Spider-Man (2002) Review

 

        It’s about time I talked about Spider-Man from 2002. Hard to believe that it’s 20 years old and it’s one of my personal favorite comic book films. Considering of what came after and how the whole genre changed Hollywood in the years to come. I remember distinctly that my mother took me and my brother in on my town’s movie theaters. It’s one of those experiences that doesn’t leave my mind. 

1. Hero’s Journey

        Before I start, this wasn’t the first time I was exposed to the wall crawler. I remember moments in the late 90s and early 2000s when the animated show was on some networks. Occasionally, I tuned in to see what adventures happened to him. I even remember that there was some VHS compilations that came out and one of my family friends had one and we’d watched it. This and a video game helped my eventual fandom of the hero. 

        The movie is I think the 2000s generation of Superman: The Movie. In the 70s, people believed a man could fly. In 2002, audiences saw a teenager spin a web and save the day. Overall, the film does a good job of portraying the origins of Spider-Man. We see him played by Tobey Maguire, be just a typical nerd has the hots for Mary Jane Watson. 

        It’s the characterization of Peter Parker that makes him so relatable and beloved among comic book fans and the casual viewers. I love that we see him in his lowest and just how much he grows as person when he gets the powers. The best moment is when he has that conversation with Uncle Ben. Ben tells Peter probably the most quotable line ever associated with the hero. Peter is obviously in the wrong to talk back to him. After getting his “killer”, it gets complicated when the 3rd movie comes out, he figures out how to handle his new powers. 

        After watching some of Sam Raimi’s films, I was surprised that the studio was willing to let him helm a high-profile property. With all that, I think he was perfect for helming the project. It’s always a thing to see his directorial touches that are sprinkled in. Especially the moments of horror that’s in the film. While not over the top as in his Evil Dead films, most of the camera work is kinetic. Especially when Spider-Man swings, the camera moves with him. 

        Lastly, I just love the overall characterization of all the main characters. It gives the film depth and all the characters are three dimensional. I think the moment that best represents it is when we see that montage of some New Yorkers reacting to seeing the new hero. All of them are different, especially that one person who doesn't like the new savior. To me, it's a New York film through the lens of the citizens living there. It gives it a blue collar feel to it. 

        But the one who steals the performance is of course Norman Osborn. He’s a bullish businessman and scientist. He has a son, Harry, but it feels like a forced relationship that’s distant. When Norman is the Goblin, it’s a scene stealer. I just love that voice and that iconic cackle. He just manages to pull off being friendly, to just cruel in an instant. Like, yes, his costume does look silly, but it makes sense that he wears a mask since there’s a scene where he has a collection of indigenous ones.  

2. Fathers 

        This is one of those rare comic book films where it there’s some level of interpretation. It’s something I noticed on some viewings of the movie and it’s a poignant one since it relates to Peter Parker. Anyone who hasn’t picked up a comic book knows that Uncle Ben is the father figure to Peter. In the film it does that well, and having moments of Norman being one as well when he’s impressed by Peter. 

        Throughout the film, Norman feels that Harry is inadequate in comparison to Peter. Who has the same level of love for science. I feel that it gets more involved when Goblin and Spidey meet. Osborne wants Spider-Man to join him in his reign of terror. He obviously rejects it, and obviously gets worse for Peter later in the film. Little things like that, makes the film timeless since it has that factor going for it. 

3. The Film America Needed

        When the teaser came out, it had this one shot of a helicopter stuck in a web in between the World Trade Center. No one could’ve imagined what would happen months later after the trailer came out. In some way, the film works to assuage the anxiety of what happened. There’s even that moment between the first confrontation where the Goblin comes in and his glider is emitting the afterburner smoke. 

        Additionally, the people of the city come in to help Spider-Man when the Goblin is attacking him. That scene, whether it was planned ahead of time or reshot practically represented the American people stopping the villain. Like the whole film could’ve been a nationalistic propaganda film just after 9/11. But I’m glad that it can be interpreted that way, and give the American people a way to be proud that a hero with the same colors managing to fight back. 

4. Legacy: Reboots and Return

        This film obviously made bank in the box office. It was for a while the highest grossing film in the summer at that time. For reasons that I just explained. And it launched a media franchise that had tie-in merchandise. With the film’s success, more studios came out with other Marvel heroes, such as Daredevil and Hulk to name a few. While the others except for the X-Men didn’t meet the same reception as Spider-Man since it felt like the other studios wanted to make the same money as the web head. 

        The series spawned two sequels, and a third one that was abruptly cancelled. It was from there where Sony rebooted the hero again for the next generation. I didn’t understand it, until I was older as to why they had to reboot the character. If they hadn’t rebooted for 5 years, the rights would revert to Marvel and it’s obvious that Sony wouldn’t let their cash cow go back. Which is strange since the studio is willing to make films about the bad guys of Spidey. To horrific reception, but still bankable. 

        Spider-Man as whole is a bankable superhero property. People will go out and see a film, either live-action or animated to see the wall crawler. It was only appropriate where the live-action Spider-Men would meet for the first time. While I was expecting it to happen in the recent film, the way they went about it was just perfect. Seeing Tobey back, just shows just how much of an influence he had in being the first exposure to the beloved hero. 

5. Overall 

        Spider-Man is a movie that represents the early 2000s and still feels timeless. While it’s corny in some places, I think it was the point to lift America up and show that anyone can be a hero. 

The Sandlot Review

        The 90s were full of sports movies. Specifically, there was at least one movie dedicated to one of the big four popular sports in the country. Mostly some were made into dramas like Love and Basketball and Hoop Dreams to name a few. Though there were loads of kid sports films, you had the entire Mighty Ducks trilogy and Little Giants. The Sandlot is the most beloved among all the kids sports films of all time. 

1. Summer of ‘62

        This is the first sports movie that I was ever exposed to, second only to Space Jam. In terms of movies, this is the one that I always associate my brother with. I think it’s his favorite since we would watch it a lot growing up back in the day. Seeing it now is like a punch of nostalgia since the movie is memorable and quotable. And I think that’s the whole M.O. of the movie, imbuing that sense of innocent memory in a by gone time. 

        With that, we follow the new kid in the neighborhood, Smalls. He gets involved with a group of boys who play baseball at the sandlot. The main highlight is just watching the camaraderie of the kids playing ball and just spending the summer amongst each other. It’s clear that the film is shown in Smalls’ perspective. Told in a nonlinear fashion, since we see the grown-up version of him going to his work and recollecting on his best summer moment.

        The whole film feels like the time it represents. Since it takes place in the early 60s, it manages to pull off the illusion of making everything authentic. Right down to the individual caps that the boys wear. One of them even wearing a cap from a defunct league. It wouldn’t be years later that I went to my local Lids store and find the exact same cap that the character wears. Again using the nostalgia and having the kids chemistry when they talk among each other.

        With most things, there must be a conflict that the group has to resolve, and it involves a baseball. Throughout the film, we hear the tale of the neighborhood dog dubbed The Beast. How the kids describe it along with a scary tale, it seems to be a mutant dog twice as tall as the fence. Within that sub-plot, I love how the group try various methods to get a signed Babe Ruth ball back. Each going wrong and seeing the monstrous dog catch it. 

        Lastly, the movie is like a love letter to the sport and how ingrained it is in American culture. It taps into the simulacra that shows just how simple things were for the kids. And that’s what its all about, all of them get into trouble and do stuff that they’re not supposed to. It’s that idea of growing up where it lacks the subtext which doesn’t deter the movie for a moment. 

2. Legacy

        It’s now a beloved movie for my generation and I can see why. It’s surprising that the reception to the movie has warmed as time went on. It got mixed reviews due in part that the movie was compared to Stand by Me with its narration and sometimes coarse language. Now that’s on my parents for exposing me and my brother to bad words. Even though one of them used them a lot on weekend day.

        For some odd reason, years after the fact it got a direct to video sequel. And I don’t know if I consider myself lucky, but I watched it when I was in Elementary. It involved a new cast and was basically the same thing plot wise. Only this time involving a space shuttle, even though the film took place in 70s, I like things NASA so that was a big pet peeve. And I guess it was so successful that there was yet another sequel. 

3. Overall

        The Sandlot is soon to be a classic among the sports film genre. Still beloved even if you’re not a fan of the sport. 

Holes Review

It was only inevitable that a good live-action Disney movie would creep up in this look at the movies I grew up with. People tend to think that Disney only handled just animated films. Every now and then, they dabble into live-action, and it tends to be good. And it’s rare to see a good live-action film that isn’t an adaptation of their animated movies. Since in the early 2000s, they made a killing for their sports films such as Remember the Titans. With that, Holes is a good adaption of the y/a book. 

1. Stanley Yelnats 

Hard to think that this was Shia Lebouf’s film debut. My first exposure to him was in the Disney Channel show Even Stevens. So, at that time it was hard to believe him not being goofy in a movie where he must dig for punishment. Well, to be more specific. After a pair of baseball cleats lands on him. Stanley must serve his punishment in Camp Green Lake. As a penalty, he and the other campers must dig holes. 

The film is one of those rare adaptations where the author had a hand with the making of the film. Such as the fact that he wrote the screenplay, which makes the film a sort of literal adaptation of the book. Although, I did read that movie does fixes some of the plot holes that plagued the book.

It’s interesting seeing how Stanley changes when he’s in the camp. With most things, he starts off as being the sore eye in comparison to everyone wearing an orange jumpsuit. He’s witty in some situations but polite to the other campers. Slowly he becomes one of the gang and even earning a nickname. 

And that’s the main highlight in the film is the overall camaraderie between Stanley and the campers. Everything between the dialogue feels authentic and doesn’t feel off. I don’t know how to explain it but seeing them deliver the lines sounds right without it being forced or inauthentic. All of them even have distinct personalities which makes the believability more realistic. 

If there’s one thing I noticed in the film is the overall use of nicknames. Mostly all the campers in the “Camp” have distinct nicknames that describe who they are. I think since the boys see themselves as slave, they decide to just give each other nicknames since the task is inhumane. Especially with the camp counselors who have their nicknames, albeit ones where it’s ironic given the film’s ending. 

2. Story within the Story

Aside from Stanley digging, we get two other stories that tie into the bigger plot. The first one is mostly about how the Yelnats family is cursed, due to the Dad creating an invention to stop the supposed curse of foot odor. The second one is about an outlaw named Kate Barlow. You would think that the whole entire story would be haphazard. 

The other best thing about it is that it all ties together seamlessly. For one thing, I love how the film uses its flashbacks to give clarity with Stanley’s ordeal and with the camp itself. I think it gives the film a lot of depth, because if it was just one character giving an elaborate explanation as to why the boys dig. Then it wouldn’t be effective. For what it is, it adds more and it doesn’t feel jarring, at least to me. 

3. Overall

Holes is one of many Disney’s underrated live-action films. It’s a good time and I strongly recommend it. 

Armageddon Review

 

        It’s November again, and slowly but surely, I’m getting old. Around this time is when I talk about the films that I liked the most. While you can say that sometimes in any month, I sprinkle in something that I like. Now, I’m going about it differently. Throughout the month, I’ll be talking about the films that I grew up with. Some of them were when my parents exposed them to me. And seeing them in an odd fashion. This is one of those of films. Specifically, this is the first time I talk about Michael Bay. 

1. Oil Drillers: Defenders of the Earth

        So, how did I get exposed to this film? Well, it was of all places, the National Geographic channel. They had a special documentary about movie science. They analyzed the movie science and tried to apply it to actual science. This specific one, looked at all the disaster movies and applied them to science to see if they were scientific. They weren’t but that’s not the point. One shot had a space shuttle fly into an asteroid and that looked cool. 

        Along with that shot, there was also this computer-generated shot of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. They way it looked, had me so enthralled that I wanted to replay that so many times. Any explosion is worthy of the replay. I’m so glad that there’s the function on YouTube where you can manipulate the video. 

        Anyways, I’m rambling on explosions of all things. The film is very straightforward for a Michael Bay film. I’ll talk about him in a moment. An asteroid is barreling towards Earth in a span of two weeks. The head of NASA, Truman, finds a group of oil drillers led by Bruce Willis’ character to partake in this life-or-death situation. 

        Now reading that, you and I know that it sounds completely bonkers of a story. It can either be good, or really stupid. Like, if you really think about it. Why would NASA get oil drillers instead of actual astronauts? I’ll go off on this tangent when I talk about quite possibly the best audio commentary for the film. 

        It’s obvious that the film has problems. Scientific inaccuracies notwithstanding, the biggest problem is that the tone is all over the place. I feel that in one way that the film tries to take itself seriously given the situation at hand. In an odd way, the cast of oil drillers are the best and worst thing in the whole movie. The best thing about them is the whole chemistry. You believe that they are like close brothers and the camaraderie is second to none. 

        I think what makes them work is that they all have a distinct personality. While we don’t get scenes of them individually. Some of them we do, but I think it was just the billing of the actors. Ben Affleck gets the most screentime among the roughneck, and I don’t blame him since he was put there to counterbalance the level of machismo the film has got going for it. And that’s the reason why the film doesn’t work. 

        You have these moments of masculinity, romance, and science that it feels conflicting as hell. The whole film has these roughnecks doing all these crazy things. Like, the moments when NASA is figuring out the asteroid, it cuts to what’s going on in the oil rig Willis’ character is doing. Compounding it is Affleck having the hots for Liv Tyler’s character. I feel that she doesn’t really contribute much to the whole story but provides fodder when the whole mission goes south. 

2. Michael Bay

        You may have heard of the guy. I mean who hasn’t, he’s the only director that made explosions his whole career. Not to sell him short, but he did contribute to the action genre in the early 90s with the release of Bad Boys and The Rock. And you must keep in mind that disaster movies where everywhere in that time. It only made sense that Disney would give him a carte blanche and make his own disaster movie. 

        Having watch some of his movies stretching from his Transformers films to his lesser ones called The Island. The thing I notice about his films is just how the people are portrayed. It can literally be stereotypes and basic character tokens. It’s bad when if you have a background character act stereotypically black that it feels demeaning. Or having the only Russian character act belligerent when trying to fix the space shuttle. 

        It’s one thing to watch his movies, and it’s another when you get a headache. This film has so many cuts to different camera angles where my god it’s too much. The dialogue scenes too have this issue. Like when Willis’ character confronts Affleck’s about sleeping with his daughter. The whole moment is in the room and we cut back and forth to the characters with different angles, like I yearn for just a simple one take of dialogue with camera movement. 

        Instead, everything has to look cool for the sake of looking cool. Mission Control is all dark, which makes me think that they forgot to pay the light bill. The drillers can’t go using a standard astronaut suit, they have custom ones built that are a lot thinner than what we’re used to. It’s impractical and nonsensical since there’s a moment when they’re told to use an equipment for balance. And it’s not used, once. 

        Now, obviously what I’m writing is a take down of this movie. Although, what makes Michael Bay get away with it is that he shoots for the entertainment value. His movies are art in a technical sense. Camera and stunt work are all admirable when it doesn’t feel convoluted. Although the one thing he focuses on is the action and that’s his weakness. Character depth and good dialogue are all thrown out for the sake of looking cool. In his films, there’s nothing where you can pinpoint where it’s a movie that’s universally beloved. It has just one dedicated audience that loves the action, muscle and sometimes voyeur moments of the women. 

3. The Best Commentary You’ll Hear

        This part makes watching the movie worth it when hearing someone other than the director talking about it. In the DVD, Ben Affleck gives commentary on working on the film. And man, he doesn’t deserve to be as funny as he makes himself to be in the commentary. At times, he pokes holes at the overall story and delves into the mind of Bay. The best part is when he asks him why NASA needed oil drillers, which prompts Bay to tell him to shut the “f” up. 

4. Overall

        Armageddon is dated, bad even. It holds a place as a so bad it’s good since it has quality special effects and a good enough story. Bottom line, it’s a guilty pleasure.