The Movie Spider Man Problem

So, after writing my review for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I then went out in the internets to read reactions to the film and, as predicted, it proved to be as divisive (if not moreso) than Man of Steel was among nerds. They either a). walked away entertained while totally aware of the film's more glaring issues or b). eager to forget the whole thing ever happened. Both are fair reactions to have. After all, it's every bit as understandable that someone would be taken with Andrew Garfield's performance enough give the rest of the movie a pass as it is that some people won't be able to get past Dubstep Electro and Kinda Green Goblin getting maybe five minutes of fight time.

But the ending put something about the movie franchise as a whole into focus that could possibly be a bit off-putting for some old school Spider-Man loyalists on a subconscious level (I say "subconsciously" because I can't say I've actually ever heard this complaint from anyone watching the movies....just a conjecture) that makes some of the goofy moments that much more goofy. I submit that there's a good chance we might not ever see the kind of Spider-Man story the source material whores want to see.

"Well, damn, Oz! Why the hell not?" Good question. One thing that was more overt in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 than any other movies is that Spidey is BELOVED in New York City. I mean, there are at least three cinematic instances I can think of where a Spider-Man fight was a public event akin to street dancers on the subway as opposed to what it would REALLY be which is people fleeing in terror, most of them not even knowing what they're running from other things exploding. The first movie showed people flinging trash at the Green Goblin, claiming the webslinger as one of their own. Spider-Man 2 featured a subway car full of people crowd surfing him with his arms like Christ. Spider-Man 3 had a parade in Peter's honor as well as a day named for him.

Anyone who keeps up with the comics could probably see how strange this is. It's pretty much standard operating procedure in the comics that Spider-Man is, at best, tolerated by the status quo. There are moments even when he's saved the day, he doesn't get it 100% right and people hate him for it. Of course, this is in keeping the overall moral of a Spider-Man comic that sometimes it sucks to do the right thing and people might hate you for doing the right thing, but do the right thing anyway because it's right and it beats being a terrible person. In fact, the only time I can remember people adoring him the way they do in the movies is during the Superior Spider-Man when Doctor Octopus Spidey was almost constantly applauded for being an Extinction Level Douchebag (which is part of why 75% of that book was a stupid idea).

There's only two applicable reasons I could fathom for this.

1). Given the fact that Sony exclusively owns the movie rights to Spider-Man means that it exists in a different universe as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That means he and the Avengers don't exist together. In other words, in the New York he occupies, there's no such thing as the Avengers....so he's the only superhero the people have ever seen. So, sure, it might make sense that he'd be something of a rock star.

2). (And this is really the more important thing to pay attention to.) More than ten years later, a post 9/11 Hollywood will always be hesitant...and rightfully so...to depict an apathetic, rude New York that treats its heroes as anything other than heroes. I get that this is a weird criticism, but consider Movie New York over the years.

I apologize in advance, but this is the second time in the life of this blog that I have to explain Ghostbusters II. This is the movie where an evil painting was filling the sewers with slime that made people into hateful jerks while slowly plunging New York into the eighth level of Hell (or Dallas, depending on who you ask). When the Ghostbusters came to the Mayor, making an impassioned plea to take action, this was the result.....


For me, this is pretty much the poster child for how New York was portrayed in television and cinema before some assholes threw a plane at a building and took countless lives, a day that most of us will probably not forget. This happened so close to the first Spider-Man film that they had to go back and delete the Twin Towers from the posters and certain scenes.

Odds are good we'll probably not see a movie anytime soon where a guy saves hundreds of people from a guy throwing exploding jack o' lanterns or a guy made out of sand only to have trash thrown at his head while he's being called a bum.

Because, as cynical as this generation can be, mainstream moviegoers want to see heroes win. (This is probably why Watchmen had such mixed reactions from people. It's hard to sell people a superhero movie that's primarily about failure.) They want them to be loved because, ultimately, they're blank slates for the viewer. They want to be able to paste themselves the point of superheroes is to give us some semblance of hope that doing the right thing can have a semi-happy ending.

Unless, of course, you're Batman. Because Batman doesn't give a fuck if you like him.

Well, The Amazing Spider Man 2....Umm...Happened.

The fanboys are going to have to start learning to live with one inescapable fact: Spider-Man belongs to Sony and the suits would rather lob off their own pinkies in a fit of cocaine induced rage before ever giving him back to Marvel. It will not happen. So, the dreams of a Spider-Man/Avengers cinematic team are just that: a pipe dream that will come to fruition around the same time the Dallas Cowboys win another Super Bowl (that's code for "Never").

I say all that to say that Marc Webb's follow up to 2012's "The Amazing Spider-Man" is probably the most that comic culture can ask for out of Sony's crack team of writers and producers which, judging by the amount of characters and conflicts crammed into 2.5 hours, must be legion. Civilian (non-nerd) moviegoers will almost certainly adore this visually arresting romp. Comic loyalists will be ridiculously divided. I remember sitting in the theater, seeing an unforgivably goofy moment in which Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) saves three different people out of a frenzied stampede of hundreds from certain electrocution using his only functioning web-shooter and I could practically hear the true geeks groaning in unison. However, if they get past their perennial inability to share with mainstream audiences, this actually ends up being a somewhat decent addition to the webslinger's adventures.

The movie opens up with us seeing Peter Parker fully embracing his whimsical personal as Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, loved by the city (most of it, anyway) and loathed by crooks. Meanwhile, in his civilian life, he remains tormented by Captain George Stacy (Denis Leary) who, with his dying breath in the first film, made Pete promise to keep his daughter, Gwen (Emma Stone) out of his death defying adventures. This probably fucks with him so mainly because of their resolve to ignore the Captain's orders. This is easily the most compelling narrative of the film since it involves two of the best performances. Stone's Gwen is brainy and confident which makes her an adequate leading lady for Garfield, the eight cylinder engine powering this movie, who really gets to show off as the fully realized Wallcrawler we didn't get nearly enough of in the previous film, a witty Spidey that wisecracks through pummeling bad guys to hide his inner turmoil, stumbling through the consequences being Spider-Man has on his personal life.

Shoehorned into the narrative was Peter's continuing search for answers concerning the disappearance of his parents (Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidtz) when he was a little boy. This felt like a rush job that led to a). a heartwarming scene between Peter and his struggling Aunt May (Sally Field) and b). a "sins of their fathers" plotline to link him to his long lost childhood friend Harry Osborn (a creepy, slightly emo Dane DeHaan), whose ailing father, Norman (Chris Cooper), owns Oscorp, the mega-conglomerate that Peter's father worked at. The movie makes no bones about painting Oscorp as NOTHING but the sum total of every "evil empire" ever imagined from which nothing good is derived.

They don't even have appropriate health insurance, evident by Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), a dorky Spidey-obsessed employee who has an unfortunate spill into a vat of electric eels (I shit you not) and becomes the villainous Electro. Foxx did what he could with what the writers gave him, but he has so much natural charisma, he wears the nerd facade about as well as the Roach from Men in Black wore human skin.

Oh, and there's Paul Giamatti as the Rhino, who feels about as "Aww shucks" and comically throw-away as Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow from the Dark Knight films. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in later films getting beaten up for about ten minutes before Garfield goes on to face whoever his main threat ends up being.

Spidey has his work cut out for him as did Webb, who tried his absolute damnedest to tie all these conflicts together in a neat bow. He doesn't necessarily fail, but the script's Frankenstein-like stitches are definitely apparent. Although, in fairness, it's clearer in this movie than it was in the previous one that the faults aren't necessarily his fault. It's obvious that this car was already fresh off the assembly line and that he was just the driver. Although this movie is at its strongest when it's highlighting the internal conflicts of its major players, the battles still pack plenty of punch with enough "holyshitareyoufuckingkiddingme" moments that really show off why our hero is utterly BELOVED by the citizens of New York (to the dismay of some comic loyalists).

Bottom Line: Is it perfect? NO. Is it better than the first one? Possibly. Will EVERYONE be happy? Hell No. Will it entertain the majority? Most likely. In that regard, it was pretty okay. A mixed bag...but there's nothing wrong with that. 7.5 out of 10