Category: Uncategorized

A couple of years ago, I reviewed the American Netflix film adaptation of “Death Note”, and through that, I had hoped to explore a rather contentious topic among both fans and critics: live-action American films based on anime. Still, try as I might have to balance the few positives against the many negatives of that particular film, I don’t believe that covering just one of these adaptations will do the overall discussion justice. The release of the Robert Rodriguez/James Cameron film “Alita: Battle Angel” has seen to yet another chapter being written in the saga of the “live-action anime” discussion, and to this end, I’m dedicating the month of March to a review feature on several of these films: Ani-March. There is a surprisingly high volume of American film adaptations of fairly popular anime, and each of them have fallen under a fair amount of scrutiny. That in mind, I’ll be starting the month’s feature with the Wachowskis’ “Speed Racer”, since it offers a fascinating (if not always watchable) exploration of just how much the original spirit of an anime can be translated between mediums. The answer to that question here is “most of it”, and while the results certainly didn’t make for a remarkable movie, it’s certainly not one I’d like to throw to the fire with the rest of this month’s lineup.

In a futuristic world where dangerous, high-speed car racing is the sport of stars, young newcomer Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch), is one of the most promising racers in the professional circuit, as his skill is dwarfed only by his lifelong passion for racing. He’s got a lot of support in his career, too: his parents, Mom (Susan Sarandon) and Pops (John Goodman), run an independent auto repair shop and serve as constant moral support and mechanics, and he can always count on his girlfriend and spotter Trixie (Christina Ricci) and his precocious younger brother Spritle (Paulie Litt) to cheer him on. Things take a turn for the insidious, however, when Speed is offered a lucrative, yet shady contract from racing promoter E.P. Arnold Royalton (Roger Allam), who makes it clear that racers that refuse him will suffer his wrath and sabotage. The young racer sticks to his guns, however, remembering the dirty dealings of his racer brother Rex that haunted him until his death in a car accident. With only his passion, family and the racing capabilities of the powerful Mach 5 to combat Royalton and his associates, Speed strives to make it all the way to the top of the Grand Prix, all while another pro racer, the mysterious masked detective known as Racer X (Matthew Fox) investigates a string of violence and sabotage going on off the tracks.

Many of the worst American adaptations of anime in live-action film (a lot of which will be part of this feature) suffer from a common problems: a lack of demonstration of the source material’s spirit and the watering down of concepts for mass appeal. While “Speed Racer” has many problems, I’m at least happy to say that a lack of respect for the original is not one of them. In fact, the movie’s love for the campy racing anime of the same name is one of its greatest strengths, and it manifests in some truly remarkable ways at times. The performances of the cast, for instance, reflect a sense of fun self awareness of the kind of lighthearted action-comedy that the original series tended to be, and there’s “soap opera” earnestness to even the more low-key performances (such as those of Emile Hirsch and Christina Ricci). In particular, I think that the highlights of the film’s performances include Matthew Fox, who turns in a comically serious, Batman-esque portrayal of Racer X, and John Goodman, who actually manages some genuinely parental and heartwarming moments in between hamming it up as Pops Racer. Unmistakably the best performance, however, is Roger Allam as Royalton, a villain who would have fit right in with the original cast in spite of being a creation for the movie, and whose smug, passionate monologues might have been typical corporate gibberish without the gusto of Allam’s delivery. Even small details, such as those on the designs of the cars and an affectionate cameo appearance from original Sped Racer voice actor Peter Fernandez, make for an enjoyable watch, especially for one who grew up watching the show like I did. On the technical end, the art direction also does well to capture the essence of the anime’s iconic races, and even though this movie is set in a more conventionally futuristic world, the set and effects always make sure to prioritize color and vibrancy, especially in the racing scenes. During races, the cinematography will sometimes make use of zooming reaction shots of Speed’s face, which works wonders as both a nod to the show and a tension-building tool. These scenes naturally rely heavily on CGI, but in spite being wonky at times, the action scenes on the race tracks and their transitions between conversational scenes is remarkably original and even artistic in some places.

The key phrase, unfortunately, is some places, and as with most of the Wachowskis’ filmography, their earnestness has bred many things to criticize about “Speed Racer”. While the art direction does make for some remarkable cinematography and effects tricks in theory, it often leaves much to be desired in practice. While being fast paced is something to expect of this movie, some of the transitions are simply far too jarring, especially during the races, during which shots seldom last a few shots before cutting. Also, while the reliance on digitally-rendered, colorful sets does help to establish a fairly and original and consistent tone, it also makes the overall visual element rather tough on the eyes. Save for one towards the end of the film, the racing scenes are extremely difficult to follow as a result of the jump cuts and visuals, and this kind of erratic pace sadly bleeds into the narrative as well. Emotional or tense scenes involving Allam or Goodman often end in an abrupt cut to a visually overtaxing race or an unfunny scene focused on the rambunctious Spritle, and the default transition between scenes seems to be a wide-angle shot of a character speaking followed by a curtain wipe. Not helping matters is the B-plots involving Racer X’s investigation of Royalton and Speed’s questioning of his identity, both of which go nowhere seeing as how little they have to do with the story of Speed’s racing career. While I appreciate the film’s attempt to have a style all on its own, I can also say with certainty that the movie often goes too far in that endeavor. Still, there’s a reason I started with this movie, and it’s because “Speed Racer”, while objectively a failure in a narrative sense, at least fails in ways more remarkable (or at least, more tolerable) than some of the other films listed in this feature.

All in all, the Wachowskis’ “Speed Racer” film is as earnest as it is dumb, and as visually unique as it is exhausting to watch. Fans of the anime would do well to see this, but there’s ultimately too much holding it back from being better than “okay”. Ani-March continues tomorrow with yet another portrait of controversy, mixed reception, and haphazard production. One could call the next subject a “Major” mess…

If you’ll excuse the lack of a truly ramping introduction, I must start this review by stating the readily apparent: “The Umbrella Academy” is weird. I’m much less familiar with the Gerard Way comic book that inspired it, but from what I can tell, both the new Netflix series and its source material fall under a category of superhero stories that I can only describe as “dark deconstructions”, with the original comic book being best described as “‘Watchmen’ meets ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'”. Still, for all the Gothic, Tim Burton-esque art filling the pages, there always seemed to be a somewhat satirical angle to the portrayal of the superhero elements, and the first Netflix season seems to be turning the black comedy up a notch, and the dark fantasy elements down about half a notch. That’s not to say there’s no thrills to be had here (in fact, “The Umbrella Academy” is a bleak, harrowing series in many places), but the balance of serious drama and knowing winks to the larger superhero canon is a tough one to even out. Still, in spite of some expected tonal issues, and a few others in the way the story is told, I still think that “The Umbrella Academy’s” first season is unique, compelling, and thrilling enough to be worth an enthusiastic watch. In fact, my prior description of the  intriguing premise is something I’d like to apologize for, since I feel it doesn’t quite do it justice. So, what is the story?

“The Umbrella Academy” is set decades after a strange event in 1989, in which 43 separate women from around the world gave birth spontaneously. Seven of these children, adopted by eccentric billionaire Reginald Hargreeves (Colm Feore), were born with supernatural powers, and trained by their adoptive father to use them to heroic ends as students of the “Umbrella Academy”. All but one of them grew up and forged their own paths as adults, and in spite of being estranged from their cold, distant father, are brought together by his death. Among those attending the funeral are Luther (Tom Hopper), the team’s de facto leader blessed with superhuman strength, Diego (David Castañeda), the rebellious vigilante with uncanny precision in knife-throwing, Allison (Emmy Raver-Lampman), an actress with the ability to control minds by spreading rumors, Klaus (Robert Sheehan), a mischievous drug addict who can speak with ghosts, and Vanya (Ellen Page), a timid violinist held as the black sheep of the family for her lack of powers. The family is naturally conflicted on whether or not to investigate, given their dysfunction, but are kept together once again upon the sudden emergence of another sibling, known by his callsign Number Five (Adian Gallagher), whose time-hopping abilities have led him to discovering the onset of an apocalyptic event that he believes the family may be able to prevent. This preventative push, of course, is no easy feat, since the Hargreeve siblings must also juggle the dangers of mysterious assassins, long-held family secrets, and the wide-reaching tension that has followed each sibling since their split years ago.

If you think that premise synopsis was a little on the lengthy side, it’s only because there really is that much going on, and it’s because of this that I’ve got so much to say about “The Umbrella Academy” on both sides of the critical spectrum. As usual, though, I do want to talk about the strengths of the first season, because there are tons of them that make the show worth binge-watching (as I did). For one thing, it’s biggest strength is most definitely the characters and acting. The characters themselves can be somewhat annoying at times, but are intentionally so due to the core theme being family dysfunction, and in spite of there being a large main cast, each character gets equal time dedicated to them, and equally stellar performances. An obvious example of this is Ellen Page as Vanya, who gives the character a tangible level of angst and resentment without overplaying those aspects of her characterization, but the family as a whole is remarkably spot-on. It’d lengthen the review considerably to describe what all of the cast does right, but some highlights for me were Adian Gallagher as the de-aged Number Five for being able to convey his wisdom and snide cynicism in spite of his young age, and Robert Sheehan’s performance as Klaus, who could have been annoying had the actor not balanced Klaus’s more serious introspection with some hilarious, well timed instances of comic relief. The cast, as a result, has a lot of great chemistry, and the story surrounding them is a gripping thriller that always had me genuinely interested in what happened next. Additionally, the cinematography really makes the show stand out among other works of its genre, thanks to some clever, quick transitions between time periods (childhood and adulthood, in particular) and use of perspective during character-centric scenes. A fun little visual element of note is how the intro of each episode like to play with the title card, which often appears on hidden umbrellas or other such background objects that go unnoticed until the title pops up. These filming tricks are all in service of a fairly macabre tone already set by the supernatural and time-bending elements of the show’s story… for the most part, and this is where the first of the season’s problems emerges: in its tone.

While my knowledge of “The Umbrella Academy” comics is cursory as best, I did manage to get some perspective from a friend and longtime fan on the source material, who, in spite of enjoying much of the show, noted that some of the comic’s weirder elements are dropped out, with what’s left being mixed in with a tone set for more general audiences. That certainly shows, even for one less familiar with the comics, since the often heavy and disturbing drama clashes with more light-hearted scenes with a satirical bend reminiscent of the “Suicide Squad” movie (though thankfully, on a much less intrusive level than that film). Also, while I’ll still say that the story knows how to grab and hold onto an audience’s investment, I think part of the frustration of that investment is that the pacing drags considerably across the episodes. The problem with having the cast being an extended, dysfunctional family is that the separate characters breed separate sub-plots, each one of which take what feels like hours to converge when they should. While I’m glad that each Hargreeves sibling is on equal footing, it also means that the central conflict takes something of a back seat to the plots wrought by the far-reaching cast. In that sense, I’d say that “The Umbrella Academy’s” first season is another show that suffers from being over-ambitious. The tonal and pacing issues reaffirmed by my friend aren’t something I’d chalk up to lack of care or executive mandate (like the aforementioned “Suicide Squad”), but they’re still a problem the show has, admirable though their roots causes may be.

Still, I’d give the debut of the Netflix “Umbrella Academy” show a fairly enthusiastic recommendation. It’s fun, thrilling, populated by likable characters, and actually has some meaningful, worthwhile things to say about family dynamics and the nature of the superhero genre and the psyches of its archetypal characters.

The annual Academy Awards have certainly had their ups and downs when it comes to their nominations over their long and considerable history. If there’s two things that can be guaranteed to get some attention, for example, it’s films inspired by true stories, and movies specifically inspired by true stories that evoke the history of the entertainment world’s evolving effects on race relations. My summation should not be taken as a disclaimer, mind you. In fact, I’m glad more attention is given to films that have something positive to say about mending the racial divide in America. Still, there are right ways to address the issue (such as in “Do the Right Thing”), and wrong ways (such as in the somehow Award-winning “Crash”), and sometimes a nomination does not equate to overall quality so much as it indicates the subject matter. Still, the latter classification does not apply to today’s subject, “Green Book”, as I’d argue it’s a movie that earns all of its nominations it received this year thanks to its stellar performances, on-point cinematography and strong sense of heart.  The result may not always be seamless, but it definitely makes “Green Book” worth watching and discussing. It’s only a shame I’m as late as I am on such a discussion.

The film, inspired by the journey of real-life figures in the music and entertainment worlds (and named after a road guide for people of color to find welcoming lodging and diners in the 1960s), tells the story of Tony Vallelonga (Viggo Mortenson), a down on his luck, Italian-American nightclub bouncer who gets a promising job offer from a seclusive client. His employer: African-American classical pianist Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali). The job: drive him across a long concert tour of the Deep South as his chauffeur and bodyguard. The trip is about as harrowing as one could expect for a trip of this nature, but the obstacles don’t begin and end with the racist atmosphere permeating the South in 1962. Tony, for one thing, has a temperamental, somewhat bigoted chip on his shoulder, while Dr. Shirley is juggling with countless insecurities of his own. Through the nearly-month long trek across the country comes a story of music, prejudiced institutions, and friendship as the two men gleam new insights about America and each other along the way.

The story being told here is a tale as old as time: unlikely associates turned friends become better people through shared experiences. Still, familiarity need not necessarily breed contempt, and stories like this are often made all the better by chemistry and performances, both of which the movie has in spades. Though I couldn’t tell you just how historically accurate “Green Book” is (I’m told there are quite a few liberties taken here), I can definitely say that the two leads are endlessly compelling. Viggo Mortenson, for one thing, gives an absolutely spot-on performance as Tony. Cocky, temperamental, and casually bigoted mobster-type characters are fairly well-trodden territory, but Mortenson gives Vallelonga some much appreciated charm and humor that makes his emotional arc throughout the film all the more believable. Tony’s still a no-nonsense thug with a hot temper, but he has a softer side that Mortenson effortlessly endears with. On the more nuanced end of the spectrum is Mahershala Ali’s equally perfect turn as Don Shirley. What’s especially difficult about playing a polished, reserved character like Shirley is moderating just how emotion he displays from scene to scene, which makes Ali’s mastery of Shirley’s polite, slightly haughty demeanor all the more impressive as we see firsthand the kind of racist hurdles the refined pianist had to jump over. What’s more, the characters’ performances contrast so well that the chemistry between the two is all the more remarkable. As the movie goes on, these two cease being performances in every scene, and starts being a perfect friendship calcified into the medium of film.

There’s more than just the two leads to enjoy about this film, though. The cinematography and period-relevant direction, for instance, are both quite on point. Lighting and camera tricks convincingly capture the atmosphere of the early 60’s, and what really stood out to me was the use of driving and music in the transitions between scenes. Piano music will start to play between the end of a conversation and the beginning of one of Shirley’s concerts, and passing cars punctuate a wiping transition to a new scene’s establishing shot. It’s little touches like this that add some understated, yet much appreciated cinematic flavor to what could be classified as a fairly conventional Hollywood drama. Even then, I feel like that “conventional Hollywood drama” classification is selling “Green Book” incredibly short, for while it does take predictable turns as per most films of this category, that should not at all take away from the film’s execution and undeniable earnestness. A bad film for me is one that doesn’t care about its subject matter, and that’s not something “Green Book” can be accused of doing. In the film’s cinematography, performances, and depiction of nation-wide racial discrimination, we see firsthand the kind of struggles both men had to face on the trip. Unlike patronizing films like “Crash”, however, “Green Book” attaches human struggles and emotion to the central themes of bigotry and overcoming surface prejudices. Tony is far from the most forward-thinking man in America, but he’s not as thick-skinned as one might initially think, and his openness with his own emotions helps to guide Shirley as much as Shirley guides him in being more polite and worldly. Shirley, by point of comparison, does more than simply act as a mentor to Tony, and has just as much to learn about communal intimacy as Tony does about race relations. The best movies taking aim at America’s past ills, in my opinion, are the ones that do so through human experiences rather than through vessels for a soul-less after-school special message.

“Green Book”, in other words, more than qualifies for being one such film. It’s charming, perfectly acted, and tugs effectively and expertly at the heartstrings.

Dreamworks is certainly a frustrating animation company to cover in terms of historical quality, especially seeing how their works have ranged from legitimate modern classics to downright dreck. Still, my overall outlook on Dreamworks will always remain an overall sunny one. Part of this has a lot to do with “Prince of Egypt”, but if there’s one thing you can count on to never lose steam as Dreamworks gets on in years, it’s the “How to Train Your Dragon” movies. From their funny, emotionally charged stories populated by likable characters to the wonderful animation consisting of some of the best flight scenes in film (not animation, film) history, the “How to Train Your Dragon” films have, to this point, demonstrated the best way to handle simple, yet deep-rooted and accessible themes. The first of these movies told a rather simple story about a meek viking befriending a dragon and breaking prejudices, but executed it in a charming and beautifully animated way. The second film fared even better, using its run time to focus deeply on the characters’ inner struggles, and to establish that the world of this series was one of lasting consequences and deeper history. This third one, set up as the finale to this trilogy, continues in the series’ tradition of character driven storytelling, and just might be the perfect was to close out the story of Hiccup, the vikings of Berk, and the dragons they came to befriend. Say what you will of Dreamworks’ strange, fluctuating output quality, for this movie proves that they are on point when they are at their best.

Directly following the events of the second movie, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) continues leading the vikings of Berk as their chief following his father’s passing, and has been successful in freeing captive dragons from roaming hunters with his squad of dragon riders. Sadly, this success has also overcrowded Berk’s island, and pressure is ever mounting, both on the newly-formed utopia for dragons, and on Hiccup, who’s being pressured from all sides to be the chief the island needs and to marry fellow dragon rider and love interest, Astrid (America Ferrera). To make matters worse, the leader of a clan of dragon hunting warlords (F. Murray Abraham) has long since made plans to bait and capture Hiccup’s longtime dragon steed, Toothless, with a potential mate in an attempt to take Berk’s land. With naught but a mythical and hidden paradise for dragons to go on, Hiccup leads his people on an expedition to the “Hidden World”, all while his position as chief, his romance with Astrid, and his until-now unbreakable bond with Toothless weigh increasingly heavy on his mind.

If the short synopsis was any clue, I absolutely want everyone reading this to see this movie, especially if they have followed the previous movies up to this point. While the “How to Train Your Dragon” movies may not have the market cornered in the way of groundbreaking originality, it makes up for this with its mastery of tone and atmosphere. While there are plenty of comedy scenes in this movie that could be called typical of the conventional Hollywood animated film, there are just as many scenes in this and the other films without any dialogue, and this kind of subtlety is especially well-done during the romantic interactions between Toothless and the female “Light Fury”. Much like its predecessors, the third film is more than content to let facial expressions and subtle gestures speak volumes about the characters and what they’re going through. This kind of strength is an imperative for the kind of story these movies are telling, since the climactic nature of this installment means the focus is squarely on Hiccup’s fears for the future. As I stated before, the world of “How to Train Your Dragon” is one of tangible consequences, in which deaths are permanent and our protagonist sports a peg-leg, so it’s only natural for Hiccup’s character arc to take center stage as the stakes get higher. The stakes are especially high with the villain being as threatening as he is, and in addition to be wholly intimidating and expertly voice by F. Murray Abraham, Grimmel also stands to contrast Hiccup’s want for peace and balance with cold, ruthless ambition. Those are far from the only high points of this movie, though. The animation, as is typical of the series, continues to be fantastic here, and I’ll even go so far as to say the flight scenes are the best they’ve ever been in a series that has mastered the art of simulating flight in film. These flight scenes aren’t just the best in the series for standing near the pinnacle of Dreamworks’ art direction and animation (although that’s certainly the case), but also for their role in shaping the relationships between the characters. To that end, it’s no wonder that the core of this finale’s thematic ambitions is Hiccup’s relationship with Toothless, and by extension, humanity’s relationship with the rest of dragon-kind.

Without spoiling anything, the Hiccup’s struggles in choosing between the interests of himself (and the tribe) and the interests of Toothless (and the rest of Berk’s dragons) is one that is given due time and meditation by both Hiccup himself and the characters that have surrounded him up to this point. While conclusions are eventually reached, the journey itself is far from a walk in the park, and that a movie series with this many stakes has found success with broad audiences, let alone children, should be an inspiring thing that should speak volumes about the universal appeal that animation has as a medium of mainstream film. Pretty much the only gripe I have that isn’t a nitpick is that this movie is the last in what has been Dreamworks’ crowning achievement over the last decade. “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” is a funny, emotionally fueled, and beautiful conclusion to an already-excellent series, and I’m glad that this was the kind of end this trilogy received. Families and animation enthusiasts, see this the second you can.

With the recent Into the Spider-Verse review said and done, “Spider-Month” is on the verge of coming to a close. Before that, though, there’s tribute to pay for the science major that started the line of spider-men (and women, and pigs). And what better way is there to give the original his dues than looking at some of the best portrayals in all of media? Seeing as how Into the Spider-Verse is proof positive of countless successors to the original web-slinger, I thought I’d have some fun to cap off “Spider-Month” with a top 10 list of the best non-comic portrayals of Peter Parker. For this list, I’ll be ranking portrayals of the original Spider-Man in major motion pictures, video games, and animated series, based on the performances of the actors, their resonance with the character himself, and the quality of the film, show or game he stars in. Sadly, comic book takes on Parker are so numerous that I’m streamlining it to the examples in other media. That said, welcome to the end of Spider-Month. The #10 slot goes to…

10. Andrew Garfield (The Amazing Spider-Man movies, 2012-2014)

…Someone who really deserved to be in better movies. Though I’ve had more than simply mixed thoughts about the way this take on Peter was written, I can never take away from the performance itself. When he’s allowed the opportunity, Andrew Garfield manages some funny lines while donning the Spider-suit, and even manages some tender, humanizing moments during his interactions with civilians (especially children). Even in the second “Amazing” movie, where everything good about its predecessor was completely removed, Garfield managed to be an unambiguous silver-lining, due to some of the quips coming much more naturally to him. A good actor can even earn compliments under a bad script, and for giving it his all at making a relatable take on Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield hangs on tight to this countdown at #10.

9. Sean Marquette (Ultimate Spider-Man, 2005)

The #9 entry goes to a more obscure entry in a long line of “Spider-Man” video games. Much like the comic after which it was titled, the PlayStation 2 game Ultimate Spider-Man is framed as a soft reboot of the character and his origins, and so this Peter Parker starts out in his teenage years once again. To this end, voice actor Sean Marquette gives the young hero a peppier, youthful voice befitting a superhero with just a couple of years under his belt. One can even hear him channeling his character Mac from the animated series Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends, which fits Peter’s characterization here as a beleaguered bookworm character. What really surprised me, though, was his ability to convey stress and occasional rage that comes with the superhero territory. While Marquette doesn’t light the world on fire with any sort of new approach to the boy who would be Spider-Man, he certainly knows how to carry the drama (much of it Venom-related) of the game’s story, and for managing to stand out among many a voice actor for many a Spider-Man game, he definitely earns a place on this list.

8. Drake Bell (Ultimate Spider-Man, 2012-2017)

There’s not much to explain about this entry, except for me to say that Drake Bell is just funny as Spider-Man. The animated series Ultimate Spider-Man is something of a mixed bag due to some basic humor and an overabundance of Marvel character cameos, Spider-Man himself is fairly well-written and energetically voiced by Drake Bell, and while the show leans more on the comedic side, Bell also manages some heartwarming and endearing moments whenever Peter begins to question his spot in the greater Marvel pantheon of heroes. Listening to Peter’s energy and snappy dialogue, you’d probably get the sense that Drake Bell had a lot of fun recording for the character, and for making an otherwise okay show all the more engaging, he more than earns a spot on this list.

7. Christopher Daniel Barnes (Spider-Man: The Animated Series, 1994-1998)

I know there’s a lot of nostalgia for the 90’s Spider-Man animated series, but there’s a lot of flaws to it (namely in the way of animation and accidentally campy presentation). Sadly, I don’t think that Christopher Daniel Barnes is free from those flaws, either. In fact, he gives a relatively low-key, everyman voice to this show’s Peter Parker which, while not necessarily bad, fails to truly be remarkable in comparison to higher entries on this list. Still, that’s no fault of Mr. Barnes, who nonetheless manages to be fairly believable whenever Peter is out of his spider-suit. In fact, while his delivery as Spider-Man is somewhat stilted in more dramatic episodes, his handling of the quips Spider-Man is most famous for seems to be channeling the likes of Dan Gilvezan from the old cartoons, which is something to be admired. Similarly, later entries on this list seem to be channeling his take of the character, so Christopher Daniel Barnes makes this list out of historical significance more than anything. Special mention should also be made of his performance as the “Noir” Spider-Man in the Shattered Dimensions video game. Truly, his history with the franchise runs deep.

6. Neil Patrick Harris (Spider-Man: The New Animated Series, 2003)

On the opposite end of the spectrum from the #8 entry is a Peter Parker performance from a much, much darker animated series. Billed as a sort of tangential sequel to the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man movie, Spider-Man: The New Animated Series is nonetheless a darker take on the Spider-Man mythos, with iconic villains offer suffering more permanent, costly defeats than in previous adaptations. Thus, Neil Patrick Harris had no easy task on his hands: present a more grounded and troubled Peter Parker without losing the character’s inherent charm both in and out of the costume. Thankfully, Harris has proven numerous times that he has the natural charisma to strike an almost perfect balance between those two sides, and his voice work creates the idea that Spider-Man’s impish, wisecracking charm and Peter’s dry, yet reserved sense of humor are essentially one in the same. Actually, : “natural” is the best way to describe his performance here- Neil Patrick Harris is neither too theatrical nor too wooden as Peter or Spider-Man, and his might actually be my personal favorite take on the character. Pretty much the only thing keeping him from being higher on this list is that the show he was in was as short as it was. Still, there’s an actor just as good as him in the role of Peter Parker, and he’s had more than enough material to demonstrate that…

5. Josh Keaton (The Spectacular Spider-Man, 2008-2009)

As far as portrayals of the traditional Peter Parker go, Josh Keaton’s take on the character in The Spectacular Spider-Man may truly be the best in terms of performance, writing, and tonal approach. Though the story of Peter’s spider-bite, loss of Uncle Ben, and rise to heroics aren’t modified too much here, their execution is as meticulous and well-handled as an animated series could hope to be, and Josh Keaton’s experience with youthful, cocky characters makes for a spot-on and endearing performance. It’s not all fun and games here, either. Sure, Keaton does well to make Spider-Man’s quips funny, but he’s got just as much of a grip on the character’s vulnerability in the face of his tougher foes and everyday adversities. A personal highlight of mine is his voice acting during the Venom arc, and Keaton is perfectly on-point when Peter attempts to shake Eddie Brock loose from the mental grip of the symbiote that once formed the black suit. This show was also cut short fairly quickly, but it’s easily the best written and acted for a show of its length, and thanks to its focus on the already well-performed Peter Parker, ranks high up as one of my personal favorite “Spider-Man” media.

4. Jake Johnson (Into the Spider-Verse, 2018)

The latest “Spider-Man” film took a reverent approach to Spider-Man as a symbol of accessible heroism, which makes its approach to Peter Parker himself all the more remarkable for how deconstructive it was in its portrayal of him. This Peter Parker is more or less the one we know, albeit one suffering from a sort of twilight period of his career: he vehemently fears commitment to his recently-divorced wife Mary Jane, and his current, lonely run as Spider-Man was a direct result of his fear of having children. What makes portraying this Peter so difficult, though, is the task of naturally conveying his growth into a different role: that of a mentor to Spider-Man newcomer Miles Morales. Jake Johnson, however, gives a hilarious and nuanced performance that effortlessly evokes the kind of regret that needs to be glimpsed through the snide remarks and laid back approach to danger. Self-aware as this portrayal is, however, he still very much is the Peter Parker we know: cocky, resourceful, and ultimately heroic. I’d talk at greater length about Jake Johnson’s spot on work for this Peter’s character arc, but I’d rather just tell everyone to go see Spider-Verse. So go see Spiderverse after this list.

3. Tobey Macguire (The Sam Raimi Trilogy, 2002-2007)

Yes, Tobey Macguire’s performance as Peter Parker can hardly be described as nuanced, or subtle, or technically good, in harsher eyes. That doesn’t change the fact that this Spider-Man was a standard-setter for future Spider-Man movies, or the fact that Macguire is still engaging in spite of that engagement sometimes being for the wrong reasons. His Spider-Man dialogue does go overboard in terms of cheesiness several times, but as Peter Parker, he never ceases to be endearing or relatable in his own ways. In Tobey Macguire, we see a perfect reflection of one of the most forgotten aspects of Spider-Man: he is an everyman and a wallflower, powers or no powers. He might not be the perfect Spider-Man, but he is the perfect Spider-Man for the kinds of thematic elements and stylistic choices the Sam Raimi movies wore on their sleeves. In fact, I’d say that this was the best live-action Spider-Man in terms of being the most “human” had it not been for…

2. Tom Holland (The Marvel Cinematic Universe, 2016-Present)

He might be fighting for screen time with the rest of the sprawling cast of the “Marvel Cinematic Universe”, but that should never take away from the fact that Tom Holland has turned in veritable tour de force performances as Peter Parker in Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Infinity War. For quite a while, he unquestionably had the number one spot in my eyes, since his seemingly effortless balance of wallflower insecurity and witty charm struck me less as “acting” and more as “channeling the character into reality”. Holland’s is a performance I consider pretty much perfect, and that extends to little elements, such as his subtle New York accent and his slightly stammering, Bob Newhart-esque delivery. Never once does he let the man or the mask eclipse each other, and my complaint that there isn’t enough of his seems to be a short-lived one with the announcement of Spider-Man: Far From Home. Though I can’t wait to see more of Holland’s Spider-Man, though, only one can top the list, and what’s so remarkable is how the final entry encapsulated the essence of “Spider-Man” so perfectly… in something I just reviewed a few months ago.

1. Yuri Lowenthal (Marvel’s Spider-Man, 2018)

Oh, how the internal debate raged within me about whether Tom Holland or Yuri Lowenthal deserved the number one spot. After all, the voice acting juggernaut could be described with every adjective that Holland’s Peter Parker encapsulates: hilarious, inspiring, entertaining, and above all, painfully vulnerable. What Mr. Lowenthal has working in his favor, though, is the screen time his Peter is given, and the weight of Spider-Man’s themes as conveyed by the interactive medium through which he portrays him. Playing the Insomniac “Spider-Man” game means a lot of things: having a blast with the web-swinging, facing off with iconic villains, and hearing every quip and observation that Peter has for every occasion. That last point, however, is what really matters, because more than any of the previous Peter Parker’s, we get to see firsthand what goes through his mind as he juggles the weight of his heroics and his relationships. From the gameplay’s channeling of Spider-Man’s spirit to the writing and acting’s perfect capturing of Peter Parker’s strengths and weaknesses as a hero and as a human being, the recent Spider-Man game has given us the most vivid picture of New York’s hometown hero, and that rings especially true of Yuri Lowenthal’s voice work. I’m glad, too, that I was able to end Spider-Month on such a high note. More on different movies next time.

That films like Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse don’t happen more often is a sad state of affairs, especially given the long and storied history of both the Spider-Man character and other superheroes under the pop culture radar. Still, if any hero were to get the loving, multiverse-wide film treatment, the first probably would have been Spider-Man. After all, as we’ve covered over the last few reviews, the character and the costume have seen many a different interpretation for decades on end between comic books, film, video games, and other such commercial and artistic media. Into the Spider-Verse had no small task in its narrative: Encapsulate everything that made the hero that made him (or her, in many stories) so enduring and popular, and make that sort of ethos the core of the film’s thematic ambitions. This film is not only remarkable for succeeding on those fronts, but for reminding its audience that potential for films (and not just films about Spider-Man) have limitless potential if people are willing to do something new and passionate. There’s a lot to talk about, so pardon the lack of an extensive, ramping intro. Oh, and the potential for light, albeit marketed spoilers.

Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) is an impending boarding school student whose high school-bred anxieties could be considered the biggest concern in his life had he not lived in a New York populated by crime of both the typical and super-powered varieties. That’s not to say school is any easier for him, though: his police officer father, Jefferson Davis (Brian Tyree Henry) has colossal expectations for him, which only heightens Miles’ fear of failure, and after a walk through the city, Miles’ fear for his own safety becomes just as omnipresent after gaining powers from a familiar spider bite and being tasked with stopping an experimental dimensional portal by a dying Spider-Man, soon revealed to be college graduate Peter Parker. Though all of New York’s in mourning, Miles has little time to ruminate, as the portal Spider-Man discovered leads the primary universe Peter Parker (Jake Joshnson) right to Miles. He’s asked by Miles to show him the ropes (or webs, as it were), but Peter refuses at first, having suffered his own heartbreak involving a divorce in his own world and being determined to return home. Still, Miles’ determination soon sways Peter into becoming his mentor, and it’s not long before the collision of universes leads them to Spider-Gwen (Hailee Steinfeld), an alternate, spider-powered incarnation of Gwen Stacy on her own mission to stop the villains behind the creation of the portal. Joining them still are spider-based heroes from other universes, including future born, Japanese-American mech pilot Peni Parker (Kimiko Glenn), a hard-boiled, trench coat clad Spider-Man from a black and white world set in the 1930s (Nicolas Cage), and a cartoon pig with spider powers, dubbed “Spider-Ham” (John Mulaney). Simultaneously amazed and terrified at the prospect of being his world’s hero, Miles is faced with a choice with all of the odds against him: rise to the daunting standards set by the “Spider-Men (and women)” of the worlds endangered by the portal… or refuse the call, and doom those heroes to disintegration and his city to crime.

As I implied in the intro to this review, Into the Spider-Verse is a fantastic movie, taken both as a love letter to the character and as a standalone film making use of the medium of animation. I’ll naturally be discussing the second category first, since the movie’s distinction as a mainstream animated film means that the Hollywood higher-ups might actually give the medium some long-overdue credit for what kind of stories can be told with it. To start, first impressions of the movie’s toying with frame-rate and choppy motion might have been mixed at first, but its execution as a whole has surpassed all expectations, as the animation as a whole is colorful, vibrant, and still dripping with energy, especially in the action scenes, and those frame-rate tricks mean the more restrained scenes of dialogue flow unnaturally smoothly into the fights and web-swinging set-pieces. What’s also remarkable about the visual elements is the use of comic book effects and formats: dialogue boxes will pop up when a character’s thoughts are being spoken, sound effect captions will subtly pop up in the middle of an action, and the transitions are framed like moving along comic panels. What’s going on here is a bold act of defiance against conventional Hollywood animated movies: a sacrifice of realism in exchange for bold and dynamic style. Against any odds, this style of animation has few, if any, hiccups, and the result is the perfect cinematic equivalent of an “animated comic book”. What’s more, the story being told through these visuals is unambiguously intended for broader audiences. That’s not to say that kids couldn’t enjoy it (after all, it is a “Spider-Man” movie), but the increase in darker storytelling elements and how they’re balanced against the typical beats hit by other children’s animated movies means that there’s universal enjoyment to be had with it.

Visuals and direction are far from the only things going for this movie, though. The narrative elements here really do serve as a veritable love letter to Spider-Man, and not just as a superhero character. Everything encompassing the history of the Spider-Man name is encompassed here through the use of the multiverse framing: Spider-Man as a hero, as a pop culture icon, and as an object of commercial tie-ins is put up into one giant display, and the story wears its love for all of this on its sleeves. The film’s thematic ambitions are far from subtle, but it’s an understated one about Spider-Man as a hero: anyone (be they men, women, children, or… pigs) with the means and the heroic spirit has the potential to be at least a little bit like Spider-Man. None of this message would have resonated without likeable characters, but Into the Spider-Verse has no shortage of that, as each of them are wonderfully written, well-voiced, and endlessly endearing in their own ways. Jake Johnson’s take on Peter Parker is a primarily de-constructive one, as he puts the immaturity and sarcasm of the character on full display, but it’s hard to outright hate the character thanks to the charm he exudes and the focus the story puts on his growth alongside Miles’s own arc. Speaking of which, Miles’s growth as his world’s Spider-Man and as an adolescent protagonist lends itself a a cavalcade of hilarious, heartwarming, and heart-wrenching moments, and this is due in no small part to Shameik Moore’s natural youthfulness and painfully authentic vulnerability. Hailee Steinfeld also continues to be a master of nuance even in animated form as Gwen Stacy, as her initially rough, detached demeanor is deceptively difficult to sell like she does in this movie. Special mention must also be made of Kimiko Glenn’s cheerful, charming voice work as Peni, along with the hilarity of Nicolas Cage’s channeling of Humphrey Bogart as the Noir universe Spider-Man and John Mulaney’s channeling of Mel Blanc as Spider-Ham. The only criticism I could muster for any of these characters is that I wanted more of them, but even that seems like a complaint that will soon be short-lived with how well the movie is doing.

There’s so much to praise and gush about in Into the Spider-Verse that I feel bad even approaching it with my typical review format, but I’ll conclude that the film is a beautifully animated, hilarious, and emotionally overcharged send-up of Marvel’s flagship superhero, and thanks to the universal nature of the lessons it breeds, it’s one that everyone, Spider-Man fan or not, should treat themselves to. I hope my dancing around spoilers has encouraged you to do so. See this as soon as you can.

…And people still say that “dancing emo Peter Parker” is as bad as it gets for Spider-Man. To those readers, I say:

“Was this the alternative you wanted?”

After the messy, yet still enjoyable Spider-Man 3, one would think the polarized reactions and jokes at that movie’s expense would have bred some sort of lesson about the dangers of over-reaching franchises. Because there must always be a time in which a studio like Sony just can’t help themselves, though, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 sets itself up as a franchise starter that shoots for the stars, only for the proverbial spaceship to hit a meteor on the way due to the drunken, complacent driving of its crew. Flawed as it was, The Amazing Spider-Man was still a good film in enough places that it at least could be classified as “decent”. Still, with how much the characters took a back seat to the overarching plot of the attempted series, one could be forgiven for believing that all the good from the first film happened in spite of the story and creative process, and not because of it. One could make the argument that the old “Spider-Man” movies had just as much enterprise-born cynicism behind it, but their presentation, writing and pulpy energy at least made it impossible to be bored, even in its most flawed installment. The Amazing Spider-Man, flawed as it was, could have some energy pumped into it by the sequel, and it could have made for a step in the same sort of fun direction. Instead, what we got in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was an utterly unfocused, thoughtless, and desperate movie that simply exists to set up a future cash flow it so desperately wants, but never truly earns.

A year or so after the events of the first film, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), haunted by the final wishes of Gwen Stacy’s (Emma Stone) father, decides to end the relationship he’s since started with her. Understandably heartbroken, Peter decides to continue protecting New York as Spider-Man and investigating the scientific efforts of his deceased parents, finally getting a much needed lead in the form of lifelong friend (and by “lifelong”, I mean “never mentioned in the last film“), Harry Osborn (Dane DeHann). It’s through exchanges with Harry that Peter learns that his parents were working on a long-term project: a cure for a genetic disease that Norman Osborn is currently dying of. This project somehow resulted in the creation of the arachnid that bit Peter, and Harry theorizes that Spider-Man’s powers are somehow linked to the cure. Not wanting to be doomed as his father is, Harry becomes determined to obtain a blood sample from Spider-Man in order to heal himself (something that Peter has a problem with for no decipherable reason).  To make matters even more complicated, Oscorp worker and nerdy Spider-Man fan Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), is rendered a human mutate by a freak accident involving electric eels at the Oscorp labs, and takes out his supposed neglect from the hero he deemed his friend by turning to super-powered crime as Electro. Peter has yet to realize is, but Dillon is far from the only threat he’ll face, as it becomes increasingly apparent that tragedy, hardship, and a cavalcade of villains are lurking not far behind him.

Oh, and The Rhino (Paul Giamatti) is in this movie.

Now, in my attempts to be fair and balanced, I will begin this review by listing all of the positives of The Amazing Spider-Man 2:

• This movie has the unambiguously best costume of any live-action “Spider-Man”.
• Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone manage to be occasionally adorable in their interactions.

If my prior plot synopsis seemed a bit haphazard and all over the place, the blame cannot be placed strictly on me. That sort of structure is, in fact, how the movie deliberately plays out, and the only signs of actual pathos are in the aforementioned romance scenes, which are at least better paced and written than in the first movie. Every other narrative element serves to hinder whatever central conflict there is. Electro, for instance, is a laughable side character turned villain. His pre-transformation screen time totals maybe ten minutes, the entirety of which only establishes that his is socially inept and that being saved by Spider-Man once made him a rabid fan. Harry Osborn/Green Goblin doesn’t fair much better, either. Dane DeHaan’s best efforts don’t change the fact that his turn to main antagonist is an easily preventable plot point that Peter had no reason for instigating other than the script demanding it. Speaking of flowing as the script demands, the over-hyped, under-cooked mystery surrounding Peter’s parents dominates much of his motivation and the film’s run time, and even though it’s had two movies to tug viewers along, it still lacks any bearing on the story of Peter’s struggles as Spider-Man. Furthermore, what once was hackneyed and uninteresting in the last film becomes infuriating in this one upon the revelation that Harry Osborn exists in this continuity, since the investigation that ate up so much screen time could have ended the second he entered the narrative. And what, pray tell, does the years-long mystery of the death and work of the Parker parents lead to?

Somehow, against all logic, the creation of the tech meant to be used by the Sinister Six in future films. There’s “suspension of disbelief”, and then there’s just “suspension of human patterns of logic”.

I’m usually not one for being this caustic in my written reviews, and I really wanted to count all the positives of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but the complete ineptitude of this film is on display in every big point and every small point (such as the self-destructive nature of the lemmings they call civilians in this movie, and the shoehorned, immeasurable instances of Sony product placement). I might have forgiven all of this, except the movie never tries to have fun or wear its heart on its sleeve like any of the previous few scenes do. I may have been lighter on it when it came out, but history has only vindicated my hindsight criticisms of this waste of talent and concepts. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is possibly remarkable for being the stupidest in a series of movies that had the Tobey Macguire emo dance, but that’s about it. Avoid.

 

After time came and went for the Sam Raimi “Spider-Man” films, Sony opted for a new reboot series of Spider-Man films, dubbed “The Amazing Spider-Man”, headed by director Marc Webb. The planned series, however, ended with just two movies after Sony and Marvel came to a sort of impasse with the “Spider-Man” film license, resulting in the previously-discussed Spider-Man: Homecoming and several Marvel Cinematic Universe appearances. Prior to this, however, this new take on “Spider-Man” seemed to be a profitable feather in Sony’s cap, and in spite of mixed reception soon to follow, the first of these films received decently positive reviews overall. Looking back, I can see where the positive reaction came from. The first “Amazing Spider-Man” film does capture the wonder and essence of the character in places, and is populated with a likeable, talented cast. Still, in numerous other ways, I can’t help but believe that Sony took a self-inflicted shot to the proverbial foot with the decision to make a more “grounded” and less theatrical take on the character. When it wants to be a “Spider-Man” movie, it succeeds fairly often, but when it’s trying to be a “different” movie than its predecessors, it completely face-plants just as much.

Beginning at an earlier stage of the life of Peter Parker, The Amazing Spider-Man sets the stage for the story we know by showing an orphaned Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) rendered an orphan upon the murder of his parents and adopted by Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Field). Upon growing up, he comes to be a brilliant student of science, but ostracized by his peers for his (supposed) eccentricity and nerdy tendencies, with even his romantic efforts towards the beautiful and intelligent Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) falling flat with her policeman father (Dennis Leary) looming over them. Things take a turn from the thrilling, however, when he is bitten by a genetically modified spider while investigating Oscorp for signs of his parents’ history and granted its proportional strength, senses, and climbing ability. He also manages to invent bio-mechanical web-shooters from schematics retrieved from the laboratory. Peter learns to use his newfound powers to more selfless ends, however, when his Uncle Ben is killed by a robber he ignored on the street, and soon finds that New York truly needs a hero when the experiments of Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) lead to the rise of a reptilian menace birthed from his desire to regenerate a lost limb.

Before I begin the review proper, I want to clarify that the darker take on the Spider-Man character need not necessarily be a bad thing (See MTV’s Spider-Man Animated Series for proof positive of that). That said, like all things, the quality of such a decision is all in execution. Still, there are a lot of good scenes peppered throughout this one. The web-swinging scenes, for instance, are well-executed, as are quite a few of the action and heroic scenes. One such (fairly spoiler-free) humanizing moment is a scene in which Spider-Man struggles to save a scared boy stuck in a car hanging alongside a highway bridge, only succeeding in doing so by unmasking to calm him down. Moments like this tap into the spirit of Spider-Man, and it’s one of only a few scenes that I can remember being edited much better than a majority of the plot-centered scenes. In fact, it doesn’t take long for the editing problems to make themselves terrifyingly apparent. Quick fades to black are used where they’re not necessary, and the scenes setting up the origins of Peter as Spider-Man are erratically, often comically rushed. I can understand trimming such scenes in order to avoid origin fatigue, but the problem here is that the establishment of Peter as a character takes a back seat to the overarching mystery of Peter’s parents, which goes nowhere save for setting up future movies. Even then, this version of Peter Parker is too conventionally “appealing” and inconsistently characterized to be wholly likable. Andrew Garfield is a fantastic actor, and when he finally gets a chance to be Spider-Man, he delivers well in the way of quips and one-liners.

As Peter Parker, though, he lacks the awkwardness and nerdy ineptitude that defines Peter throughout every adaptation, and he flip-flops between “quiet, cool intellectual” and “angry, vengeful narcissist” according to the tone of the plot as it progresses. Gone is the self-reflection following Uncle Ben’s death, replaced with pure vengeance, and the Spider-Man costume setup becomes less about crafting a heroic identity and more about avoiding the authorities. The result starts Peter out as mean-spirited, and it takes far too long for Garfield’s natural charisma to finally render this Peter Parker sympathetic. The romance between Peter and Gwen Stacy also ranges from passable to unbearable, and even when their romantic improvisation is passable, the scenes in which they take place drag on for much too long, and probably would have benefited from a more concise script. This is to say nothing of the film’s villain, whose blasé motivations and franchise-mandated connection to the uninteresting mystery render him completely superfluous until he reveals his hilarious plans to turn the population of New York into lizards. That’s not to say there’s absolutely nothing to enjoy here: Andrew Garfield does an admirable job in spite of the odds being against him, and the rest of the cast (Emma Stone especially) manage natural and on-point performances, but The Amazing Spider-Man tries much too hard to be “not the Sam Raimi movie” that it ends up having no distinct identity of its own. Still, there was potential for expansion, and Sony clearly had the want for it. More on how that completely failed in the next review.

 

Sometimes, an audience just doesn’t know what it truly wants, and this is especially true of adaptation. If there’s anything that past superhero adaptations have proven, it’s that being at the mercy of what would draw in the biggest crowd is just as risky as going in a different direction than expected with an iconic hero. It was probably easy for people in 2007 to say they wanted to see even more iconic Spider-Man villains in the next movie, but in execution, the realization of that wish ended up as messy and cluttered as these sorts of cinematic fan service inevitably tend to be. The first film wore its heart on its sleeve, and its strength came from its focus on the wonder and thrills of Spider-Man’s origins. The second one was flawed, but admirable in its bid to expand on the dramatic themes of the character, and both films benefited from a strong sense of focus on both its characters and the threats against them, something the third film simply lacked by comparison. That said, I’m in the camp of people who believe that retrospective criticism of Spider-Man 3 was fairly pedantic in hindsight, and while it is certainly a flawed conclusion to Sam Raimi’s trilogy, it’s fairly reassuring to see that the core spirit of the first two movies is still fairly present in this one.

A year has passed since the defeat of Doctor Octopus, and Peter Parker (Tobey Macguire) now has a semblance of stability in his life, having cemented his relationship with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) and even planning to propose to her. Even with this upturn in his luck, however, the problems that his identity as Spider-Man breeds are still lurking ever closer, as petty criminal Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) gaining sand manipulating powers from experimental particle technology and Harry Osborn (James Franco) discovering the true identity of Spider-Man and using his father’s old tech to avenge his death. To make matters even worse, Spider-Man himself begins walking an anti-heroic path after a meteorite-born alien symboite attaches itself to Peter and begins fusing itself to the spider suit. This symbiote, though generous with the powers its grants, also begins corrupting Peter’s mind, and even if Peter manages to shake free from this mental grips, the entity may already have another host waiting in the wings: disgruntled journalist Eddie Brock (Topher Grace). With three villains gunning for him and the symbiote’s effects putting a strain on life outside of his costume, Peter Parker is undoubtedly in for the greatest struggle of his life.

Now, the first two movies have provided an abundance of evidence that a Spider-Man movie can be supported by just one antagonist, so the decision to shoehorn Goblin-Harry and the Venom symbiote into a story already juggling the Sandman and the requisite Peter drama is a rather iffy decision that I can only chalk up to studio mandate. I said that this movie was quite unfocused compared to its predecessors, and that is an understatement. That I was able to compress a premise synopsis into one paragraph is a miracle, because Spider-Man 3 (in this exact order) uses its run time to cover:

• Peter’s continued struggles at a legitimate relationship with Mary Jane
• The Black Suit Spider-Man arc
• The super villain origins of Sandman
• Harry Osborn’s lust for revenge and rise to villainy
• The love triangle between Spider-Man, Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy
• …and the origin of Eddie Brock/Venom

The pacing and story problems don’t just end with the overarching plots, though. Individual scenes come and go at the blink of an eye, and while many have poked fun at the “Emo Peter dance scene”, my problems with it do not concern its hokey nature (though it certainly is that). Rather, the quick transition from that scene into Peter’s shocked realization that he is becoming more villainous is emblematic of the film’s greater problem of lacking a focus and moderation. That’s certainly not to say the movie doesn’t have its strengths, since James Franco was more than able to carry the conflicted nature of Harry’s character in spite of his compressed screen time, and Thomas Haden Church works equal wonders as Marko/Sandman. The character’s subplot about stealing for his poor, sick family is about as rushed as everything else in the movie, but Church gives the character sympathy coated in gruffness that feels like its coming from a genuine place. Its in areas like this (along with the continued excellence of the action scenes and effects) that Spider-Man 3 continues in the series’ heartfelt ethos, and it’s because of those moments that I’m not inclined to call it the disaster that fans have labeled it over the years. That said, if there’s one criticism that definitely does hold up about the film, it’s the ones surrounding Venom. Peter’s arc concerning the rejection of the symbiote is fine enough, but Venom himself is so shoehorned into the story that Brock’s turn to villainy by the film’s end is just laughable. I won’t blame Topher Grace too much for this, but the lack of meaningful development given to Brock means that he had to overcompensate in his performance by way of hammy acting (even for Spider-Man) and cringe-worthy attempts at humor and one-liners.

So, all in all, Spider-Man 3 can’t be accused of being overtly bad, but over-ambition crippled its narrative more than it ever did for the second film. While not a bad “Spider-Man” film, it’s certainly a bad sequel, and it’s a shame that Sam Raimi never got that planned fourth film to recover from it. More on what replaced that concept in the next review for “Spider-Month”.

The previous review for “Spider-Month” saw me revisiting the first movie in Sam Raimi’s series of “Spider-Man” movies, and I was happy to see that there was more than my own personal attachment to enjoy about it. Even after being rendered somewhat dated, I still believe that the first “Spider-Man” movie was an entertaining, emotionally charged movie with a lot of great action scenes spot-on performances, and a lot of love for its source material. It was also a record-breaking hit at the box office, rendering a sequel almost inevitable. Spider-Man 2, released just two years after the first film, is considered by many fans to be the best “Spider-Man” film ever made, citing the root of its acclaim as the increased focus on the tragedy and inherent dramatic tension that Spider-Man as a character is cursed with. Indeed, this film’s focus has shifted away from the wonder and joy of Peter Parker’s super-heroism, opting instead to focus on the stress of that heroism following the loss of numerous loved ones and the expected stress of everyday life outside his dangerous superhero career. Remember, a major theme of Spider-Man’s conception is that power breeds responsibility, so it’s only natural that a continuation of his story would be about the trials interwoven between both of his identities. All of that said, Spider-Man 2 is far from free of the melodrama that was present in the first movie, and the tonal shift does come with its own set of flaws, but the film still manages to hit the same beats as the first film while doing much, if not all, of what it sets out to do.

Set a few years after the defeat of the Green Goblin in the first movie, Spider Man 2 shows that continued heroics have taken their toll on the now college-bound Peter Parker (Tobey Macguire), whose relationships with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (James Franco) have been greatly strained. To make matters worse, his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) is in danger of eviction, and stress outside of his heroics have had restrictive effects on Spider-Man’s powers. His choice to hang up the suit, however, may have been made too soon, since a new villain has emerged in the form of Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), a scientist and former mentor to Parker who lost his wife to a failed fusion generator test and his sanity to his malfunctioning robotic arms. No doubt headed for the toughest phase of his career as a superhero, the man who would be Spider-Man must choose between his attachments and his newfound responsibilities as the recently-dubbed “Dr. Octopus” threatens to swallow whole everything he hold dear.

As one could tell from the plot synopsis above, the stakes of this film have been significantly raised since the last installment, as have the thematic ambitions. In my review of the Insomniac “Spider-Man” game, I talked about how some of the best Spider-Man stories are the ones that explore the difficulties of balancing Parker’s double life and responsibilities between both identities. So, what do I think about its execution here? Well, my thoughts are somewhat mixed. Spider-Man 2 works quite well as a continuation of the first film’s narrative, and the story itself is well-paced and well acted enough that nothing seems unnatural or contrived (unlike another installment we’ll soon be discussing). Still, what worked so well about the melodramatic and theatrical style of the first Raimi film was that it was kept in perfect moderation with the more lighthearted elements of the Spider-Man mythos. Here, the adventurous and fun elements are turned down a notch, and the dramatic ones are brought up about two notches. In many ways, this works perfectly, and much of that is due to the performances once again. Naturally, Tobey Macguire and Kirsten Dunst continue to completely nail their characters along with the rest of the cast, but something I see as an unambiguous high point of the second movie is Alfred Molina as Octavius. Molina went on record as saying he enthusiastically prepared for the role and was ecstatic to be cast in it, and it shows, since he perfectly balances sympathy and cold villainy in spite of the transitions between those two sides being somewhat rushed. The tragedy of Otto’s situation could easily have come across as heavy-handed, but Molina being the master of nuance that he is made it feel genuine in spite of the destruction his character sows.

On the other hand, there are moments that push the limits of cheesiness, and the risk the movie often runs at being heavy-handed becomes a reality whenever the topic of Peter and Mary Jane’s romance pops back up. That’s not to say you don’t come to care for them, but Mary Jane is not particularly well-written this time around, and the extent of her perspective we get in this film is that she resents Peter’s aloofness. The on/off again tension, while effective in the film’s final moments, becomes rather tedious at times, and that’s especially true of an engagement subplot that ends up going nowhere and only serves to remind us that Mary-Jane is hurting on the inside. If I had to describe the bad side of Spider-Man 2 in one word, it would definitely be “overambitious”. It’s clear that the cast and crew continued in their investment with this story, and that they made an admirable attempt to expand on the themes established by the first film. “Admirable” truly is an apt description, and Spider-Man 2 will still get an enthusiastic recommendation from me, but I urge any readers to take that recommendation with a grain of salt. It’s an excellent sequel, to be sure, but being a sequel, you’ll probably only enjoy it as much as I and others did after watching the first movie. Between the two, you’ll get plenty of great action set pieces, charming performances, and heartfelt comic book storytelling, but their strength as a whole kind of detracts from Spider-Man 2‘s individual strengths.