It wasn't the Spider-Man we were hoping for but was it really that bad?
“Spider-Man: Homecoming” has officially rounded the corner of home release and although I voice appreciation for the handling of my favorite fictional character put under the supervision of people that actually give a damn, my feelings on the film itself remain about as lukewarm as they were in my initial review.
A decently crafted and serviceable action blockbuster with an effectively intimate bend to it that is unfortunately weighed down by an unwieldy bloat in its moving parts that messy key aspects of the character in a mission to make it stand out from its Marvel Cinematic Universe counterparts, as well as its own previous iterations, to mixed results.
Don’t get me wrong, with Tom Holland in the suit, Kevin Feige’s oversight, and the current contract obligating the character and talent bringing him together to make half of his mandated appearances in Marvel controlled films directed by the Russo Brothers, his future would seem to be theoretically secured through the end of the decade at the very least.
The unfortunate side effect to this however is that the future of “Spider-Man” beyond the early college years is once again up in the air, freezing this character to the maturity and iconography of his high school persona once more and prevented from indulging in the best thing about Peter Parker as a character; he was a teenage superhero that somehow survived the strenuous trials of superhero life into adulthood.
He isn’t just famous for being a kid hero but a kid hero that grew up into a well adjusted and functional member of society while continuing to be a hero.
With 3 continuities tackling the same story across multiple installments from different angles, I’m left disappointingly reminded that the most progressive incarnation of this character is now represented in a flawed film from 10 years ago that I’m more convinced than ever now does not deserve the legacy of controversy left in its wake, especially when compared to the cinematic history of disappointing second sequels.
“Spider-Man 3” was released to the public in May 2007 to a generally mixed critical reception from audiences, especially when compared to the universal acclaim of its 2 predecessors, all of which were directed by Sam Raimi.
The “Spider-Man” movies were not only a major milestone in cracking the formula for quality superhero storytelling in film but damn near rewrote the book on how to do genre blockbusters of the modern era in ways that we hadn’t even realized yet. With that kind of pedigree, the hype for the third installment was through the roof, promising to not only bring story arcs between Peter’s relationships to a head but all within the confines of an adaptation of the beloved “Venom saga.”
It’s a movie that had a lot to live up to but even letting go of the disappointing returns compared to its predecessors, it’s not hard to see why the film is held in such lower regard.
“Spider-Man 3’s” biggest problem is that it’s just a little bit too busy for its own good.
Where its predecessor managed to soar with an “accomplish more with less approach,” introducing only a few minor changes to where the previous story left off and magnifying the effects of their impact and conclusions, here was a film that clearly had a few too many cooks in the kitchen,
A lot of the less central subplots of the film almost come across as fodder for completely independent entries; Peter’s friendship with Gwen that could have provided a great illustration of how outsiders see an everyday Peter Parker that isn’t harangued by the demands of heroism, his rivalry with Eddie Brock that could have carried the themes of a movie in and of itself, tension between him and Harry Osborn that could have gone back and forth only to toxify as a result of the symbiotes influence, etc.
The film was burdened with doing too many things at once that never managed to coalesce into a wholly satisfying whole and a lot of that is clearly connected to the infamous studio mandate that the film had to adapt the Venom storyline despite Raimi’s desire to follow threads involving the Sandman while building on Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship, revealed to be loving but not without its hiccups.
For all of its faults however, I think that could just about summarize “Spider-Man 3” in a nutshell; loving but not without its hiccups.
The movie is substantially flawed but I’ve never really bought into the hyperbole that seems to have turned it into the second coming of “Batman and Robin,” and despite lacking in the focus department, Raimi knew damn well what the human draw of the franchise was; Peter Parker and his strained relationships with his loved ones. If nothing else, that is the front that “Spider-Man 3” chooses to stake its claim on.
Tobey Maguire still excels in the role of an earnest and sincere yet slightly self-loathing socially awkward dork that just so happens to recognize a need to step up to the role society needs him to fulfill with his gifts, making him feel like an unlikely hero, i.e. Spider-Man, the guy that can stop a train and rip bad guys out of moving vehicles is too extraordinary to be that doofus getting bullied in physics class on the university campus.
It’s a duality that probably hasn’t been seen on the big screen since “The Dark Knight Trilogy” wrapped up and not only is its still effective, it’s challenged by the character having clearly become more confident in his roles both inside and outside of the costume, as demonstrated by his navigation in the workplace without feeling like he’s always on thin ice, his performance and outreach to those in need of tutoring in his academic environment, and most importantly, his open and transparent discussions about his life with loved ones in the know.
Kirsten Dunst, to be fair, struggled with a character left adrift to be whatever the plot needed her to be in the name of its protagonist’s character arc but similarly to Peter, I would posit that her take on Mary Jane in this film specifically, gives her the most meat that she’s had yet, struggling with the pressures of having everything that she wants between her dream career and the man that she loves, and learning that achieving it doesn’t lessen the struggles of maintaining it all.
Meanwhile, their relationship finally finds real grounding as the specter of secrecy no longer looms over their desires and in fact opens up Peter to new criticisms that he has to adapt to or directly address without excuses, like anybody else would.
His veteran status and exposed vulnerabilities make him feel more real and his circumstances more compelling than ever and despite the aforementioned poor organization of the rest of the story’s structure, I would also argue that most of its execution is not particularly ill conceived within context.
The retcon of Sandman having killed Uncle Ben is pretty stupid, no arguments here. Except that even setting aside Thomas Hayden Church’s excellent performance of a character almost perfectly visually translated from page to screen, it does force Peter to grapple with a position that he would never want to be in; will he avenge his Uncle even if it could possibly put him in the very position that resulted in him losing his loved one, striking down a criminal that was simply a man hoping to provide for his child that made an unfortunate mistake.
In execution, it’s all too coincidental, forced, and hokey but not necessarily a bad idea to toss around.
And that brings us to the more controversial end of things.
A lot of complaints have been made over Topher Grace’s portrayal of Eddie Brock, with criticism of his wisecracking, sniveling nature and cockiness being a departure from the more brooding, bulky, and intimidating comic book namesake.
As a fan that has been burned on adaptation many a time, I can respect where these complaints are coming from. However, as a “Spider-Man” fan my entire life, I can honestly say that not only do I not mind the changes made to the character in this film, I actually think that they were outright necessary.
One element to the character that seems to be commonly lost to the annals of comic book history is that Eddie Brock and the symbiotes were not entirely created in the same bubble. Aspects of the character, from his pre-symbiote appearance, to the symbiote characteristics were put forth by different writers that were later assembled by David Michelinie and Todd McFarlane to suit a more visceral mold that they had in mind.
Regardless of the character’s physical attributes and character traits in the book, his existence is meant to serve one specific purpose in the storyline that has made him so famous; be a vision of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, through a glass, darkly.
That is exactly what we get; all of the blended confidence, competence, and charisma that Peter wishes he had but with none of the ethics, intellect or humility that make him worthy of all that he does have.
Peter Parker is shy and bumbling but brilliant, strong, heroic, and dependable where it counts. Eddie Brock is a slick, smooth talker that can cheat his way into any position he so pleases but is ultimately an incompetent coward that crumbles at the first hint of deserved scrutiny, a notion furthered by his Venom, who becomes a gleeful animalistic sociopath unafraid to flaunt and lord his power over those he intends to harm at his whims, showing the confrontational backbone that he never had before gaining superpowers.
And last but not least, it’s not a “Spider-Man 3” discussion without bringing up this.
Everything about that is borderline painful to watch. Why? Because Peter Parker is a socially awkward dork with no frame of reference for what cool is nor how a person with actual charisma mentally operates. He’s brash, full of himself, and makes himself look like an even bigger dork in the process. That is the entire point.
Spider-Man needs to be held accountable but at the best of his moments, he is nevertheless a vigilante operating in extreme situations. So what better way to demonstrate the problems of the symbiote, than by showing how destructive it is on his personal life in the name of his thrill seeking crime fighting venture?
After striking his girlfriend (albeit unintentionally), Peter is left to face what he’s become and realize just how far away from himself he has gotten by playing the symbiote’s game.
I would of course be remiss to say that the circumstance around Peter and MJ’s break up are another awkward story bit that does a lot to dampen the impact of the general idea of douche bag emo Peter but for a scene so often ridiculed, I find it more cringe worthy that context is never actually applied within many of these criticisms.
I’m not seeking to change minds. “Spider-Man 3” is far from a great movie; hell as much as I defend, it occasionally floats into territories that prevent me from unabashedly calling it good. However, in the fervor to pin reasons for reboots onto some tangible source, I feel as though it has gained a preceding reputation of infamy that is far from warranted despite its unfortunate timing, being a critically mixed bag released between Nolan “Batman” installments and on the heels of the MCU.
The unfortunate hand of meddling has muddied the waters of whatever vision Raimi may have had in mind for the character’s future but after having the more immature newby side of the character shoved down my throat for almost a decade in every media outside of the comic books, themselves an unintentional farce of themselves for the better part of 6 years or so, I’ll happily enjoy the bold but flawed movie of a man dealing with adult problems compounded by a secret that he has carried from adolescence.
It’s fun, intimate and occasionally subversive at best with some of the best interaction between side characters the genre has seen but at worst, it remains watchable while providing a clean wrap up to the series without feeling like a sequel desperately needed to come to fruition, while also giving us an excellent base to learn from in order to construct a better true superhero drama for the modern age.
No comments:
Post a Comment