|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 20, 2021 10:17:38 GMT -5
Ahoy! And with all the grace of a perfectly crafted spider elegantly descending down a gossamer thread of silk I return to scribbling some stuff about movies. In this case I'm going to take on a bunch of Spider-man movies, or in fact more accurately, all of the 21st century ones. To be specific: MaguireVerseSpider-Man (2002)Spider-Man 2 (2004)Spider-Man 3 (2007)GarfieldVerseThe Amazing Spider-Man (2012)The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)Captain America: Civil War - Co-starring ganews HollandVerseSpider-Man - Homecoming (2017)Spider-Man - Far From Home (2019)SpiderVerseVerseInto The SpiderVerse (2018)Into The SpiderVerse 2 (2022?) Maybe Some Other Spidey Stuff, Perhaps I'm not going to cover every Marvel movie that Tom Holland is in because life's too short. And as always I shall be dispensing with the twin straightjackets of objectivity and fan consensus. I'll be following these categories: Pre-Existing Prejudices What's It All About, Proley? Any Other Business In Conclusion Script v Length - More Or Less? How Convincing Does This Webslinger Look? Villainometer - How Does This Movie's Plan Seem And How Goes The Costuming? What Else Happened in [YEAR OF RELEASE] Rankings Feel free to suggest other possibilities in the comments as always!
|
|
|
Post by Superb Owl š¦ on Jan 20, 2021 10:20:56 GMT -5
Ahoy. And with all the grace of a perfectly crafted spider elegantly descending down a gossamer thread of silk I return to scribbling some stuff about movies. In this case I'm going to take on a bunch of Spider-man movies, or in fact more accurately, all of the 21st century ones. To be specific: MaguireVerseSpider-man (2002) Spider-man 2 (2004) Spider-man 3 (2007) GarfieldVerseThe Amazing Spider-Man (2012) The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) HollandVerseSpider-man - Homecoming (2017) Spider-man - Far From Home (2019) SpiderVerseInto The SpiderVerse (2018) Into The SpiderVerse 2 (2022?) Maybe Some Other Spidey Stuff, Perhaps I'm not going to cover every Marvel movie that Tom Holland is in because life's too short. And as always I shall be dispensing with the twin straightjackets of objectivity and fan consensus. I'll be following these categories: Pre-Existing Prejudices What's It All About, Proley? Any Other Business In Conclusion What Percentage Of This Movie Could Be Cut? How Convincing Does This Webslinger Look? MJ - Yay Or Nay? Villainometer - How Does This Movie's Plan Seem? Rankings Feel free to suggest other possibilities in the comments as always! I DEMAND you include the 1977 TV movie and Japanese Spider-Man
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 20, 2021 10:24:46 GMT -5
Ahoy. And with all the grace of a perfectly crafted spider elegantly descending down a gossamer thread of silk I return to scribbling some stuff about movies. In this case I'm going to take on a bunch of Spider-man movies, or in fact more accurately, all of the 21st century ones. To be specific: MaguireVerseSpider-man (2002) Spider-man 2 (2004) Spider-man 3 (2007) GarfieldVerseThe Amazing Spider-Man (2012) The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) HollandVerseSpider-man - Homecoming (2017) Spider-man - Far From Home (2019) SpiderVerseInto The SpiderVerse (2018) Into The SpiderVerse 2 (2022?) Maybe Some Other Spidey Stuff, Perhaps I'm not going to cover every Marvel movie that Tom Holland is in because life's too short. And as always I shall be dispensing with the twin straightjackets of objectivity and fan consensus. I'll be following these categories: Pre-Existing Prejudices What's It All About, Proley? Any Other Business In Conclusion What Percentage Of This Movie Could Be Cut? How Convincing Does This Webslinger Look? MJ - Yay Or Nay? Villainometer - How Does This Movie's Plan Seem? Rankings Feel free to suggest other possibilities in the comments as always! I DEMAND you include the 1977 TV movie and Japanese Spider-Man If I am not burned out by the end of it both are under consideration for Maybe Some Other Spidey Stuff, Perhaps.
|
|
Rainbow Rosa
TI Forumite
not gay, just colorful
Posts: 3,604
|
Post by Rainbow Rosa on Jan 20, 2021 14:44:28 GMT -5
Please review this.
Also, to avoid confusion, please refer to what is currently referred to in your first post as the "SpiderVerse" as the "SpiderVerseVerse."
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jan 20, 2021 14:51:40 GMT -5
While you're at it, 3 Dev Adam is available on Youtube in full.....
|
|
|
Post by [Citrus] on Jan 20, 2021 17:51:17 GMT -5
Controversial opinion: Andrew Garfield is a better Spider Man than Tobey Maguire but his movies are way worse.
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 21, 2021 6:56:13 GMT -5
Controversial opinion: Andrew Garfield is a better Spider Man than Tobey Maguire but his movies are way worse. I have actually never seen seen either of the GarfieldVerse movies, nor do I think I've even seen a clip or trailer of them. So I am very curious. And worried.
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jan 21, 2021 19:57:42 GMT -5
Feel free to suggest other possibilities in the comments as always! Loose suggestions
I feel that "What Percentage Of This Movie Could Be Cut?" is not a good metric for the Spider-Movies. There just isn't a lot of obvious fat the way there is for Bond movies as an institution, give or take a Macy Gray.
As MJ doesn't feature at all in 4-5 movies on the list and isn't the primary love interest in one movie where she is featured (Aunt May is a more consistent fixture), I wouldn't make a categorical focus on her or even the relevant love interest. I suggest basing the category on the strength of the supporting cast generally, which will be a rich subject throughout.
I would appreciate a discussion of villain costuming just as much as This Webslinger, and it changes every movie.
It would be a disservice not to include a review of Captain America: Civil War, or at least the relevant and conveniently sequential scenes, among the Hollandverse. It includes a significant Parker introduction, introduction of the third Aunt May, character focus in the big airport fight, explanation (or lack thereof) as to his origin story, explanation of the unique suit designs in this iteration, and so forth. This accomplished in less than 15 minutes of screen time what would have taken 45 minutes in any of the previous movies and contributes immensely to Homecoming. It was all a Big Deal. MCU movies usually tag the end with "[the character titling this movie] will return" but this time it was "Spider-Man will return".
Supposedly the HollandVerse is producing a third movie that actually is some kind of multi-verse thing, so there's that too.
Yeah, I'm going to have a lot to write about each of these movies myself.
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 22, 2021 7:42:19 GMT -5
Feel free to suggest other possibilities in the comments as always! Loose suggestions
I feel that "What Percentage Of This Movie Could Be Cut?" is not a good metric for the Spider-Movies. There just isn't a lot of obvious fat the way there is for Bond movies as an institution, give or take a Macy Gray.
As MJ doesn't feature at all in 4-5 movies on the list and isn't the primary love interest in one movie where she is featured (Aunt May is a more consistent fixture), I wouldn't make a categorical focus on her or even the relevant love interest. I suggest basing the category on the strength of the supporting cast generally, which will be a rich subject throughout.
I would appreciate a discussion of villain costuming just as much as This Webslinger, and it changes every movie.
It would be a disservice not to include a review of Captain America: Civil War, or at least the relevant and conveniently sequential scenes, among the Hollandverse. It includes a significant Parker introduction, introduction of the third Aunt May, character focus in the big airport fight, explanation (or lack thereof) as to his origin story, explanation of the unique suit designs in this iteration, and so forth. This accomplished in less than 15 minutes of screen time what would have taken 45 minutes in any of the previous movies and contributes immensely to Homecoming. It was all a Big Deal. MCU movies usually tag the end with "[the character titling this movie] will return" but this time it was "Spider-Man will return".
Supposedly the HollandVerse is producing a third movie that actually is some kind of multi-verse thing, so there's that too.
Yeah, I'm going to have a lot to write about each of these movies myself.
Fair enough about MJ - I think of all the "traditional" Spider-man characters she's been the one that's been hardest to get right, which is why I was going to focus on her, but yeah I'll expand it out to the supporting cast in general. I'll modify the How Much Of This Movie Can Be Cut to Script vs Length - More Or Less? I'll discuss the Marvel movies that Holland is in but I really don't want to do full reviews of them because I don't have that much to say and, airport scene aside, Civil War isn't really that high up my list. Wanna guest spot it for me after TASM2? Rainbow Rosa - modified, as requested.
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Jan 22, 2021 10:06:06 GMT -5
I'll discuss the Marvel movies that Holland is in but I really don't want to do full reviews of them because I don't have that much to say and, airport scene aside, Civil War isn't really that high up my list. Wanna guest spot it for me after TASM2? I would be happy to! Wouldn't bother with the other Avengers movies, they aren't integral in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 22, 2021 12:53:18 GMT -5
I'll discuss the Marvel movies that Holland is in but I really don't want to do full reviews of them because I don't have that much to say and, airport scene aside, Civil War isn't really that high up my list. Wanna guest spot it for me after TASM2? I would be happy to! Wouldn't bother with the other Avengers movies, they aren't integral in the same way. Then you will slide nicely in between Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland... *wanders off into own fantasy*
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jan 23, 2021 9:34:19 GMT -5
Controversial opinion: Andrew Garfield is a better Spider Man than Tobey Maguire but his movies are way worse. I have actually never seen seen either of the GarfieldVerse movies, nor do I think I've even seen a clip or trailer of them. So I am very curious. And worried. Have you heard of video games Prole? The first of the Garfield Spider Men at least (haven't seen the second) is essentially a long video game cutscene. It possesses the bare minimum of competence required to be just dull and forgettable rather than memorably bad. Also Prole, please review the 90s TV show version of Spider-Man. And the panel-a-day newspaper comic strip Spider Man in its entirety.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jan 23, 2021 15:20:21 GMT -5
I have actually never seen seen either of the GarfieldVerse movies, nor do I think I've even seen a clip or trailer of them. So I am very curious. And worried. Have you heard of video games Prole? The first of the Garfield Spider Men at least (haven't seen the second) is essentially a long video game cutscene. It possesses the bare minimum of competence required to be just dull and forgettable rather than memorably bad. Also Prole, please review the 90s TV show version of Spider-Man. And the panel-a-day newspaper comic strip Spider Man in its entirety. Also every Spider-Man comic ever, all of the toys, and at least 10% of children's drawings of Spider-Man.
|
|
|
Post by MyNameIsNoneOfYourGoddamnBusin on Jan 23, 2021 17:58:24 GMT -5
I also expect a review of that U2 Broadway version which existed for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 24, 2021 6:28:30 GMT -5
I also expect a review of that U2 Broadway version which existed for some reason. Ha!
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 24, 2021 10:42:19 GMT -5
Slightly modified the categories, dropping Supporting Cast (because they're going to be discussed enough in In Conclusion) and replacing with What Else Happened In [YEAR OF RELEASE], and I've added in ganews covering Civil war. First entry will be sometime this week.
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 26, 2021 5:18:26 GMT -5
Spider-Man (2002) And so we begin with Tobey Maguireās first outing as the webslinger. But does the movie stand up after nearly two decades? Pre-existing Prejudices: Iāve seen it and liked it but not forā¦ fifteen years maybe? I have faintly warm feelings lingering but Iāve not seen any of the MaguireVerse since the debut of the MCU which now exerts such a cultural gravitational pull on any superhero movie itās impossible not to have it distort things. Still, Iām looking forward to this. Whatās It All About, Proley?
Two hoursā worth of origin story for a character everyone already knows the origin of. Peter Parker is bitten by a spider (not explicitly radioactive here, merely āgenetically engineeredā) and becomes Spider-Man, with all the powers a mopey teenager can muster. Heās pining for Mary Jane while the story moves slowly forward, but you surely know all the beats. Uncle Ben dies, āwith great power comes great responsibilityā, starts fighting crime, yadda yadda. Meanwhile Norman Osborn gets kicked off the board of his company and becomes the Green Goblin, apparently in an effort to stop a Macy Gray concert. Normanās son, Harry, happens to be Peterās best friend but doesnāt know his secret identity, so cue lots of āI hate Spider-Man for killing my daddyā angst at the end of the movie when Spider-Man does just that. Kind of. It all ends with Peter accepting the fact that heās going to be Spider-Man, as thereās a sequel in the works. Any Other Business:
- Those are some long-ass credits the film opens with.
- The most obvious thing to say here is how well cast the movie is. Tobey Maguire isnāt remotely convincing as an actual teenager but heās a terrific Peter Parker, a disturbingly young James Franco strikes just the right note of petulance and, naturally, Willem DaFoe is simply inspired as the Green Goblin.
- Quick shout out, also, to Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben. He gets very little screen-time but his death still packs a wallop because the character comes across as so warm and likeable. It helps that heās a bit more low-profile than, for example, Kevin Costner as Pa Kent in the Snyder Superman movies (not that Costner is bad, he isnāt, but he pulls focus in a way thatās not really helpful to either the character or movies).
- Mary Jane really gets short shrift in this movie, existing almost solely to be desired/fought over over by male characters. Kirsten Dunst gets very little chance to stamp any personality on her at all.
- Of course the Spider-Man theme from the 70ās cartoon series is here. Of course it is.
- Thereās a metric fucktonne of product placement in this movie, to the point where you wonder if theyāre actually taking the piss. Macy Gray is perhaps the most conspicuous example (and nothing screams 2002 more than a Macy Gray concert) but it feels like thereās barely a shot that doesnāt have some kind of logo or brand name shoehorned on screen.
- DaFoe is, as mentioned, excellent as the Green Goblin, but shout-out to his costume as well, which works really well. Thereās a few scenes where you can see DaFoeās jaw moving as he talks behind the mast and itās really quite disconcerting.
- This movieās Bruce Campbell cameo ā a wrestling referee as Peter tries to earn some money by becoming āThe Human Spiderā. Given this forum, I believe I would be remiss not to mention Macho Man Randy Savageās appearance also, so consider that done.
- Raimi gets a cameo in the crowd scene, throwing popcorn at Peter.
- Stan Lee gets a cameo too, and itās approximately two seconds long and very different from how things will be done once the MCU comes along.
Some of the material definitely walks up to the line of being corny but mostly stays the right side of it. MJ ā whose entire character appears to consist of little more than āfemaleā ā gets the bulk of this, falling for Spider-Man as per usual, but it mostly works. And the upside-down kiss is pretty much a classic.
- The end fight works well, the defeat of the Green Goblin feel earned and the fact that he kills himself rather than Spider-Man killing him is effective. As, indeed, is him pleading with Spider-Man not to tell his son who he was, a nice touch. DaFoe remains excellent throughout, but itās in those final few scenes that the value of having him there becomes clear.
- And it all ends at Norman / The Green Goblinās funeral, with James Francoās Harry swearing revenge and blaming Spider-Man for the death of his father. Which is fine.
- Astonishingly, this was Sonyās highest-ever grossing movie domestically until 2018 when it was outpaced by, of all things, Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle. It was also the highest-grossing superhero movie globally until it was beaten by The Dark Knight.
In Conclusion: If thereās a word to describe Spider-Man's return to the big screen that word would be āsolidā. Thereās lots to admire about the movie, thereās a whole bunch of creative choices which are basically all the right ones, and both the casting and script are good. But itās also a fairly hard film to get that worked up about these days. Itās a really strong movie, and it would be absolutely wrong to suggest that itās not, but itās also not a lot more than a two-hour long set-up during which some green guy turns up from time to time to prod things forward a bit. A lot of the movie feels more like a technical success ā in that nothingās egregiously wrong or actively fucked up ā than it does an absolute triumph, but still, the film does make basically all the right calls. The MCU makes this kind of thing look easy but thereās a whole litany of incredibly crap superhero movies that both precede and follow Spider-Man that show this is absolutely not the case (weāre two years away from Catwoman turning up, itās worth mentioning). Spider-Man was released in what was in fact a slightly awkward period for superhero movies. The Batman franchise was dead in the water, having petered out with the pathetic / laughable Batman And Robin back in 1997 and it would be a further three years before Christopher Nolan got the chance to do something non-sucky with the Dark Knight. Superman was nowhere to be seen, having flown off into the sunset toward the end of the 80ās. X-Men had been released a couple of years earlier, to general acclaim, but it was really the only other superhero game in town despite a raft of fantasy and sci-fi movies flooding the theatres. So there was a gap in the market for Spider-Man to fill but not much in the way of material to satiate the hunger that was clearly there. Which might explain, at least to an extent, why Spider-Man was so universally praised upon its release. And, to be fair, some of that praise is absolutely deserved, but there's also a real sense of, āyay, they didn't fuck it up!ā about a lot of the coverage. And they definitely didnāt. Principal among things that definitely werenāt fucked is the cast which is top-to-bottom perfect. It is easy to miss just how well the casting here is handled and again thatās the legacy of Marvel and their preternatural ability to cast exactly the right person for exactly the right role (give or take a Gwyneth Paltrow). Whatās noticeable about the casting here is there really isnāt any showboating or big names ā probably the most famous here is Willem DaFoe but great though he is itās not exactly like itās Johnny Depp or George Clooney. And for Tobey Maguire and James Franco this is pretty much their breakthrough roles, or at the very least the roles which made them global stars (both had solid track records before this movie, and Franco was originally in the running to play Peter Parker). Itās distressingly easy to image a version of Spider-Man that had some unbearable comic side-kick shoehorned in ā think of Jack Black in Peter Jacksonās Kong - so the restraint used here is both admirable and much appreciated. DaFoe wasnāt first ā or second, or third, or fourth ā choice to play the Green Goblin but heās still absolutely the perfect person and itās because he plays it straight. Itās an over-the-top character sure, but DaFoe knows not to descend into moustache-twirling mode and takes the character seriously. The final scene, where he begs Peter not to tell his son simply wouldnāt work if heād gone for an outsized performance prior to it so the restraint shown pays off the finale for the character. Nicholas Cage was up for the role and passed on it ā it's easy to imagine what a Cage-At-Force-11 performance of the Green Goblin would look like but it would fatally undermine the end scenes which are not only necessary for this movie but also help drive the sequel as well. And if weāre talking about casting itās simply impossible not to mention J.K. Simmons as J Jonah Jameson ā he's just the most utterly perfect encapsulation of that character possible, with his jarhead hair-cut and endlessly snapped out lines, a real comic book character brought to life. Itās a scene-stealing performance and indeed stealth (if you can call anything J Jonah Jameson does āstealthyā) best performance in the whole film. Two hours, though. We keep coming back to it, but it really is a lot of time to spend on an origin story. Itās obviously not a patch on the running time that some superhero movies are going to clock up but itās rare that this Spider-Man feels brisk. The action scenes move nicely but theyāre the exception not the rule, and thereās a degree of caution being shown here, almost as if either the script or movie is slightly gun-shy about putting the wall-crawler into action. For all that the Green Goblin looks outright terrible as CGI, Raimi has clearly put a lot of work into trying to make the film look like more than just a videogame cut-scene, and scenes of, say, a balcony collapsing are clearly physical sets (occasionally, a little too clearly sets) rather than some bluescreen trickery. That detail is very much appreciated ā especially with early 21st century CGI itās all too easy for character zipping around to look weightless, so by at least combining live-action and CGI Raimi is able to lend a degree of realism to the scenes that make them feel more convincing than if everything had simply been computer generated. Itās a shame, then, that we donāt get a bit more action to actually enjoy that attention to detail thatās being deployed. Scenes of Spider-Man actually doing much are very constrained, and while thereās a lot of time heās in costume but not actually in action (which does help a little to cover the lack of Spidey doing the thing he exists to do) that doesnāt really make up the difference. Maguire is such a natural in the role, and finds excellent ways to be physically expressive while wearing a mask itās just impossible not to want more of him doing Spider-things. The sequel will nicely correct this, but that doesnāt help much here. Though thereās another slight issue here as well, and itās this ā Magure is great at playing Spider-Man, and heās great at playing Peter Parker, but thereās a gap between the two that isnāt quite being bridged here. This is mostly on a scripting level. Peter has not one but two surrogate fathers ā Uncle Ben and Norman Osborn ā but doesnāt really spend enough time with either for the relationships to really resonate. Thereās meant to be a sense of Peter growing into the role of Spider-Man and accepting the reality of his powers and what they meant ā that's what the final scene of the movie is ā but that transition, from boy to man, from someone who needs surrogate fathers to someone standing on their own two feet, is a bit muddled. The tension between Peter and Harry could have done with a bit more emphasis ā Harry feeling rejected because his father spends more time with Peter is a good hook to hang the character off but, as with the Peterās-surrogate-fathers material, it just needs to be developed and given a bit more depth to really sing. As is very much the theme with this movie, all the ideas are there and all the decisions being made are the right ones, itās just that note of caution that seems to be holding things back. It means we avoid soaring melodrama or a descent into either schmaltz or camp but a little more would have gone a long way. Which all sounds terribly negative, but really thatās not the case ā Spider-Man is a good movie. Sometimes a very good movie. To be honest, itās probably a little unfair to criticise it for not taking more creative risks ā itās a lot easier to take those kind of chances now with twenty-plus Marvel movies to show the way and a heap of DCEU movies to show what you should avoid than it was back when there were practically no superhero movies. Back at the beginning of the century things were a lot less clear and a touch of caution was probably no bad thing. What Spider-Man does do very well is provide an excellent platform on which to build. Itās not a fast piece of construction, if this metaphor can be stretched out a bit further, but the foundations are sound and the scaffolding thatās being put in place will not only help to prop up the remaining two entries in the MaguireVerse but just generally stand a good way to do this kind of film, which is to say use the first entry to get the pieces in place then use the remaining two to move them around. Itās a bit slow here and there, but thatās not the worst thing in the world, and having a whole movie given over to the origin story isnāt really necessary when it could have been dealt with a quickie one-two punch at the start of the film, but at least by taking its time over the origin we get some sense of Peter growing as a character. Itās a bit hazy but itās definitely one of the filmās achievements. And in finding Maguire to play the part Spider-Man also manages to have a leading man who can both take the character seriously and allow plenty of fun into the role as well without it all just becoming silly. That happened with X-Men too, with Hugh Jackmanās breakout role, but prior to that youād need to go back to... Richard Donnerās Superman and Christopher Reeve maybe? Perhaps one of the Burton Batmanās (Batmen?), though Keaton was always better at playing Bruce Wayne than Batman himself. Certainly it had been a long time and even then future superhero movies will cock this up (hey there, Green Lantern!) so really, Maguire deserves so much credit for being able to land the role that well. Yes, itās easy to say maybe more chances could have been taken but itās also slightly churlish. Spider-Man is a rock-solid movie that gets us off to a dependable, but above all entertaining, start. Script v Length: More Or Less? You couldnāt really call this film āploddingā, that would be terribly unkind, but it sure does take its sweet time getting to any actual action. Itās a mistake that will haunt Spider-Man ā the unnecessary telling of a back-story weāre all familiar with chewing up screen-time when we could be getting to some actual action or something fun. If youāre doing a movie like Shazam then fair enough, thatās not a well-known character to the general public and spending a movie setting him up makes sense. Even Iron Man was a second or third-stringer when Robert Downey Jr took over the suit. But we know Peterās back-story, yet still have to slog through forty-five minutes of material that could have been covered in five minutes flat. That means much of the action is back-loaded and you have to get through a lot of Tobey Maguire looking baffled at things before we get to it. Heās a good enough actor to carry it but itās simply inconceivable a movie would be structured this way these days. This movie doesnāt need to be shorter but it could do with a better balance. How Convincing Does This Webslinger Look?
Well that depends. The CGI in this movie has aged appallingly which, yes, is always going to a problem with early 21st century movies that donāt quite have the tech to live up to the scriptās ambitions. As a general rule Spider-Man looks not that bad while careening between the mountainous canyons of Manhattan skyscrapers and the direction is good at maintaining a kinetic sense of energy in those scenes. The Green Goblin, on the other hand, looks like absolute dogshit ā DaFoe is great of course, but any time the Green Goblin has to do any action it looks like the CGI has been done on a Commodore 64 Sam Raimi had the back of a cupboard somewhere. But itās worth praising the costume Maguire hasā it really does look excellent and, you know, grown up. Itās light-years away from the cheesy latex monstrosities / barely-more-than-a-track-suit that most live-action Spider-Men have had to put up with up till this point. Itās functional and sleek, it shows off Maguire well, and more than anything it doesnāt look like itās been knocked up by someoneās mum in the garage. Good work, costume people! Villainometer ā How Does This Movieās Plan Seem And How Goes The Costuming? Well letās deal with the plan first which isā¦ umā¦ Yeah, a bit more thought could have gone into this really. Norman finds out heās going to be ousted from the board of his company so the remaining board members can sell it off. In order to prevent this, the Green Goblin ā brought into life as much by necessity of the plot as by the green toxic āstrength enhancerā that drives Norman insane while he tries to secure a government contract ā decides to murder them all, leading (at long bloody last) to a big action set piece. Fine. And then after that? Erm. Well, he uses MJ as leverage against Spider-Man, the two faff about for the rest of the movie then the Green Goblin accidentally kills himself while trying to kill Spider-Man. Bit careless. So itās not so much as a plan, really, more just a series of events that get us to The Big Climax the movie needs. Generally speaking, DaFoe and Maguire help cover some of the shortfall but thereās really only so much they can do. Because DaFoe is so excellent in the role, and because the Green Goblin is actually a decent menace, itās hard not to wish there was a bit more focus put on what it is the Green Goblin wants to achieve, and indeed itās a shame heās killed off. The surrogate father material he has with Peter again helps, but this really could have stood some expansion, and the resentment from Harry needs to be dialled up ā Francoās fine but the script limits what he can really do (more on this next movie). As for the costuming, well ā its great! DaFoe snarls away behind the mask extremely effectively and heās excellent at the physicality of the role ā the way he shifts his balance, takes a stance or moves really help convey the character behind an otherwise static mask and overall it is extremely effective. What Else Happened In 2002?
The biggest movie of the year was The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers, though Spider-Man comes in at Number 3, which is not nothing. Dreary sequel Men In Black II flops out like a dying fish, and Pierce Brosnanās reign as Bond comes to an end with the universally admired Die Another Day. Ahem. The best film Oscar went to Chicago, and Guy Pierceās feeble version of The Time Machine impressed absolutely nobody. Ice Age becomes the first in a long line of sequels, and cloying sentimentality comes to the fore with About A Boy. Minority Report continues Tom Cruiseās track record of appearing in sci-fi movies that ought to be a bit better than they are, and in September the final Austin Powers movie is released, a good two movies after the jokes expired. This yearās Harry Potter is The Chamber Of Secrets, this yearās Star Trek is Nemesis and this yearās Star War is the worst of the lot ā Attack Of The Clones manages the impressive feat of somehow being even more crap than The Phantom Menace. Quite the achievement, that. Rankings: 1. Spider-Man (2002)
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jan 26, 2021 6:06:21 GMT -5
Spider-Man feels to me like the second truly modern super-hero movie, after Richard Donner's Superman. No camp, treats the source material with respect, tries to preserve the visuals of the comic, embraces the more ludicrous aspects of the genre, doesn't try to undercut the drama. Everything else in between the two movies was guilty of one or more of those - none of the other Reeve films were truly respectful of the material, the Burton/Schumacher films were all campy, Blade only used the comic as a loose jumping-off point, X-Men bent over backwards to avoid seeming like it came from a comic book. All those other movies were important to getting to Spider-Man, but none of them got there. That said, like Superman, there are some aspects of this one that haven't aged as well, and I think Prole touched on those pretty well. Most of those were corrected for the sequel, which is why it still stands as one of the best super-hero films ever made, while the first one is generally regarded as solid.
|
|
|
Post by MyNameIsNoneOfYourGoddamnBusin on Jan 26, 2021 8:30:19 GMT -5
I don't even like superhero movies or superhero media in general, but I saw the first Spiderman opening weekend and I really enjoyed it. The origin story is a but tedious and not something that needs to re-done every reboot, but I thought it was at least well told here. I didn't like the first sequel (when that article comes up I can elaborate my reasons why) and never bothered to get around to the third film which was apparently "Guy from Wings as a supervillian".
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Jan 26, 2021 9:56:56 GMT -5
Spider-Man feels to me like the second truly modern super-hero movie, after Richard Donner's Superman. No camp, treats the source material with respect, tries to preserve the visuals of the comic, embraces the more ludicrous aspects of the genre, doesn't try to undercut the drama. Everything else in between the two movies was guilty of one or more of those - none of the other Reeve films were truly respectful of the material, the Burton/Schumacher films were all campy, Blade only used the comic as a loose jumping-off point, X-Men bent over backwards to avoid seeming like it came from a comic book. All those other movies were important to getting to Spider-Man, but none of them got there. That said, like Superman, there are some aspects of this one that haven't aged as well, and I think Prole touched on those pretty well. Most of those were corrected for the sequel, which is why it still stands as one of the best super-hero films ever made, while the first one is generally regarded as solid. It seems amazing now but the first Burton movie was absolutely not regarded as camp in the 80's - they were gritty reimaginings! Yes, really! Of course in terms of live-action there was really only the Adam West Batman TV series to compare it to so, you know, next to that it's practically Peckinpah.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jan 26, 2021 11:51:31 GMT -5
Spider-Man feels to me like the second truly modern super-hero movie, after Richard Donner's Superman. No camp, treats the source material with respect, tries to preserve the visuals of the comic, embraces the more ludicrous aspects of the genre, doesn't try to undercut the drama. Everything else in between the two movies was guilty of one or more of those - none of the other Reeve films were truly respectful of the material, the Burton/Schumacher films were all campy, Blade only used the comic as a loose jumping-off point, X-Men bent over backwards to avoid seeming like it came from a comic book. All those other movies were important to getting to Spider-Man, but none of them got there. That said, like Superman, there are some aspects of this one that haven't aged as well, and I think Prole touched on those pretty well. Most of those were corrected for the sequel, which is why it still stands as one of the best super-hero films ever made, while the first one is generally regarded as solid. It seems amazing now but the first Burton movie was absolutely not regarded as camp in the 80's - they were gritty reimaginings! Yes, really! Of course in terms of live-action there was really only the Adam West Batman TV series to compare it to so, you know, next to that it's practically Peckinpah. Yeah, watching it in '89 it felt like this dark, revisionist, Gothic take. Nowadays it feels like Addams West; a mashup of the Addams Family and Adam West.
|
|
ABz Bš¹anaz
Grandfathered In
This country is (now less of) a shitshow.
Posts: 1,921
|
Post by ABz Bš¹anaz on Jan 26, 2021 12:49:02 GMT -5
I don't even like superhero movies or superhero media in general, but I saw the first Spiderman opening weekend and I really enjoyed it. The origin story is a but tedious and not something that needs to re-done every reboot, but I thought it was at least well told here. I didn't like the first sequel (when that article comes up I can elaborate my reasons why) and never bothered to get around to the third film which was apparently "Guy from Wings as a supervillian". Guy from Wings was fantastic as Sandman, and I am 100% convinced the film would have been MUCH better if it had focused on him rather than the studio forcing Raimi to stick Venom in there. Controversial opinion: Andrew Garfield is a better Spider Man than Tobey Maguire but his movies are way worse. I continue to say Tobey Maguire was a great Peter Parker (save for the gothy Venom version) but only an OK Spider-man, Andrew Garfield was a terrible Peter Parker but a decent Spider-Man, and Tom Holland is fantastic as both.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Feb 2, 2021 5:42:33 GMT -5
Prole, what was your opinion of the skeleton people?
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Feb 2, 2021 16:49:59 GMT -5
Prole, what was your opinion of the skeleton people? I had a bone to pick with them.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Feb 2, 2021 16:53:04 GMT -5
Prole, what was your opinion of the skeleton people? I had a bone to pick with them. I've always found skeleton people pretty humerus.
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Feb 2, 2021 17:04:29 GMT -5
I had a bone to pick with them. I've always found skeleton people pretty humerus. That't the problem, always joking about - they never knuckle down.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Feb 2, 2021 18:02:39 GMT -5
I've always found skeleton people pretty humerus. That't the problem, always joking about - they never knuckle down. Look, we just like to rib each other every so often. Don't be so sternum all of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Feb 4, 2021 0:45:06 GMT -5
Prole, without utilizing any puns in your answer, what was your opinion of the knife-sharpening scene?
|
|
Crash Test Dumbass
AV Clubber
ffc what now
Posts: 7,058
Gender (additional): mostly snacks
|
Post by Crash Test Dumbass on Feb 4, 2021 11:16:45 GMT -5
Please feel free to also review this song
|
|
|
Post by pantsgoblin on Feb 4, 2021 11:30:04 GMT -5
As I noted in a recent "Last Movie Watched" post on The Gift (2000), Sam Raimi's secret weapon has always been that he's an exceptionally good director of actors. He's reportedly a very nice man--in Bruce Campbell's autobiography, he relates how traumatic the shoot for The Quick and the Dead was for Raimi (Campbell has nothing nice to say about Gene Hackman).
Anyway, I think the skill with actors is the reason why, even I don't usually care for superhero movies, I appreciate Darkman and the Spider-Man trilogy. Prole correctly notes how strong the performances are from Dafoe, Maguire, Robertson, and Franco (EDIT: and especially J.K. Simmons). And I'm looking forward to revisiting how excellent Alfred Molina was in 2.
|
|