Hi folks! So with Spider-Man Homecoming on the horizon, which I'm dying to see, I figured it'd be a great time to go back and review the Spider-Man movies of the past. So to start things off let's dive back into the original Spidey trilogy directed by Sam Raimi, which ran from May of 2002 to May of 2007. Without further ado let's delve back into the cinematic beginnings of our friendly neighborhood hero.
SPIDER-MAN (2002)
This was actually one of the first films that got me hooked into the superhero genre. I remember friends of mine talking up superhero movies and Spider-Man was always brought up in the conversation. Luckily around that time, which I believe was the summer of 2008, TNT had been playing re-runs of the first Spider-Man movie. I remember finally watching it having it saved on the DVR, fell in love with it, and must've watched 2 or 3 times there. I then finally owned the DVD and then watching it multiple times after that and now I own the Blu-Ray in all of its glory. So if you couldn't tell I've been a fan of this specific movie and its sequels as a preteen/teenager and after all these years my enjoyment of this first Spider-Man film is still present and in my eyes still holds up. Now, this movie can be seen as campy fun, which it is in its own right, but that's one of the reasons why I love it. It just really gives it that great, fun comic book feel, which actually blends seamlessly to the much darker and dramatic elements.
I love Tobey Maguire as this incarnation of Peter Parker because he's very lovable and sweet, but at the same time he's more courageous and heroic when he needs to be. Just to see him grow on this journey to become a better hero, but also a better person was just such a profound element that was executed perfectly. I also really loved Willem Dafoe as Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin and to see his inner conflict and how broken he became definitely reminds me of Gollum from Lord of the Rings. Obviously, he talks to himself like Gollum, but they share the same kind of brokenness and I loved seeing how Dafoe conveyed that through his performance with such a really well written and layered character.
I loved the direction Raimi took with this first story and how he established these characters and set the tone for this world. It was as perfect of an origin story needed to be with maybe little gray inconsistencies here and there. Inconsistencies like how before Peter became Spider-Man he's swinging around the city and nobody notices. Just little things like that are a little peculiar, but other than that this film still holds up well and is definitely one of the greats in the comic book genre.
Verdict: A
SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004)
As if the first Spider-Man didn't already give comic book/superhero films a great name, it's continuation does such a fantastic job to top its predecessor and truly become one of those films to transcend its genre. I feel the reason why Spider-Man 2 succeeds is because it really had a true understanding of Peter Parker as a person and that even though he may be a hero and helping thousands of civilians, his life isn't all too glamorous. Life doesn't necessarily become perfect for him, but in a way being a hero makes things worse and to view that aspect from such a well understood human perspective made the film feel so relatable and very believable.
This film was a very personal, human story and to just see how its handled through Peter in such a grounded manner left me speechless. I've seen this film multiple times and I still can't believe how emotionally impactful this film is being merely based on a comic book franchise. Yes, it's amazing to see Spidey in action and the brilliant action sequences between him and Doc Ock, but the idea that this film is more of a character piece and is trying to have you read into more of the inner meanings of why Peter has to go through certain changes in his lifestyle that became challenges for him is astoundingly profound.
I just love that this is a superhero film that's thought provoking and not all about the spectacle even though that aspect complements the story being told. I mention Doc Ock earlier, who was another great well-realized broken villain played brilliantly by Alfred Molina. I loved how he acted as a threat in this film and how there was always a time he conflicted with another person Peter cared about, which leads into my next praise. Seeing the growth and even deteriorations of the relationships Peter had with Mary Jane, Aunt May, and Harry called for great character development for those characters. And through them you also saw how that affected Peter and how he built off of said relationships as a person. Spider-Man 2 is an incredibly clever film at its heart because even though we like what's outside the mask, it was really about what was on the inside. It's not about who he was underneath, but what he does that defines him...wrong movie.
Verdict: A+
SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007)
Yeah this is the one that not a lot of people like very much, in fact people consider this to be one of the worst comic book films of all time. I don't hate Spider-Man 3 like most people yet I don't think it's a good film either, but to call it one of the worst in this genre is quite a stretch in my opinion. I actually feel this film has its moments because for one you can't deny Sam Raimi's direction isn't there if we're talking from a visual perspective. This movie looks and sounds as great as it could and has some pretty entertaining action sequences. The performances are all still there too considering the original cast doesn't give the impression they're phoning it in. I also think the newer additions were adequate with Thomas Hayden Church as Flint Marco/Sandman, Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom (well maybe not so much the Venom part), Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy and even James Cromwell as Captain Stacy. I think the talent is there to tell the story with those actors in place, but the story itself is the definition of a disappointment.
My biggest issue with Spider-Man 3 like a lot of fans was that it was trying to do too much in one film. There were multiple subplots included that it just felt like there were other ideas out there for great stories shoehorned into one movie. New Goblin should have been the villain for this film and that's it. The next film should've been Sandman to tie everything together and then Venom maybe could've closed things out nicely. Venom was underutilized in this film because he felt like an after thought and to have a great length of the movie about Peter poisoned by the symbiote wasn't warranted and very silly. Like just seeing the goofy dance scenes with Peter I just asked myself "Is this the best they could've done with this movie?"
And yes I am aware this film had a lot of studio interference and the reason why Venom was an afterthought was because the studio wanted Venom to be in this movie instead of probably a great vision Raimi wanted to make. You can see hints of potential in some of the story elements, but the film just became too overstuffed. All that said, I thought how the film concluded was actually kind of brilliant, specifically the last five minutes without spoiling anything. Some of the character motivations didn't make sense, the story wasn't entirely focused, which made things frustrating, but visual talent and performances still were of quality enough to get me through this film.
Verdict: C
So those are my thoughts on the Sam Raimi directed Spider-Man trilogy and yes it's a bit depressing to see it end on a low note. Now, I'll see how the next couple films pan out for Spidey next week when I share with you my thoughts on both The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2. First time seeing those two and I look forward to sharing with you my first impressions. Look forward to that, guys, and as always be sure to follow me in the social media links below for more updates:
Twitter and Instagram: @alexjcorey
Thank you guys so much for taking the time to read my Spider-Man retrospective! It's been an absolute blast and as always be sure to see some movies and all that good stuff!
Take care. :-)
Comments