Decided to cook up a couple ideas for periodical columns, the first one being "Overrated Critical Darlings". Obviously the point here is to talk about movies that undeservedly get all the critical love in world when in reality they're shit or at the very least, shitty. First up is the Spider-Man Trilogy. I include the third one for the simple reason that it's easier to group them all together. So I am noting that Spider-Man 3 got the bashing it deserved, even though the 63% on RT is a little soft. I'm trying extremely hard not to rant about how bad the third one was, but anyone with two eyes and working ears knows what was wrong with that film. Seriously, watching Eric Forman parade around as Venom was like watching a dear friend get raped. Regardless, the first two films didn't get the same harsh treatment. Not only did they make a shitbrick of money of the box office, but were met with nothing but love from critics. It really beats the hell outta me.
Let's start with the first one, Spider-Man. Being the herald of the recent cascade of superhero films, lots of people look at Spider-Man as starting it all. It made studios realize that people love these characters and film adaptations of them will makes tons of money on screen. But looking back, it wasn't that great of a movie. One of the biggest problems was the use of Sam Raimi as director. Now I absolutely love the guy and his work (minus Spidey obviously). The Evil Dead films were genius as was Drag Me to Hell, but what possessed someone to think he had a handle on this character baffles me. With superhero adaptations the director arguably has the biggest effect on how the film turns out. Now that may be true of nearly every movie, but superheroes have such unique worlds that require the director to really understand the character and the world that he resides in. I didn't feel that was the case with Sam Raimi and Spider-Man. First of all Spider-Man is a character that doesn't really need to have a super imaginative world around him. What I mean by that is Spider-Man exists in the real world. He's written as a character that actually web slings around New York City so it should be relatively reflective of how New York really is. Raimi tried to hard to make a "comic book" world and it didn't come off right. It didn't feel real. There was a sheen around the city that didn't really exist in the comics. Simple things like the odd abundance of clotheslines (seriously, nobody uses those anymore) and the odd downtown parade, complete with Macy Gray performance. Now that scene did allow for a cool ass fight on the giant inflatable cartoons, but it didn't feel like Spider-Man. In my opinion, this first one was the least shitty of the 3, but overall was simply not right for the character. It felt awkward, unfocused, and generally did not work for me. I realize that's an incredibly vague statement, but I'll elaborate more as I discuss the rest of the series.
Now for Spider-Man 2. While on some level I can almost understand how non-fans of the comic could like the first one, I do not on any level get why anybody would like this one. Everything the first one did wrong was amplified times 20 in Spider-Man 2. The most baffling part is that this is the most well received entry in the series. It's solidified a 93% on RT with the consensus of "Boasting an entertaining villain and a deeper emotional focus, this is a nimble sequel that improves upon the original." I literally could not disagree more with that entire statement. Let's start with the first part, the villain. Doctor Octopus is arguably Spider-Man's most well-known villain. What they did to this character in the film was a disgrace. Having him be under control of the tentacles is a polar opposite of what happens in the comic. His character had no motivation to be a "bad guy" other than the fact that they needed one for the movie. In the comics, Doc Oc was tortured and abused as a child and had a terrible relationship with his mother. That's what made him such a bad motherfucker. Not some standard science experiment gone wrong that messed with his mind and literally made him into another person. He's a deeply disturbed and emotional character, but the film decided to showcase nearly none of that. Of course there was the oh-so-conveinent ending where he suddenly is back to normal and decides to die a hero. That destroys everything Doctor Octopus is, he would never turn good, even when facing death. And then there's Peter Parker's entire character arc. The whole "superhero loses powers" thing is retarded and never works well in movies. Spider-Man's powers aren't driven by belief in himself, he gets his powers because he was bitten by a spider. They don't randomly go away so the character can "find himself" and then come back just in time to beat the bad guy in the 3rd act. It was a shitty attempt at giving Peter Parker depth and failed miserably. Spider-Man 2 is everything that's wrong with superhero movies. It was simple, shallow, and completely incompatible with Spider-Man's portrayal in the comics. Not only did it completely misinterpret one of Spider-Man's greatest villains, but it managed to make Peter Parker a boring jackoff.
Of course the lack of understanding of Spider-Man's villains was no more evident than with the portrayal of Venom in the 3rd installment. Yes, I said I wouldn't harp on this one, but what the hell, I fell like ranting. It single-handedly took everything cool and awesome about Venom and destroyed it. First of all it casted probably the most un-intimidating actor in the entire planet for the role and decided to show his face pretty much the entire time. Alright for those who don't know, Vemon is a sociopathic murderer who would love nothing more than to eat Peter Parker's spleen (seriously, he threatens to on nearly every occasion). He's a disgusting, drippy, slimy tongued brute who has and will fuck Spider-Man up.
On a basic level his motivations are the same, but the film neglected to mention that a) it was much more than some pictures that ruined his career; and b) he was emotionally abused by his father his entire life. Keeping those character elements away from the movie made his sudden hatred towards Spider-Man seem shallow and rather random. The symbiote first attached itself to Peter Parker it didn't drive him "evil" and it certainly didn't make him dance. The symbiote was a life form of it's own, with feelings and motivations. It controlled Peter while he slept, making obvious problems for him. So he found a way to get it off, the symbiote felt rejected and was pissed so when it bonded to Eddie Brock it fueled his hatred towards Parker. The movie had almost none of that. It made Peter Parker's character laughable and ruined one of the darkest characters in the Spider-Man universe. At the end of the day, I'm happy this turned to reboot. I'm not sure what direction they're taking the franchise in, but honestly anything is better than what Raimi was doing. Plus Andrew Garfield (the new actor playing Peter Parker) is a fucking genius and will own the role. So here's to hoping Marc Webb knows what he's doing.
Tweet
0 comments:
Post a Comment