The first Spider-Man film is still, in my mind, one of the best superhero films out there. The storyline is simple but effective, the cast is excellent, the action fantastic, and there is something awe inspiring about seeing Spider-Man come to life on screen for the first time. Tobey Maguire is very likable as Peter Parker, and manages to convey the shyness that pervades the character as well as his intelligence and awkwardness.
The rest of the cast, from Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane and James Franco's Harry Osborn, to Rosemarry Harris's Aunt May and Cliff Robertson's Uncle Ben, all do a magnificent job of bringing Peter's friends and family to life. However, performance wise I must give significant praise to Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborn/Green Goblin and J.K. Simmons' J. Jonah Jameson. Simmons is a standout, both in this film and its two sequels, and brings an enormous amount of humor to the film. Dafoe's Green Goblin makes for a credible antagonist, delivering an over the top performance that is nonetheless threatening.
While the cast may shine, there are some aspects of the film that seem extremely dated after only ten years. The action, while still effective, suffers from CGI that doesn't quite hold up now as it did back then. The citizens of New York seem too overtly friendly, but then again this was released in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, so I guess I can let that slide. And then, of course, there's the Green Goblin suit. While I love what Dafoe brought to the character, the look of the Goblin is probably the biggest detriment to the film. Dafoe may come off as scary, but the costume does not. When Spidey and the Goblin fight, it feels like something from a Saturday morning cartoon. In a time when hero/villain battles are becoming increasingly more sophisticated on film, these battles seem rather childish by comparison.
However, as a piece of nostalgia, the film still works, not to mention it still does a fantastic job of portraying the origin of Spider-Man and, by the end, is just as effective as a standalone film as it is setting up for its sequels. Fans waited forty years to see this iconic hero brought to life, and for the first film ever to feature the character, it does a more than capable job of introducing him to new generations while remaining true to what makes him so appealing in the first place.
I am in love with this film. Even eight years after seeing it for the first time, this film still largely holds up and is easily the best of the Raimi trilogy. All the major cast members return and give more layered performances, while the plot goes deeper into the mythos and serves as a logical extension of the plot threads left dangling in the first film. In terms of the villain, Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus is a much better antagonist than the Green Goblin. Not only is Molina pitch perfect as Doc Ock, visually he is much more threatening than the silly look of the Goblin. He gives the film a tangible threat, and the battles between him and Spidey are the highlights not only of the film, but of the entire trilogy. They still hold up almost a decade later.
That is not to say it's completely perfect, or devoid of criticism. Mary Jane's fiance, John Jameson, has no real personality or character to him, which is puzzling considering his father is by far the trilogy's most memorable character. The romance could be developed better, since Peter's insistence on staying away from MJ plays out as being too angsty. That said, Peter's motivations for quitting Spider-Man and resuming the mantle are excellent, and all around the film is near flawless. Maybe it's nostalgia talking, but I honestly can't find a lot to complain about this film. It still holds up for me whenever I watch it, and I get completely sucked in to the problems facing these characters. This is one of those rare examples in cinema where the sequel is actually better than the original. It improves on its predecessor in every way, and I couldn't enjoy it more.
I have very mixed feelings when it comes to this film. It is certainly the weakest of the Raimi films; that much is certain. However, there is a dedicated fanbase online who claims that this movie is the next Batman and Robin. While there are scenes and plot elements that certainly support this claim, even after seeing it again I can't say I hate this film the same way I hate that aforementioned stain on the Batman legacy.
The problems plaguing the film definitely stem from having too many plot threads going on at once. While the last two films were building to a confrontation between Peter and Harry, this movie shoves it to the sidelines to make room for new plots involving Sandman and Venom, who frankly are underdeveloped and don't come off as worthy antagonists, even though they both look fantastic. Venom in particular gets the shaft, with the symbiote storyline thrown in haphazardly and ultimately made a mockery of with the little song and dance number midway through the film, not only ruining Venom but making Peter into the world's biggest jackass as well. Giving the most popular Spider-Man villain fifteen minutes of screen time comes off as glorified fanservice, and ruins what could have been potentially the best story arc to run through the Spider-Man films.
The excuse to put Sandman into the movie completely rewrites the perfectly fine origin set up for Spidey in the first film, and as a result the villain Raimi obviously cared about the most comes off as more of a victim for Spidey to use as a punching bag than a legitimate threat to worry about. Harry's storyline is not given the justice it deserves, with Harry going from villain to best friend back and forth multiple times without any sense of conviction, not to mention his motivation towards the end is the result of another pointless retcon of the first film.
Not only do the villain storylines fall flat, but the romance between Peter and MJ that was so poignant the first two times plays more like a bad soap opera here. The chemistry between the leads is gone, replaced with excessive whining and a sense of tiredness between the actors. Multiple times did I ask myself: "are these two really in love? Is MJ really so perfect Peter would risk his life three consecutive times to save her?" The introduction of the Stacys feels pointless, as neither Gwen or her father are given much to do and we never get to really know them as characters.
When I first saw this film in theaters I loved it, but multiple viewings really exposed the flaws to me. So when reviewing a film like this, knowing full well it has a lot of things going against it, I have to ask myself is there anything good about it? What redeems this film in my eyes? Well, while Sandman and Venom may not have been done right as characters, their origin sequences are still fantastic, not only as CGI showcases but the only real insights we get into them as characters. I understand Eddie Brock's shame at being humiliated in the church, and when the symbiote envelopes him the transformation feels real: instantly he feels a rush in power and embraces the chance for vengeance.
Sandman's transformation, on the other hand, highlights the differences between him and Venom in that he doesn't want this power, but after seeing the monster he becomes decides to use it for the sake of his daughter. It's a beautiful sequence that I love watching. In addition, the action scenes are still breathtakilng, and J.K. Simmons' Jameson is still hilarious to watch. Overall, I'd say that the film has a couple amazing moments, but ultimately it's let down by the fact that it consists of moments only, and unlike the last two doesn't work as a cohesive whole due to all the plot points running around. The amount of story in this film alone had the potential for two movies, but Raimi's and the studio's insistence that all the plots be shoved into one film to give the series closure doomed it to mediocrity. It has enough moments that make me see the potential it had, but ultimately I can't call it a good film. Not terrible, not the worst ever, but not up to the level of the first two, and a definite disappointment. No wonder Sony decided to reboot after the film's reception. Speaking of which...
I already posted my review of this film, so there's no need to go into detail about what I thought about the story, the action, or the characters. There is, however, a need to finally talk about how this film compares to the original trilogy, and whether or not I think it's better, worse, or simply just as good acting as an alternative interpretation of the character.
In a lot of ways, "Amazing" is a vast improvement over its predecessors. Webb may not have the love and passion for Spider-Man that Sam Raimi had, but he certainly knows how to find the raw emotion that drives the Spider-Man mythos. Andrew Garfield is an infinitely better Peter Parker and Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire, since he captures the intelligence and humor of the character better than Maguire did. The Stacys feel like actual characters this time around, as opposed to SM3, and Gwen has infinitely better chemistry with Garfield than Maguire did with Dunst, not to mention Gwen actually contributes to helping defeat the Lizard instead of acting as a hostage. The Lizard, speaking of which, is a worthy antagonist. While I still think Doc Ock is the best film villain for the strength of his performance and character arc, Lizard was both visually intimidating and a great sympathetic character, so I would put him just above Goblin in terms of his effectiveness as a villain.
However, the comparison I think is most important is how effective is this film as an origin compared to the original. Is this, ultimately, a better character arc for Peter than the first movie? I think so. While the first film adapted the origin from the comics exactly, the new film has Peter learn the importance of responsibility through direct action, instead of feeling guilty for failing to stop his uncle's killer. New Peter still lets the killer get away, but instead of wallowing in grief and immediately using his powers selflessly, he goes on a revenge spree until the bridge incident, which forces him to realize he needs to be more responsible with his gifts. New Peter initially thinks he can honor his uncle by taking in the guy who killed him, but comes to realize it's better to embody his ideals on responsibility. The same story arc, only told with more emotional resonance and realism. I felt like New Peter went on a better journey and experienced more growth than the old Peter did, and for that reason I realize that this film is better than the first film as an origin tale.
Now don't get me wrong: I still love the old films, and the origin from the first film is still well told. However, the new origin seems more realistic from a contemporary point of view, and portrays a Peter that is not only more likable but struggles with real world problems. We get a better sense as to why an ordinary teenager would devote his life to superheroism. The first film was good as an introduction to the Spider-Man character and selling the epic grandeur of his world, but the new film is better at exploring relationships and experiences between characters. In my mind, it is better than the first and third films, and just as good as Spider-Man 2. The original trilogy was good for its time, and while some might consider the reboot premature, I am fully on board with this new iteration of Peter Parker. Compared to the first three, the new film is a worthy entry in the Spider-Man series that is deserving of carrying on the original trilogy's legacy. It is ready to tell a new story with an old character, one that may outshine the originals but doesn't negate the impact of what came before, or the significance.
No comments:
Post a Comment