down to the villain of the original Spider-Man, unlike many people, I was satisfied that it was the Green Goblin. If anything, Willem Dafoe portrayed the character in a lot more of an eerie light than I assume many others actors would've. Doc Ock is a more impressive villain in every sense. Quite possibly one of the most enticing to watch on screen. The Goblin, no matter which way you examine him, is a rather stock villain. Ock's robotic arms make for a never-ending line of possibilities and events, and the action sequences involving him are stylish and crafty, perfectly complimenting the film itself as a whole.

Spider-Man 2 is a shivering example at what makes a great superhero film. It shows us what most of us want, which is explicitly entertaining action scenes, and the something extra I hope most of us crave, which is the humanity and exploration of the character. To show Parker's powers as a burden to him was a brilliant move on screenwriter Alvin Sargent's part (who would later go on to write the third part of this franchise and be one of the three to construct the new one) and Sam Raimi's. With a brain in its head and style on its side, this is one hell of a ride.

Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Alfred Molina, Rosemary Harris, and Donna Murphy. Directed by: Sam Raimi.

[StevePulaski]

Spider-Man 3 (2007).
Rating: ★★

Never in any superhero film I have seen has a heroine or a love interest gotten in as much trouble as Mary Jane Watson, still played by Kirsten Dunst. If she's not in trouble, she's a whiny, impenetrably jealous woman with mood-swings on the dime. She becomes bent out of shape from one petty kiss Spider-Man shares with Gwen Stacy, who is in Peter Parker's chemistry class, after he is awarded the key to the city early on in the film. And if she's not whiny and jealous, she's dangling helplessly, "x" amount of feet from land in a vehicle secured by webs strung in all different directions. Oh, now where's that dirty, rotten, cheatin' Spider-Man when you need him?

Spider-Man 3 is a rather depressing and unsatisfying conclusion to a franchise that hit the ground running with its divine human scope, wonderfully colorful and cinematic special effects, and worthy performances from its entire cast. The original Spider-Man film was impeccably rewarding and undeniably entertaining, but more importantly, should be known as more than popcorn entertainment, but intelligent entertainment, with an appreciation and fondness for the human behind the mask and bearing it. Its sequel was even more impressive, depicting the agonies and the weight of being a College kid, a freelance photographer, a moderately-devoted romantic, a best friend, and a serene crime-fighting superhero all in a day's work. The stress on Peter Parker's shoulders was unbearable and the film, brilliantly written and directed, conveyed the angst and pressure perfectly.

With the first film being more about familiarity with powers and the second film being more about the struggle of the job, I contemplated what the third film would focus on. I imagine the writers, Alvin Sargent and the brothers Raimi, Sam and Ivan, did as well. Apparently, none of them were easy to agree, because Spider-Man 3 feels like someone had a plethora of ideas and shot in the dark with most of them. The film tirelessly juggles five stern subplots, while seemingly trying to incorporate more, to the point of cinematic confusion.

We are greeted again with Peter Parker, again, played by the effortlessly charismatic Tobey Maguire, who plans to romantically propose to the long-suffering Mary Jane Watson, who has just made her musical debut on Broadway. During their date, we see a strange, extraterrestrial symbiote crash-land on Earth and attach itself to the back of Parker's moped. Meanwhile, criminal Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), who will later become "The Sandman," has just escaped from prison, and is ostracized by his wife and daughter.

Before we go too much into that, the arrogant Harry Osborn (James Franco) returns and is infuriated at Peter Parker, who he believes is responsible for the death of his father in the first film. He carries on his dead father's orders to "avenge" him, and after a brazen fight in the New York City sky, Harry hits the ground hard and experiences short-term memory loss, making him forget his grudge towards Peter. He will inevitably regain his memory and transform into the "New Goblin."

Before we go too much into that, Peter is also facing some harsh competition at "The Daily Bugle" newspaper (which is still run by the strict J. Jonah Jameson, continued to be played fantastically by J.K. Simmons) when Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), another freelance photographer, is hired by Jameson to try and catch Spider-Man doing something that would turn the town against him. Grace, who I continue to dub an underrated talent in film, plays Brock with admirable conniving instincts, and when he later must force himself into the role of "Venom," he does a solid job for a villain so underwritten. Venom was a last minute addition to Spider-Man 3 and it greatly shows, since his story is given very minimal time to develop. The character of Brock, too, is only modestly fleshed-out, and his screen appearance is short when compared to the likes of Sandman and Osborn's "Goblin."

Before we go too much into that, we can't forget Mary Jane is struggling to get work in the enormous state of New York. She continues to plod along in the vaguest of limelights, desperately trying to achieve her dream as a consistent Broadway performer, but reality gives her hard slaps to the face and the film is sure to try and illustrate those.

And let's really not forget that symbiote that attached to Peter's moped and will eventually alter his personality by clinging to his body, giving his red spidey suit an unwanted black makeover. This will too turn the geeky, socially-awkward Parker into an over-confident, boastful cad with dark eyeshadow and a gothic-like persona.

There's Spider-Man 3 in the biggest nutshell I can find. I almost forgot to mention the redundancy in its sentimentality as well. This is without a doubt the sappiest Spider-Man extravaganza we've gotten and are likely to ever get from a film based on this character. Everybody offers some sort of advice to Peter, several characters shed tears, even the villains (which tremendously obscures how we're supposed to look at The Sandman in particular, with sympathy? Forgiveness? Or just nihilistic impulse because he's a villain?). Despite some extremely well-done effects work, easily making this the most visually impressive and eye-catching film in the series, the overwrought nature, the depressingly underdeveloped subplots, the shorthanded villain backstories, the repetitive sentimentality that creates an atmosphere more self-depreciating and mawkish than need be, and the needlessly emphasized issues that should've been left as subtle as possible, Spider-Man 3 is a big budget mess and a big budget disappointment.

Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, Bryce Dallas Howard, James Cromwell, Rosemary Harris, and J. K. Simmons. Directed by: Sam Raimi.

[Deleted]

I will admit that I actually liked SM3, but I do admit it had a good share of problems as you pointed out. Though, it was NOT truly awful and therefore it did not warrant a reboot. In fact, they could have just somehow ironed out the flaws of SM3 with a SM4. At least, that is my opinion.

What about you, Steve? Do you think that SM3 actually warranted the whole Spider-Man film franchise to be rebooted?

[patface1979]

My thing with Spider Man 3 is they put Venom in to early in the film other than that the seen with the Sandman being transformed was great the effects for the Sandman were other than that it was fairly descent!

[StevePulaski]

Jul 22, 2012 15:47:44 GMT -5 @jib said:

I will admit that I actually liked SM3, but I do admit it had a good share of problems as you pointed out. Though, it was NOT truly awful and therefore it did not warrant a reboot. In fact, they could have just somehow ironed out the flaws of SM3 with a SM4. At least, that is my opinion.

What about you, Steve? Do you think that SM3 actually warranted the whole Spider-Man film franchise to be rebooted?

Raimi and Maguire were attached to Spider-Man 4 for a long time, but opted out when Raimi couldn't construct the film by the deadline. The fourth film had to be cancelled and a reboot was proposed and greenlit. And of course a reboot wasn't justified. No statement will ever justify it. Just because the third film was sub-par doesn't make it okay to reboot and recreate another franchise for a film ten years old.

And Pat, my problem was that they added in Venom too late. Like they were getting going with Sandman and his story, and boom, another villain is introduced. It was such a rushed, impulsive decision.

[patface1979]

Jul 22, 2012 21:04:34 GMT -5 StevePulaski said:

Jul 22, 2012 15:47:44 GMT -5 @jib said:

I will admit that I actually liked SM3, but I do admit it had a good share of problems as you pointed out. Though, it was NOT truly awful and therefore it did not warrant a reboot. In fact, they could have just somehow ironed out the flaws of SM3 with a SM4. At least, that is my opinion.

What about you, Steve? Do you think that SM3 actually warranted the whole Spider-Man film franchise to be rebooted?

Raimi and Maguire were attached to Spider-Man 4 for a long time, but opted out when Raimi couldn't construct the film by the deadline. The fourth film had to be cancelled and a reboot was proposed and greenlit. And of course a reboot wasn't justified. No statement will ever justify it. Just because the third film was sub-par doesn't make it okay to reboot and recreate another franchise for a film ten years old.

And Pat, my problem was that they added in Venom too late. Like they were getting going with Sandman and his story, and boom, another villain is introduced. It was such a rushed, impulsive decision.

That's what I was Trying to say the Sandman story arch was good but the fans had to have Venom in it! It almost made movie nearly self-destuct like Batman & Robin with to many Heroes and Villians!