It takes a lot to fly in the face of public opinion and dislike something that some consider a cultural phenomenon. When something is a huge box-office success, many people assume that it is also qualitatively great, as if the only evaluation of quality is financial success. I mention this off the bat because I acknowledge that I am part of a populous minority of moviegoers and reviewers who did not enjoy the "Spider-Man" trilogy. The films, directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey McGuire in the title role, were big-budget special effects nightmares that told a remarkably average superhero story, in my book.
Compiled together for the DVD boxed set "Spider-Man 1,2, and 3," the "Spider-Man" films lose their charm on a smaller screen (and I have a big screen television!) and, truth be told, the biggest problems with the movies were never based on just the spectacle. As a result, this becomes one superhero film series that it is quite easy to pass by when loading up one's DVD library.
This is a repackage, offering a slimmer casing for fans of the "Spider-Man" movies to save some space on the shelves. The discs are the original single-disc releases of each movie, so this multipack does sacrifice some bonus material included in the special editions of each flick. This is the trade-off of content for space.
For those who have not seen "Spider-Man," it is a rather typical superhero origin story. Peter Parker, high school student and budding photographer, is bitten by a radioactive spider which mutates him into a young man with some fairly extraordinary abilities. Among them, he finds himself able to scale surfaces (like brick walls) which would normally be impossible for humans, he can move faster and is stronger and he develops what can only be assumed is a glandular disorder that allows him to shoot webs from his wrists. Paralleling his mutation story, industrialist Norman Osborn, head of Oscorp, is infected by a nerve gas that causes him to develop an alternate persona of his own, the Green Goblin. So, as Peter Parker develops Spiderman, he finds himself in conflict with the Green Goblin, who is the father of his best friend.
It is a pretty standard superhero origin story. We need to know who the characters are, how they develop and equally important, why. Peter Parker is heavily influenced by his uncle, Ben Parker, who encourages him toward fighting for good. And, for the most part, that works (it becomes a problem in "Spider-man 2") here. And we may even be able to excuse the obviousness of Norman Osborn's transformation; he essentially becomes plagued with a mental illness, so we can understand how a businessman becomes a heartless killer and begins doing unprofitable things (whenever a brilliant scientist and/or businessman betrays their character so completely, we need a real decent explanation).
I'm not one to complain about ambition, I like ambitious films. It's tough to do an ambitious superhero story that does justice to all the necessary plotlines. It's doubly tough to make an origin story that focuses both on the origin of the hero and the origin of the villain. To return to the "Batman" example, part of what worked so well is that the story mortgaged much of the superhero origin story for the villain origin story; "Batman" is more about the life and death of the Joker than how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Tim Burton and company included just enough of the Wayne to Batman origin to serve the character needs and to further the Joker plotline. "Spider-man," by comparison is either too ambitious - too many plotlines - or not ambitious enough (not long enough to properly develop the various threads). So, Peter Parker is dealing with his transformation, his love for Mary Jane Watson, the conflict that raises with his best friend Harry Osborn, his family problems, and a new job as a newspaper photographer. This is not to say that the threads don't interweave, but they often feel like they are not fully served.
This problem is exacerbated by the Green Goblin origin story. Perhaps only "Unbreakable" has attempted to do a superhero origin story without creating a supervillain, but back in the day, that's how most of the stories began. The first issues of "Superman," Superman is rescuing cats from trees for the neighbors, not turning back time by spinning the world backwards. So, like "Batman," "Spider-man" (the movie) might have been better served by being sparse on some fronts and focusing on the origin story it truly wanted to tell.
One of the immediate plotlines I would have cut would have been the Mary Jane Watson storyline. It seems every superhero movie needs a romantic subplot (I've been watching a lot of them lately and all the Marvel Comics movies have it), but here it feels somewhat forced. Peter Parker lives in one of the biggest cities on Earth. There are a LOT of women there. He's fixated on Mary Jane Watson. Fine. Why? That's not explored so much and Watson's character never comes through in a way to encourage his single-minded devotion. Moreover, with her dating his best friend, one might assume given the mores of our time and place, Peter Parker would take several big steps backward. Even if they were to break up, once the best friend has dated someone, she's pretty much off-limits. But, apparently that's not the case for someone who has pledged himself to Good. Maybe vigilantism excuses the violations of the lesser social mores.
Similarly, at the Daily Bugle, where Peter Parker becomes employed, the character of J. Jonah Jameson is just plain annoying. I can see how the character might work in the pages of the comic book, bellowing out orders all the time, but in film it fizzles. Jameson becomes an argument against that old-fashioned management style of sitting in the office yelling at the workers. He just does not work.
And the shame of it is, that the cast is not bad. Outside Kirsten Dunst, who just seems to be here as an accessory (read: eye candy), this is a talented cast. James Franco takes what is essentially a bit role as Best Friend and Son of Villain and makes it his own. Franco is eminently watchable and he rules the few scenes he is in in the movie. It's easy to see how his talents have continued to get him decent roles (watch "City By The Sea!").
Willem Dafoe gives a great performance as Norman Osborn. In the process of the transformation, Dafoe does a good job of portraying the torment that comes from the voices in his head. Unfortunately, the moment the Green Goblin begins to dominate, all the acting in the world from Dafoe does not matter (see comments on special effects below). So this becomes an instance of a talented actor trapped in a role that does not make effective use of this abilities.
And then there is Toby Maguire. He's dull. I'm sorry, I know that's not chic to say. Maguire is playing a shy character who longs for something different and he never convinces me that he's not an actor playing the role when he's Peter Parker. And, to be fair to the actor, part of the problem is in the presentation. The film opens with Parker doing a monologue that sets up for immediate disappointment. Parker basically sets up for excitement and the extraordinary, but the movie takes way too long to get there. That is, he starts the movie by claiming his story is not for the faint of heart. His story can take people with any heart condition; he's a generally normal guy who gets super powers. Norman Osborn's story is not for the faint of heart; he's rushing toward the top of the world when he is stricken with a malaise. The point here is that Maguire is not given much to work with and what he is given, he doesn't sell convincingly.
But even more than "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace," "Spider-man" relies on special effects and the use of computer generated characters for much of the action. While "Menace" used CGI to the extreme with the character of Jar Jar Binks, an annoying supplemental character, "Spider-man's" battles use CG extensively and the effect is overall quite poor. The battles are stylized and look, well, computer generated.
And yes, I'll be the one to raise the annoying nitpicky point; the difference between the film "Spider-man" and the comic book(s) is that the conceits are revealed for their weaknesses on the big screen. Spider-man shoots webs from his wrists. Neat concept that works in comic books. On film, this just becomes ridiculous; Spider-man ultimately shoots out what has to be at least twice Peter Parker's mass in webs throughout the movie (probably that much in the climactic scenes alone). The effect on screen is ultimately silly.
It is followed by "Spider-Man 2," which is set about two years after the first. Peter Parker still longs for Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborn still pines over his dead father and Spider-man is still considered ambiguously between a hero and a menace. Peter Parker finds himself fired from his day job, struggling at school and failing to make ends meet when he comes in contact with the brilliant scientist Dr. Otto Octavius. Octavius is working to create a power source that is reminiscent of cold fusion; a near-unending supply of energy harnessed from a very tiny amount of tridium (in this case).
To assist him, he has built four nearly indestructible metal arms that can work in environments too hot for human flesh (the fusion reaction Octavius is experimenting with essentially becomes a miniature sun). In the test, however, the experiment goes awry, Octavius' wife is accidentally killed and the scientist is transformed into a monster who is controlled by the arms, except when he isn't.
"Spider-man 2" suffers from having circumstances that are entirely dependent on the plot. Spider-man begins to suffer from a form of performance anxiety akin to impotence that thwarts him for a time, then disappears exactly when he needs it the most. Similarly, Dr. Octavius immediately seems tortured by the decisions and actions of the arms when they take over. Indeed, early on after the transformation, the arms move Octavius around. However, that concern and humanity disappears until almost the final act when Octavius simply exerts his will once again.
It makes little sense on a character front either. Octavius starts the movie as a scientist and altruist. He is a man reluctant to be funded by Osborn's corporation because he wants the energy source he develops to benefit the entire world, not just make a few people very rich. Unfortunately, the moment the arms begin to exert influence, Octavius is sunk. Indeed, it does not take any real convincing on the part of the arms to influence the scientist. They engage with him in a discussion with the logical simplicity of Quagmire convincing Peter Griffin to not feel bad about lying to his wife and drinking beer in the pilot to "Family Guy," when Quagmire says, "Don't feel bad." Similarly, Octavius' instinctive reaction to the influence of the arms is brushed aside when they apparently tell him to keep working on the fusion source.
Come to think of it, what kind of mo builds super powerful mechanical arms and gives them intelligence? I understand giving them programming to function, but what possible use could debate skills serve robotic arms outside taking over their human master? That's just stupid. Add to that, after the initial exchange, where Octavius is clearly not in command (note his body language), there are no scenes of reinforcement where the arms illustrate that they continue to control him. From that point on, Doc Ock is a willing participant in the mayhem.
Good thing Spider-man has gone on a sabbatical. Peter Parker decides between his web-slinging impotence and his desire to stop disappointing Mary Jane Watson, who is now affianced to another man, he will give up being Spider-man. Because nothing says "You impress me" to a woman like giving up being heroic. The message here is clear; without the outfit, normal people are lethargic and will actively avoid doing anything remotely inconvenient, much less heroic. We are meant to believe that a man who has spent two years as a vigilante, who has sacrificed the love of the woman he has wanted for over a decade to fight the wrongs of the Earth, would see a young person getting beaten up in an alley, who calls out for help, and would walk away. No need to call for help, Peter Parker.
That is the sort of inane level of character that "Spider-man 2" sinks to that prevents me from recommending it. And I feel bad on that front, because some of the actors are pretty incredible. Alfred Molina, the sole selling point of the movie for me (as I did not enjoy the first "Spider-man"), is a great actor and when the film uses him, he works well. The problem is, Molina is an actor who could give the role depth and a great deal of perspective. Instead, between the role that is written and the sheer number of special effects shots that Doc Ock is a part of, Molina is not given a chance to shine.
And on the special effects, I was largely underwhelmed. Director Sam Raimi is clearly trying to wow the audience with shots that treat walking on the sides of buildings like walking down the street for Doc Ock, but almost all of the shots using the CG Doc Ock (and the various characters he grabs with his mechanical arms) lose the human element to the character. The film is so concerned with throwing around massive pieces of brickwork, concrete and bags of money, that it loses the subtlety of human expression. That works with Spider-man, being that his face is in a mask, it doesn't with Doc Ock or the supplementals.
The actor who manages to sell us on his character and whose character continues to be both interesting and worth watching is James Franco as Harry Osborn. Franco continues to milk the sulking son who has lost a father character arc which he portrays through a seething vengeance. Franco is great at that. We believe his character is obsessed with finding and destroying Spider-man. That works.
Unfortunately, Franco's role and Osborn's story are almost lost amid the threads of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson, Peter's aunt's money problems, and the raging battle between Spider-man and Doc Ock. So, while "Spider-man 2" is certainly better than "Spider-man," it's not enough to recommend and it's not enough to return to.
The current cinematic incarnation is more or less concluded with "Spider-Man 3," which is set right on the heels of "Spider-Man 2." Peter Parker is very much in love with Mary Jane Watson and after a visit with her to her Broadway opening and a night in the park, Peter tracks some alien goo home. Because it's good, sedate goo, it waits for Peter to be attacked by Harry Osborn, who knows he is Spider-man. Incapacitating his former best friend, Peter wounds Harry and Osborn loses his memory. While Harry recovers, Peter neglects Mary Jane Watson some and finds himself in a competition at his job with a new photographer named Eddie Brock. When Spider-man is attacked while getting the key to the city - for saving the police commissioner's daughter from a random crane - by a sentient pile of sand, Peter becomes lost to his inner demons.
Returning home, Peter falls victim to a very real demon, the patient black goo, which causes him to become more aggressive by picking a fight with the Sandman, who he has learned is Flint Marko, the thief who killed his uncle. Defeating the Sandman with a train and water, the transformed Spider-man/Peter Parker begins to become more aggressive, picking fights with Eddie Brock, pushing away Mary Jane, strutting pointlessly around New York City, and ultimately engaging in a big dance number with Gwen Stacy (I wish I were joking, people). Following this incident, which culminates in even more violence, Parker rejects the black goo, Brock gets slimed by it and everything comes together in a big, ridiculous hostage situation/battle that is as silly and frenetic as it is predictable.
Let's start with what is done well, because there is so little here. First, Thomas Hayden Church does well as Flint Marko. I'm making a point to delineate here. Flint Marko, sympathetic cat burglar who is after a whole lot of cash for his ailing daughter is lightyears ahead of most villains in this type of movie. Marko has a purpose and he generally goes after that purpose. Thomas Hayden Church is remarkably well cast and he has good gravitas in the role. Indeed, when he delivers his classic line "I'm not a bad man, I've just had bad luck," it could have come out sounding canned, dull and cliche, but he sells it. While Church is Marko, the character works. That means in the beginning and the end. When Church is playing the Sandman . . . we'll get to that in a moment.
The other bright spot is James Franco as Harry Osborn. Franco is an acting heavy and here he comes into his own like I've known he eventually would. Franco held the screen with Robert De Niro in "City By The Sea" (reviewed at:
http://www.epinions.com/content_91837664900 ) and here he shows the same level of acting ability in playing the tortured and tormenting Osborn. When he's angry, we believe him, when he's calculating, we buy it. When he's hurt, he makes us feel like he is diminished. He is the one to watch this film.
I wish I could say the same for Topher Grace. Grace was well cast to be a foil to Tobey Maguire. The problem is Eddie Brock is so poorly written that Grace has virtually nothing to work with. Brock is an accessory to the Parker storyline and he is added in at such judicious intervals that the viewer sits and wonders why they bothered. If they were going to plague us with a "Spider-man 4," he ought to have been saved for that. As it is, Brock appears in only one scene without Parker and Venom comes into the film so ridiculously late as to belay sensibility.
The other draw is Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy. I don't begrudge her from taking airtime from Kirsten Dunst, but the part is a pretty weak one. Despite the fact that Gwen Stacy has one of the few genuine moments of character in the entire movie - when she realizes that the possessed Peter Parker is using her in the big dance number solely to hurt Mary Jane, Stacy apologizes to her - most of the time Howard's role is to play Gwen Stacy as a damsel in distress and a toy to be tossed between Brock and Parker and then away.
To finish off the subject of the acting, both Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst continue to underwhelm as Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. Maguire is bland and dull and when he is supposedly having his character conflicts, he plays Parker as bland, with a strut. There's no energy, there's no aggression, there's no hurt or determination. He's just dull. Similarly, Dunst failed to impress me in a single scene she was in. As Mary Jane Watson, she does not appear stung when hit, seduced when kissing, even angry when spited. Worst of all when Watson, damsel in distress that she is, is literally hanging for her life, Dunst does not play her with any realistic amount of fear.
But, of course, what does it matter? She's a woman after all. Women in "Spider-man 3" are either helpless damsels in distress (Watson and Stacy), objects to be leered at (the many women of Parker's strutting sequence) or crones who pop up with wisdom after everything has already been made clear (Aunt May). And the less said about the women in the background of crowd scenes the better. When Spider-man is announced as he comes to get the key to the city, some of the supernumeraries in the background are hamming it up something fierce with their "I see the Rapture" performances.
The only thing worse than the bulk of the acting and the utter lack of genuine character (outside Flint Marko and Harry Osborn) are the special effects. Special effects ought to be . . . wait for it . . . special. They can enhance great acting, they can make the impossible real and they can create realities that simply would be otherwise difficult or expensive to make. But most of all, the key to visual effects is something simple:
You have to be able to see it.
Any truly great special effect stands up because it can be seen. The best effects integrate with reality and meld with actual live human footage seamlessly. The result is the creation of a new reality on screen that makes the impossible real and the best effects make that clear. In "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, Gollum becomes believable because he is lit perfectly, he moves like a human and because the audience can see him and evaluate him as a part of the reality on the screen.
The first battle of the movie, wherein Harry Osborn as a New Goblin gets into a big, aerial fight with Peter Parker, the special effects are anything but special. Everything happens with such dizzying speed that nothing is comprehensible. Nothing in the scene is real because it happens on a giant screen at a speed that is so fast that nothing sinks in. To wit, Harry whips out something green and starts beating Peter with it. Is it a lightsaber? Is it a baton? It is a letter opener? It is an inanimate carbon rod? Who knows? It's not shown clearly until far, far later in the movie. In order for special effects to work, they have to be real and the speed here cheats reality in such a way that the scene becomes a big, blurry mess.
Moreover, the use of CG characters for Peter/Spider-man, Harry/Goblin and later Venom and the Sandman are almost all universally sloppy. They look animated most of the time and it's unfortunate because robbing the scenes of their reality pulls the viewer out of the experience in a very horrible way.
Which brings me to the Sandman. The Sandman is presented essentially two different ways. At times, he is in the very human form of Flint Marko. Those scenes are great because it's mostly Thomas Hayden Church in a striped shirt. Sometimes, the Sandman is just a big hunk of . . . you guessed it, sand. The formation of the Sandman wherein the sand first tries desperately to coalesce into the man works well, especially considering much of it is done without the ability to emote through the eyes. That works.
What did not work was virtually every other scene where the Sandman appeared as sand. Leaping out of a full truck of sand, appearing as an apparent mountain of sand and even the final disappearance of the Sandman featuring a wind that only blows sand (not anyone nearby's hair . . .). The whole Sandman portion of the film suffers from the "Hellboy Villain Problem." In the cinematic version of "Hellboy" (reviewed at:
http://www.epinions.com/content_141513035396 ) the movie suffers because the villain simply continues to get bigger and bigger (physically). Flint Marko works, initial Sandman works, Big Fist Sandman is an embarrassment and by the time we get to Skyscraper-sized Sandman (seen in many of the trailers!), the effect is so far out of reality that the movie is long dead. The effects buried it.
Of course, the poor effects might have been the final nail in the coffin of a movie that lopped off a leg with a lack of character, took the other leg off with bland acting, and tied both hands behind the back of the film with a crummy script. "Spider-man 3" was bound and gagged by extended self-referential bits. I like the Marvel movie's "Where's Stan Lee?" bits. They can make even the worst Marvel outings have two seconds of pleasure. In "Spider-man 3," that moment is longer. So, too, is the "cameo" by Bruce Campbell. Don't get me wrong; I like Bruce Campbell, but his extended appearance in this movie as the maitre d' is just an homage to Campbell and it pulls the viewer out of the narrative. I will not even write about the supposed comic relief involving J. Jonah Jameson. This sort of self-congratulatory, acknowledging the film series as a film series just stuffs a big, sweaty sock in the mouth of our already wounded movie.
But what shot this poor, dumb movie in the skull between the eyes? The big dance number. You've no idea how much I wish I were making up the idea that after strutting around a la "Saturday Night Fever," Peter Parker shames Mary Jane Watson by dancing manically. And as I watched this scene, I became more and more sick to my stomach. I realized why with surprising speed; the scene was familiar to me. I had seen this type of ridiculous, exaggerated dancing before. Where? "The Mask." You know, the Jim Carrey movie? Peter Parker with black goo becomes Jim Carrey in a zoot suit.
The film does not come back from that. It doesn't matter how arguably cool looking Venom is when he finally emerges. It doesn't matter how debilitatingly predictable the movie becomes in relation to Peter Parker and Harry Osborn, the movie is dead the moment Tobey Maguire is seen at the piano. It's dead. Period.
My final post mortum is this: the writers of this movie insulted me time and time again and one of the most blatant insults was the idea that no one working on this film seems to know what short term memory is. When Peter and Harry engage in their time-lapse opening battle, Harry - the viewer is told - loses his short term memory. This includes him not knowing Peter Parker is Spider-man and how his father died, an event that occurred two years prior. Two years ago puts the damage in long term memory. Short term memory is like a flash drive, maybe fifteen minutes worth of information before it is archived into long term memory. Damage to short term memory is debilitating for forming new memories, as portrayed in the fabulous film "Memento" (reviewed at:
http://www.epinions.com/content_335040908932 ). My point here is that this is information that is widely known, a mistake like this up front is just insulting. It was bad enough my senses were assaulted, I didn't need my intelligence insulted as well.
This multipack compiles the DVDs for:
"Spider-Man" -
http://www.epinions.com/content_301946408580
"Spider-Man 2" -
http://www.epinions.com/content_301469240964
"Spider-Man 3" -
http://www.epinions.com/content_357135519364 
France
Germany
United Kingdom
Australia
USA
