Tangled Webs: Rediscovering Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Movies Trilogy
After seeing them rereleased in theaters over the past three weeks, I forgot just how great Sam Rami‘s Spider-Man movies were. I (mostly) loved them in theaters, and somehow, they’ve only improved with age.
I first saw Spider-Man when it first hit theaters in 2002. Enamored by a remarkable marketing campaign, I stood in line for hours to glimpse the Web Head on the big screen. I liked Tobey Maguire and adored Kirsten Dunst, so the stage was set for a classic theater experience.
Alas, while I enjoyed the film’s dramatic elements, particularly in the first half, I walked away slightly underwhelmed. Although I admired this colorful new world, Raimi’s Spidey was cheesy. Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin was a point of contention — I liked the performance but hated the costume.
Still, Raimi had my attention. So, when Spider-Man 2 arrived a few years later, I sprinted to theaters and happily basked in its brilliance. Raimi’s storytelling was sharper, the comedy and action crisper. Doc Ock (Alfred Molina) was the de facto villain of his day, leading to thrilling set pieces and fine-tuned superheroics.
The stage was set for a thrilling finale in the vein of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.
Spider-Man 3 hit theaters like a rocket and … never detonated in the way the previous installments had. I saw it with a rowdy audience at midnight and will never forget the boos that rained down over the closing credits. People shuffled out of the theater, perplexed, confused, and angry. I wasn’t as emotional, but I didn’t love Spider-Man 3 either. Subsequent views didn’t alter my opinion, and the film drifted into obscurity, another disappointing third act that fell far short of expectations.
We didn’t have long to mourn. Batman Begins flew into cinemas a year later, followed by the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Zack Snyder’s DC reboot. Andrew Garfield replaced Tobey as Spidey, followed quickly by Tom Holland in future Spider-Man movies. In reality, this transition occurred over a decade, but looking back, how the Spider-Man franchise evolved is remarkable. Despite the various adjustments, it continues to lure audiences, which is a testament to the character. However, I’m not sure how many more Spidey reboots I can endure in my lifetime.
Raimi’s Spider-Man Movies are even better on second watch
I’m cheating here because I’ve watched the first two Spidey movies several times. Yet, I popped in the original a few weeks ago and … enjoyed it immensely. The film still has plenty of problems, particularly in the action arena—Spidey’s first encounter with Green Goblin is pretty bad—but the good definitely outweighs the bad; the cast is plucky and likable, and Raimi instills a genuine heart and soul into what could have been a corporate exercise.
Spidey 2, well, there’s not much more I can say. It’s a classic. Seeing it on the big screen brought back fond memories, and I’m happy to say it still holds up as one of the best superhero films ever made. The scope and stakes are more significant, and the drama more engaging. Maguire’s performance is damn near perfect. He captures Peter’s nerdy quirks without losing any of his superhero luster. By the end, when MJ shows up to his dingy apartment, ready to take the leap, I am so damned happy for the guy. And that’s the key: you genuinely root for Peter Parker. You want him to succeed and find the happiness he deserves. When was the last time a superhero picture made you feel like that?
Also, Spidey 2’s set pieces continue to dazzle. The train sequence alone is worth the price of admission, and it really needs to be seen on the big screen to fully appreciate it. The only bummer is that Sony didn’t release Spidey 2 in IMAX, where the images and sound would have really exploded.
This is probably my second or third favorite superhero film behind only The Dark Knight and maybe Man of Steel, which makes it the best of Raimi’s Spider-Man movies. There’s so much to admire here, and it’s a shame that Spidey 3 didn’t stick to the landing.
Speaking of which, watching Spider-Man 3 on the big screen for the first time in 17 years resulted in a reasonably positive experience. As a follow-up to Spider-Man 2, Raimi’s third chapter still disappoints, but time has healed some of the pain. I’m still baffled at some of the story decisions made this time.
For example, in the second film, they establish that Jonah Jameson’s son is an astronaut. MJ leaves him at the altar, setting up the perfect character to introduce the symbiote. Harry breaks bad, and Doctor Connors is ready to emerge as the Lizard. All three characters connect perfectly to Peter. So, why introduce Sandman?
Moreover, why rewrite Uncle Ben’s death to squeeze Sandman into the story? Raimi already had three ideally-suited villains with ties to Peter and Spider-Man. Why complicate things? Baffling. (Yes, I get that Sony and Avi Arad pushed hard for Venom, but Raimi wanted Sandman.)
Still, I don’t mind the decision to turn Peter to the dark side. Raimi shows his inner conflict well, no matter how contrived the situation. He struggles to balance all the storylines together. Still, he delivers a complex character study that satisfactorily ties up the trilogy’s story threads. Basically, I didn’t hate Spider-Man 3. In fact, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.
Like Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future II & III, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and the Star Wars prequels, I’ve learned to accept these misfires for what they are. That doesn’t mean I’ve suddenly come to see them as good movies. Still, I can appreciate them on a certain level, even if it’s hard to shake the lingering disappointment that comes with every watch.
Spider-Man 3 swings for the fences and only manages a double, but it doesn’t strike out. There are some good things here. Some set pieces, including Spidey’s initial battle with Sandman in the city, are impressively handled. I also like the way Peter and MJ’s story resolves. Topher Grace is as miscast as Eddie Brock. Still, he does what he can with the material, and his Venom design is, at the very least, interesting.
Also, the goofy dance sequence never bothered me. It adequately contrasts with the “Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head” sequence from Spider-Man 2. It reveals that Peter’s evil side is more about fulfilling selfish desires than acquiring super strength. I wish we could have seen the black-costumed Spidey in action more, but the film had already swung well past its necessary runtime.
The biggest issue with Spider-Man 3 is that it tries to do too much. Really, this should have been a two-parter, ending with the black good infesting Eddie in the church. Show Peter making mistakes in the first half and then correcting those mistakes in the finale. As is, Spidey 3 feels rushed, convoluted, and disorganized.
And yet, as stated, I had fun with it. This was only my third or fourth watch, so I forgot most of it. Hell, I was surprised when James Cromwell popped up as Gwen Stacy’s dad.
Is there a future for the Raimi trilogy?
I would welcome a Spider-Man 4 with this cast and crew. Tobey proved capable of continuing the role in No Way Home, and they could take some interesting directions with MJ. Does it need to connect with Tom Holland’s Spidey? I dunno. I’m game for whatever, but I would love to see Raimi get another crack at the Web Head.
Are my desires based more on my affection for the first two than part three? Possibly, but Spider-Man 3 is hardly the franchise slayer many claim it to be. In fact, Raimi’s Spider-Man 4 would have righted the ship and brought fans back in droves—or maybe I’m too optimistic.
At any rate, seeing Raimi’s Spider-Man movies on the big screen was an absolute blast and a thrilling reminder of how fantastic cinema can be when placed in the right hands.
The post Tangled Webs: Rediscovering Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Movies Trilogy appeared first on ComingSoon.net - Movie Trailers, TV & Streaming News, and More.
