
A year ago this summer the world saw the third installment of the live-action Spider-man movies hit the movie theaters world-wide, with an unprecedented hype machine working for it, Spider-man 3 was supposed to be the ultimate superhero movie. Long story short; it wasn't. By any stretch of the imagination.
Now I find myself immersed in plenty of new and old Spidey reference material through my local book and comic stores, and I have to say all three movies could have been so much better.
The character of Spider-man is the wise-cracking jester of the Marvel universe. Spidey is also a pretty smart arachnid. In the comics he creates his web-shooters, he figures out how to defeat his opponents with his wits, not his brawn, or by complete happenstance-as seen in all three movies. The Sam Raimi directed Spider-man films have grossed well over $1 billion globally. But if you dig into what Raimi is actually putting on his scripts and transferring to the screen you may see things a bit differently.
First- Raimi's magnum opus prior to the Spider-man series was the Evil Dead trilogy. A series that was originally premised as a horror franchise that quickly became a comedy/thriller (loose terminology on "thriller.") Raimi-much like Tim Burton- is unwilling to evolve his shooting style, which is very evident in Spider-man 2 when Doctor Octopus' (Alfred Molina) grafted extremities kill the doctors preparing for his autopsy. The camera movements and cuts are almost precisely the same as a scene in Evil Dead 2.
You can argue that it was an homage to his earlier work, blah, blah, blah. But why does he have to give himself an homage? Why does the "birth of Doc Ock" have to come with a scene from Evil Dead? Why not create something new?
Throughout the movie series there seems to be one constant thing with the character of Spider-man: he's a mute!
Part of the tactics employed by the comic version of Spider-man is to aggravate his foe to the point where they will make a costly mistake. In the movies? Spider-man never does anything to the opposition, they set up a trap and it backfires due to either his "spider sense" (ala spidey 1,) a revelation by the villain (spidey 2,) or just accepting an apology (Sandman in the third film.) So it would seem the only villain who was actually defeated was Venom (who was not actually even named in the film) and how is Venom defeated? By a bomb that Harry brought with him on his flying snowboard.
Now let's divulge ourselves a little deeper into the psyche of the movie villains. Most obviously with all of the villains in Raimi's Spider-man films is the idea that they all should be personally connected to Peter somehow.
First The Green Goblin: Connection- Peter's best friends' father.
The Lowdown: The casting of Willem Defoe as Norman Osborn/GG was excellent. The voice of the Goblin was creepy. As Norman, Defoe made you believe he was a huge jerk. The costume, however, was a total joke.
A genetically enhanced, and mentally torn Norman Osborn who, after having his funding threatened to be pulled by some bias jerk of a military leader was forced to test his formula for strength enhancements in humans on himself. The trials of the serum proved the formula to not be ready for human testing, causing increased aggression and insanity. But in his desperation Osborn tested the serum on himself, thus creating the Green Goblin.
We can't really blame Norman Osborn for wanting to save his company, can we? So is he really a bad guy? Or someone who was pushed to a drastic measure and suffered the consequences of someone else being a d-bag to him?
Next we have
Dr. Otto Octavious/Doctor Octopus: Connection- One of Peter's role models. Peter meets Otto and his wife, Rose, through Harry and really connects with them
The Lowdown: Played by Alfred Molina, who also performed the role very well, but as my good friend Matt has pointed out in his blog (http://anotherdamncomicblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/its-almost-like-its-2004-all-over-again.html) Doc Ock is really at no fault of his own because, for whatever reason, his arms have some artificial intelligence and thanks to a "neural inhibitor" Dr. Octavious is able to manipulate the arms to do his will. But after the accident that grafts the arms to his body, the inhibitor is broken and the arms begin to take control of his mind.
Can Octavious be blamed? I don't think so, he's a grieving widower who only wants to see his life's work completed. Whereas the arms for some reason, as are all artificially intelligent beings apparently, are evil.
It is, nonetheless, in the first meeting between Spider-man and Doc Ock, during a bank robbery, that we get just the second time in the series where Spider-man makes a witty remark by shouting "Here's your change" at the villain while throwing back a bag of... Change. Right!
In the third installment we find Spider-man facing three, maybe four (if you stretch the main "moral" of the movie, which the fourth villain would be Peter, himself) villains the New Goblin/Harry Osborn, the Sandman and Venom/symbiote.
We will discuss this villains in order of appearance
First we have
New Goblin/Harry: Connection- Peter's best friend
The Lowdown:Having discovered Spider-man is actually his best friend, Peter Parker, Harry has had one motive since the first movie: Avenge his father, Norman, by killing Spider-man.
At the end of Spider-man 2 Harry discovered his father's old "Goblin Lair" Harry takes his inheritance and runs with it. Modifying his father's original goblin designs into his own style.
With continuity errors aside (why doesn't the "Goblin Juice" make Harry go insane?) Harry can't be blamed for wanting to avenge his father, can he?
Next we have The Sandman/Flint Marko: Connection- Marko is discovered to be the actual shooter of Peter's Uncle Ben
An escaped convict Marko falls into a particle accelerator full of sand while on the run and is turned into the Sandman (this is probably the best scene from Spider-man 3)
Marko leads a life of crime as a way to get money to help his sick daughter, which makes his life of crime okay.
Finally we have Venom/Eddie Brock/symbiote: The connection- Eddie is a competing photographer with Peter at the Daily Bugle. The symbiote had originally been with Peter, creating the black Spidey costume.
The Lowdown: Venom is created when Peter ditches the symbiote at a church where Eddie Brock is praying for the death of Parker. The symbiote quickly finds itself on Brock, thus creating Venom
Venom is about the only real villain who is being bad, just for the sake of being bad. But he does also have a vendetta against Spider-man/Parker, so he is kind of justified.
The final part of this rant goes towards the casting of the recurring characters and the montages of the films.
Tobey Maguire; a soft spoken actor who does a great job preparing for roles, but could not emote on screen to save his life. As Peter Parker/Spider-man Maguire has found stardom. But this is a hollow victory due to the fact that his stardom is due the fact that he has the role, not his portrayal of Marvel Comics cornerstone character.
Kirsten Dunst; how she landed this role, no one will ever know! Her biggest role before landing this one was when she was 12 years old. Her portrayal of Peter/Spider-man's biggest supporter is a slap in the face to creators Steve Ditko and Stan Lee. The Mary Jane on screen is nothing short of a prima donna, even though she hasn't accomplished anything yet.
James Franco as Harry Osborn is easily the best casting decision to the main cast members of the Spider-man series. He looks like he could be the song of Willem Defoe (aka Norman Osborn) and is a solid actor.
Finally the montages need to end!
The "Rain Drops Keep Falling on My Head" montage in Spider-man 2 was quite funny. But it was pushed to it's limit in the third installment during Peter's "dark phase" with his Saturday Night Fever strut.
All-in-all with a regrading of the Spider-man movies they go from the first installment to the most recent go as such:
Spider-man : C
Spider-man 2: C+
Spider-man 3: D



