"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Review

 

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Review

I have been a major fan of the Marvel Comics character, Spider-Man, for a long time.  When I was a kid, I used to read "The Amazing Spider-Man" comic strip from my local newspaper on a daily basis. I was also a regular viewer of the reruns from the 1967-70 animated series "SPIDER-MAN" and the 1978-79 television series, "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN", which starred Nicholas Hammond. So when Columbia Pictures released a movie version of the comic book web crawler twenty years ago, I was a happy camper.

Ironically, I have no memories of any particular episode from either the animated series or the live-action series. All I know is that I used to watch both. But there is no way I could ever forget director Sam Rami's 2002 film adaptation, which starred Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man. How could I? I own a DVD copy of the movie.

"SPIDER-MAN" is basically Rami and screenwriter David Koepp's take on the web slinger's origins. The movie begins with teenager Peter Parker living with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May in Forest Hills, a suburb in Queens, New York. Peter is in love with next door neighbor Mary Jane Watson and is best friends with Harry Osborn, the son of millionaire/scientist and Oscorp CEO, Dr. Norman Osborn; who seems to regard Peter more as a son than Harry.  Peter attends a field trip with Mary Jane, Harry and other fellow students to a genetics lab. when he is bitten by a genetically engineered spider. He wakes up the following morning with perfect vision, fast reflexes, superhuman strength and the ability to emit web strings. His school fight with Mary Jane's bullying boyfriend, Flash Thompson, attracts Uncle Ben's attention, who has become concerned with Peter's recently distant behavior.

Meanwhile, Norman Osborn's company is in danger of losing its bid for a contract with the U.S. Army for weapons. Osborn tests his company's new performance-enhancing drug and becomes stronger. He also acquires a maniacal alter ego and murders his assistant. And Peter decides to use his new abilities to raise money. He enters a wrestling match to win $300 dollars. But the promoter scams him out of his full reward and Peter retaliates by refusing to help stop a thief from stealing the box office returns. The same thief ends up killing Uncle Ben during a carjacking. When Peter realizes that the thief and his uncle's killer are one and the same, he becomes guilt-ridden and decides to use his powers to become a masked vigilante following graduation from high school. In time, Peter aka Spider-Man and Osborn aka the Green Goblin battle it out for the safety of New York.

As much as I enjoyed "SPIDER-MAN", I must admit that it had its flaws. All of those flaws centered around Koepp's screenplay. One, I thought the story was a bit episodic, especially the first half that revealed both Spider-Man and the Green Goblin's origins. In fact, the movie could be easily divided into two halves - from the beginning to Peter's graduation from high school, and his activities and battles with the Green Goblin. Another major problem that stemmed from Koepp's screenplay was the dialogue. "SPIDER-MAN" turned out to be one of the two top movies that were released during the summer of 2002. The other was "STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES". While fans and critics criticized some of the dialogue in the latter film, they easily overlooked the cheesy dialogue that tainted "SPIDER-MAN", especially the smart-ass comments that poured from Spider-Man's mouth. And I found the Green Goblin's early attempt to convince Spider-Man to become an ally a bit contrived.

Fortunately, "SPIDER-MAN" possessed virtues that outnumbered its flaws. One, the movie was fortunate to have Danny Elfman as its composer. I thought he did a top-notch job that contributed greatly to not only the movie's, but the entire trilogy's atmosphere. Neil Spisak and his team did a superb job with the movie's production designs that gave it a colorful, comic-book style without going over-the-top.  I was especially impressed by Spisak's designs for the genetic lab sequence and the Oscorp-sponsored fair sequence that featured the murders of the Oscorp directors. Spisak's production work was ably assisted by Don Burgess' photography. In fact, I would say that Burgess' work more than Spisak's gave the movie its colorful comic-book style.

Although I found Koepp's screenplay a bit episodic, I must admit that it featured some very exciting scenes that I will never forget. My favorites include Peter's wrestling match with Bonesaw McGraw, the murder of the Oscorp directors, and Spider-Man's rescue of Mary Jane from a bunch of thugs. But the two scenes that truly stood out for me and struck me as well directed by Rami were the Thanksgiving dinner at Peter and Harry's Manhattan apartment; and the final showdown between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin. The Thanksgiving dinner not only led to Osborn's discovery of Peter's identity as Spider-Man, it provided a deliciously subtle interaction between the millionaire and Aunt May, due to wonderful performances by Willem Dafoe and Rosemary Harris.  Spider-Man and the Green Goblin's final confrontation led to a nail-biting moment in which the latter forced Spider-Man to choose between saving Mary Jane and the underage passengers of a Roosevelt Island Tramway car.  The sequence also led to a brutal fight between the adversaries and one of the best lines ever to be uttered by a Marvel villain:

"This is why only fools are heroes - because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice."

I will also add that when I criticized Koepp's screenplay for being episodic, I really meant that it seemed to be somewhat divided between two complete stories. Once Peter assumed the role of Spider-Man, became a photographer for The Daily Bugle and engaged in his conflict with the Green Goblin, the movie picked up to become a force of nature.

Tobey Maguire nearly failed to become Peter Parker aka Spider-Man.  Although Rami wanted him for the role, Columbia Pictures executives were hesitant to cast someone who did not seem to fit the ranks of "adrenaline-pumping, tail-kicking titans".  Apparently, these guys never read any of the comic books.  Without his Spider-Man outfit, Peter Parker was supposed to be a quiet, nerdy science student with a slight built.  Not only did Maguire physically and emotionally fulfilled Peter's character with perfection, he also worked with a physical trainer to improve his physique for the Spider-Man scenes.  His performances as Spider-Man really took me by surprise.  I did not realize that he would be so effective as both an action hero and quiet nerd.  And I like being surprised.

Koepp's portrayal of the Mary Jane Watson character differed from the comic books in many ways.  One, Peter and Mary Jane never met until both were students at Empire State University in the comic books.  Two, the comic book Mary Jane was a little more extroverted than the cinematic Mary Jane portrayed by Kirsten Dunst.  And she seemed quite taken by Spider-Man, after he saved her during the Goblin's murder of the Oscorp directors.  Despite these changes, Dunst gave an excellent performance with the character she was given and she had a very strong screen chemistry with Maguire, which culminated in the famous screen kiss that is still considered iconic.  Also, Dunst's Mary Jane proved that friendship was a more valuable component than mere muscles, when she revealed at the end that Peter meant more to her than Spider-Man.  Dunst also had a strong screen chemistry with actor James Franco, who gave an excellent performance as the insecure Harry Osborn, who longed for his father's attention and especially respect.  Come to think of it, Franco also had strong chemistry with both Maguire and Willem Dafoe.  Cliff Robertson was wonderful as Peter's Uncle Ben.  He and Maguire were excellent in the Peter/Uncle Ben scenes that would end up reverberating in the next two movies.  And Rosemary Harris was a delight as the warm-hearted Aunt May, especially in the Thanksgiving dinner scene and the hospital scene that featured her own heartwarming conversation with Peter.  Despite being forced to utter some very cheesy dialogue, Willem Dafoe overcame this defect and gave a truly scary and fascinating performance as Norman Osborn aka the Green Goblin.  Some of his best moments featured those scenes in which Osborn had conversations with his alter ego - the Goblin.  No wonder his Green Goblin is still considered to be the best on-screen Spider-Man villain.

Stan Lee was ecstatic over J.K. Simmons' portrayal of The Daily Bugle editor-in-chief, J. Jonah Jameson.  And I can see why.  In some ways, it is a rather one-dimensional performance.  Then again, I have always remembered Jameson as a one-dimensional character.  But Simmons breathed life and humor into the role and ended up giving one of the best performances in the movie. It is too bad that the Betty Brant character was regulated as a supporting one.  In the comic books, she was Peter's high school girlfriend and his first love.  In "SPIDER-MAN", she is Jameson's friendly secretary, who was always coming to Peter's aid.  Yet, Elizabeth Banks effused a great deal of warmth into the character that made her very likeable.  I can also say the same about Bill Nunn's performance as editor Joseph "Robbie" Robertson.  Bruce Campbell and Octavia Spencer provided some humorous moments as a wrestling announcer and a clerk who signs Peter up for a match.

Unlike many other fans of the "SPIDER-MAN" movie franchise, I never considered the 2002 movie to be the second best of those directed by Sam Rami.  David Koepp's screenplay seemed a bit episodic to me.  And it was filled with too many cheesy dialogue.  But the screenplay did provide a strong and action-packed second half for the story.  And I am one who cannot deny that Rami's direction, along with the production crew and an excellent cast led by Tobey Maguire overcame the screenplay's flaws and provided a first-rate comic book movie that I will never forget.

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "SPIDER-MAN", the 2002 adaptation of Marvel Comics' superhero. Directed by Sam Rami, the movie starred Tobey Maguire as the web slinger:

"SPIDER-MAN" (2002) Photo Gallery

"SPIDER-MAN 3" (2007) Review

"SPIDER-MAN 3" (2007) Review”

Over the years I have learned not to anticipate or make assumptions about new movies. About two weeks before the debut of the 2007 SPIDER-MAN movie, "SPIDER-MAN 3", I had read mixed reviews of it. Although there were a few positive opinions, most of them seemed to be negative. After reading this, my anticipation of the movie had receded a bit. But I still maintained a "wait-and-see" attitude. When I finally saw "SPIDER-MAN 3", I was happy to discover that that my fears had become meaningless. Although not as well-crafted as "SPIDER-MAN 2", the third film in Sam Rami's SPIDER-MANtrilogy still managed to thrill me. 

Before I can wax lyrical over the movie, I must address the movie’s flaws. And it had a few. One, I felt a sense of disappointment over some of the movie’s action sequences that featured Spider-Man’s web swinging around New York. They seemed to lack the crisp and detailed style shown in the two previous films and almost struck me as confusing and overblown. Two, I had a problem or two with the Gwen Stacy character. I realize that there are differences between the movie versions and the comic book versions of the Spider-Man universe. In the comic books, the blond-haired Gwen happened to be Peter Parker’s first true love. Her death at the hands of the Green Goblin (aka Norman Osborn) eventually paved the way for Peter’s romance with and marriage to Mary Jane Watson. It is quite obvious in "SPIDER-MAN 3" that although classmates at Columbia University, Peter and Gwen were not in love. Just friends. I had no problems with this. Nor did I have any problems with a symbiote-possessed Peter using her to make Mary Jane jealous. But I did have problems with the fact that the story never followed up on the mess that Peter had created between Gwen and Mary Jane. The story never allowed us to learn whether Peter had apologized to Gwen for using her . . . or if she had forgiven him. And what was she doing at Harry’s funeral? I do not recall them being acquainted in the movieverse. In the comics, Gwen and Harry were old high school chums that dated briefly in college.

My last problem with "SPIDER-MAN 3" involved the triangle between Peter, Mary Jane and Harry Osborn (aka Green Goblin 2). Near the beginning of the story, Harry had decided to take the opportunity to get his revenge upon Peter for his father’s death in "SPIDER-MAN". The opportunity resulted in a brutal fight and Harry seriously injured in the hospital. Harry woke up as a partial amnesiac – forgetting the reason behind his animosity toward Peter. And the two managed to resume their friendship, until an evening spent with Mary Jane (who was trying to forget her present unhappiness with Peter) resurrected Harry’s memories. In the end, Harry managed to coerce Mary Jane into breaking up with Peter permanently. Unfortunately, the writers never revealed what argument that Harry had used to coerce Mary Jane. Instead, they left the audience in the dark.

But what did I like about "SPIDER-MAN 3"? For one . . . the story. It was easy for me to see that the story’s main theme seemed to be about vengeance and how – as Aunt May had put it to Peter – it can spread poison within a person until it completely consumes that person. Of all the major characters aside from Aunt May, only two were not touched or consumed by a desire for revenge – Gwen Stacy and Flint Marko. Marko’s actions stemmed from his desperate desire to acquire money to aid his ailing daughter. And poor Gwen became a victim of Peter’s desire for revenge against Mary Jane. But for the rest of the characters, revenge seemed to be the order of the day:

-Peter Parker aka Spider-Man: the Webslinger becomes consumed with revenge when he learns that his Uncle Ben’s true killer – namely Flint Marko – had escaped from prison. He later seeks revenge against Mary Jane for breaking up with him, with Harry for the latter’s earlier vengeful attack against him and for initiating the break-up with Mary Jane; and against Eddie Brock for the libelous photo of Spider-Man and winning the position of staff photographer at the DAILY BUGLE. He certainly was a busy boy.

-Harry Osborn aka New Goblin: Peter’s best friend has desired revenge against Peter (as Spider-Man) for killing his father in the first movie. He also has revenge against Mary Jane because she used him to forget her troubles with Peter.

-Mary Jane Watson: a part of me is not sure whether to include her on this list. But I could not help but wonder if her bitchiness toward Peter was a result of her own professional failure on Broadway, combined with her growing distaste toward Peter’s pride over his popularity as Spider-Man. And when Peter shares a publicized kiss with Gwen Stacy that is reminiscent of that famous kiss from the first movie, Mary Jane’s jealousy eventually overwhelms her . . . and she turns to Harry for comfort. I would not be surprised if her action came from a small desire to get back at Peter.

-Eddie Brock Jr. aka Venom: Even before the alien symbiote had taken over him, Eddie seemed like an unpleasant piece of goods. And when Peter rather maliciously exposed his chicanery over a faked Spider-Man photograph, it did not take Eddie long to rush to the nearest church and ask God . . . to kill Peter Parker. Like I had said, he was an unpleasant person. Eventually, Eddie’s desire for revenge would soon present itself.

-Flint Marko aka Sandman: Although I had earlier stated that Marko had no desire for revenge in the movie. I now realize that I may have been mistaken. After two frustrating encounters with Spider-Man, Marko finally gave in to a desire for revenge when he allowed Venom to manipulate him into using Mary Jane to lure and kill Peter.

The one theme that had dominated the Spider-Man saga in both the comics and the movies seemed to be: "With great power comes great responsibility." I do not know if I fully agree with that motto. I really cannot see how Peter Parker mustbecome a costumed crime fighter, because he accidentally got bitten by a radioactive spider. On the other hand, I do believe that one should face the responsibilities and consequences for the deliberate choices you make in life. And this, along with facing demons that include a desire for vengeance, seemed to be the drive behind the movie’s plot.

Each major character ended up facing his or her own personal demons – Peter’s pride as Spider-Man becomes a forerunner of the exposure of his own darker nature that includes a cruel desire for revenge; Mary Jane’s insecurity about her self-worth; Harry’s desire to revenge the death of his father to fulfill his own lack of self-worth; Marko’s desperation to do anything for his ill daughter; and Eddie’s own shallowness and deceptive nature. What made "SPIDER-MAN 3"’s plot so interesting is that the characters’ flaws and decisions served as different points that converged in the emotional final sequence at the construction site in Manhattan. There, the characters make final choices in how to deal with their demons and only one emerged as the true loser - Eddie Brock.

As in the previous two movies, the third one boasted some fine performances by the cast. J.K. Simmons’ J. Jonah Jameson managed to be his usual funny self. I especially enjoyed his interaction with Elizabeth Banks – secretary Betty Brandt – in a duel of nerves in which Betty seemed determined to annoy Jonah every second with some crazy alarm. If someone knows what it was, please tell me. Although in a smaller role than the previous two movies, Rosemary Harris returned to give a warm performance as Peter’s aging Aunt May. In a marvelous scene in which Peter informs his aunt of Flint Marko’s "death" at Spider-Man’s hands, Harris’ May delivered the movie’s theme in a foreboding line about the true nature of vengeance. Last, but not least there was Bryce Dallas Howard, who portrayed Peter’s beautiful blond classmate, Gwen Stacy. Granted, her role was not as large as it was in the comics, Howard gave a fine performance as the warm and friendly Gwen. Some critic had complained that the movie turned Gwen from Peter’s true love to some kind of temptress. I found this criticism rather ridiculous for two reasons – a) Mary Jane had been established as Peter’s true love since the first movie; and b) Gwen was not portrayed as some temptress, but a nice girl who became a victim of Peter’s vengeance against Mary Jane. 

Thomas Haden Church’s portrayal of Marko Flint aka Sandman seemed like a far cry from his past performances that I have seen in which he portrayed more extroverted characters. His Marko/Sandman must be one of the most introverted villains I have ever seen on the movie screens. In fact, his character reminded me of some melancholy circus clown with a black cloud of tragedy hovering about him. Considering the circumstances of Marko’s life – a failed criminal career, a failed marriage, ill child and imprisoned for a crime that was merely an accident – it was not hard for me to imagine this. In the end, I was very impressed by Church’s subtle performance. And I was also impressed by Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, Jr. aka Venom, as well. Originally, he was not suppose to be part of the movie’s cast of characters. But former CEO Ari Arvad convinced director Sam Rami to include the character. And I am glad. Brock turned out to be a very interesting character. When first introduced, he seemed like an affable and gregarious young man, who also worked as freelance photographer for ”THE DAILY BUGLE”. With great skill and subtlety, Grace allowed the audience to gradually see the character’s dark emptiness, underneath the charm. Two scenes seemed to reflect this – the one that featured Gwen Stacy dangling from a Manhattan high-rise and Brock’s visit to a church after losing his job. In the first scene, I found it interesting that although Brock seemed mildly concerned over Gwen’s near death situation, he seemed more interested in taking photos of her and Spider-Man’s rescue . . . than doing everything in his power to ensure that she would be rescued. After losing his staff photographer job at THE BUGLE, Brock ended up at a church, where I thought he would confess to a priest or express remorse over his past behavior. Instead, he prayed to God . . . for the death of the man who caused his unemployment, Peter Parker. This is the second time I have seen Grace skillfully portray a character with one trait hidden underneath another one. 

When Spidey fans last saw Harry Osborn in "SPIDER-MAN 2", he had learned two disquieting facts – the man he held responsible for his father’s death (namely Spider-Man), turned out to be his best friend, Peter Parker; and his father, Norman Osborn, had been the infamous Green Goblin who terrorized Manhattan in the first movie. Three years later, Harry still wants revenge for Norman’s death and he finally decided to take action as the New Goblin A failed attack upon Peter resulted in a serious injury for Harry and a temporary amnesia. The audience got to see what Harry would be without his insecurity and the ghost of his father haunting him. And he seemed like a pretty nice . . . and well-balanced young man. I tried to find something wrong with James Franco’s performance, but . . . I could not find a thing. Honestly. Franco managed to perfectly capture Harry’s emotional journey from the vengeful son to the sweet-tempered amnesiac to the cruel manipulator who broke up Peter and MJ’s relationship, to the loyal and brave man who sacrificed himself to save his friends. Franco covered it all.

I have always liked Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson in the first two movies. But I found her a lot more interesting in"SPIDER-MAN 3". Beneath the sweet and cheerful persona, Dunst revealed a Mary Jane still racked by an inferiority complex stemmed from her bad relationship with her verbally abusive father. This lack of self-esteem came from Mary Jane losing her job as leading lady of a Broadway musical. Even worse, Peter’s own success as Spider-Man not only fueled Mary Jane’s insecurity, but fueled her envy as well. Matters did not help when Peter/Spidey had agreed to exchange a public kiss with Gwen Stacy, re-creating Mary Jane’s first kiss with him in the first movie. What I liked about Dunst’s performance is that she allowed all of these negative aspects of Mary Jane’s personality to manifest without resorting to over-the-top theatrics. I have come to the conclusion that very few screen actors and actresses seem capable of avoiding scene chewing. Especially those of Dunst’s generation. Fortunately, she did just that – avoid any hammy acting, while projecting Mary Jane’s darker impulses. As for her singing voice, I got the impression that it had been dubbed during MJ’s Broadway performance. But I could detect Dunst’s voice, when Mary Jane sang at a jazz club during the movie’s final scene. She had a nice, but slightly nasal voice.

As for the man himself – Tobey Maguire – I must say that Sam Rami had not been joking when he called Maguire one of the best actors of his generation. I felt more than impressed by his performance in "SPIDER-MAN 3". Although Maguire was able to briefly tap into Peter Parker aka Spider-Man’s dark psyche in the first movie (when he allowed a thief to get away with money stolen from a wrestling match), he was truly allowed to explore Peter’s darker nature in this film. There are two particular scenes that verified Maguire’s extraordinary skills as an actor:

*Peter’s misguided belief in his "cool" image, while walking the streets of Manhattan. Even evil (thanks to the symbiote suit), Peter could not help being a nerd. Watching Peter wallow in the illusion of his "coolness", while oblivious of passing females’ contempt made this sequence one of the funniest in the movie. It also showcased Maguire’s comedic skills.

*Peter’s second confrontation with Harry, inside the Osborn manor, revealed the depths of how monstrous he could be. He seemed truly dark in this scene. Maguire even managed to allow the contempt and hatred reflected in his eyes, when Peter ridiculed Harry for attempting to follow in Norman Osborn’s footsteps. In all, it was a very excellent performance on Maguire’s part.

From what I have read, "SPIDER-MAN 3" has received mixed reviews. Hmmm. Well, I certainly cannot influence the opinions of others. I can only express my own views. Personally, I enjoyed the movie very much. It possessed an emotional depth that went even further than first two movies. When I first heard that Spider-Man would be facing three villains – the New Goblin (Harry), the Sandman (Flint Marko) and Venom (Eddie Brock, Jr.) – I had my doubts about the movie’s success. It seemed like one or two villains too many. Oddly enough, after seeing the movie, it now seemed to work within its plot for me – despite the number of villains. Now that I think about it, the one true villain of the story – aside from the major characters’ inner darkness – seemed to be Venom. Unlike Peter or Harry, Eddie Brock never could break away from his darker impulses . . . even when Peter managed to force him away from the symbiote. And unlike Marko, Eddie never felt any remorse for his actions . . . right to the end.

To my amazement, I realized that my view of Rami's "SPIDER-MAN" trilogy seemed to match my view of the first three X-MEN movies. For me, the first movie of both trilogies struck me as very entertaining, but slightly mediocre ("SPIDER-MAN" is “almost” mediocre). The second movie for each trilogy was superb. Period. And the third movies for the two trilogies were flawed, but excellent, thanks to filmmaker Sam Rami.

"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) Review

"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) Review

The Marvel Cinematic Universe finally ended its third phase with the release of its second Spider-man movie called "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME". Released after the franchise's mega hit, "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME", this second Spider-man movie is regarded as a follow-up to the previous film.

Set in June 2024, eight months after "ENDGAME", former S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nicholas Fury and his top aide, Maria Hill, investigate an unnatural sandstorm and discover it was created by a creature known as an Earth Elemental. A super-powered man from an alternate universe named Quentin Beck arrives to help them fight the creature. In New York City, those students who had been killed by Thanos' Snap and revived by the Hulk's "Blip" prepare to finish out the school year they had been forced to repeat. Among them are Peter Parker aka Spider-man and his fellow members of the school's academic decathlon team, who the school rewards with a two-week European vacation. Still grieving over the death of Tony Stark aka Iron Man, Peter anticipates enjoying the trip and using it as an opportunity to confess his growing feelings for fellow classmate, Michelle "MJ" Jones. However, while the Midtown students are in Venice, Italy; Peter is contacted by Fury, who delivers a pair of glasses equipped with an Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) called E.D.I.T.H. that had been given to him via Stark's will. E.D.I.T.H. was an augmented reality security, defense and artificial tactical intelligence system. Fury also asks Peter to help him, Hill and Beck to deal with a new threat to Earth, the Elementals. Longing to spend time with MJ, Peter rejects Fury's request. But when a Water Elemental threatens to overwhelm Venice, Peter dons a new Spider-man suit given to him by Fury and Hill and helps Beck deal with this new threat.

I might as well be frank. I was not a fan of 2017's "SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING". I simply thought it was a badly written film with very little imagination. I also consider it to be one of the worst films within the MCU franchise. I never had a problem with Tom Holland as Peter Parker aka Spider-man. But with Jon Watts back as director, I had doubts that my feelings for "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" would be the same . . . or similar. I did not think that this sequel to "HOMECOMING" would be a vast improvement over the 2017 movie. And this is why a family member literally had to drag my ass . . . wait a minute. I should be more honest. I had every intention to see "FAR FROM HOME". It was the only major film that was being released around the Fourth of July holiday and I needed something to do. So, was the movie worth a trip to the theaters?

One of the joys I had managed to derive from "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" were its European locations. I have not been that impressed by the photography featured in many of the MCU films. But I could not help but be impressed by cinematographer Matthew J. Lloyd's work in this film. I found it unusually sharp and colorful for this franchise. And it did help that he had utilized his talent for scenes shot in Venice, Prague and London. I also felt that Leigh Folsom Boyd and Dan Lebental's special effects had enhanced Lloyd's work. Another aspect of "FAR FROM HOME" that impressed me were the special effects created for the Elementals.

Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed were the performances. Tom Holland gave his usual excellent performance as Peter Parker aka Spider-man. Samuel L. Jackson's portrayal of Nick Fury proved to be a bit more skillful than usual, deliberately conveying the idea that Fury seemed to be a bit off in this story. This was due to the fact that his old Skrull friend from "CAPTAIN MARVEL", Talos, was impersonating him. I thought Jake Gyllenhaal gave the best performance as the costumed vigilante Quentin Beck aka Mysterio, whose sincere and warm manner hid a possibly sinister agenda. I was pleasantly surprised by Zendaya, who gave a more nuanced performance as Peter's new love interest Michelle "M.J." Jones than she did in "HOMECOMING". However, I remained unimpressed by her screen chemistry with Holland. There was another screen pair that proved to be surprisingly impressive was Jacob Batalon and Angourie Rice, who portrayed Ned Leeds and Betty Brandt, Peter's roommates. Thanks to their performances, I really enjoyed Ned and Betty's summer romance that took everyone by surprise. The movie also featured funny performances from Tony Revolori, J.B. Smoove, Martin Starr, Marisa Tomei, Jon Favreau and a surprising cameo from J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. The only real disappointing performance came from Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill. She seemed to be used as background, instead of a supporting character. I blame the writers.

Thanks to the European locations, Matthew J. Lloyd's cinematography and the cast's performances, I can honestly say that I enjoyed "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" . . . more than I did 2017's "HOMECOMING". But despite the above, I was still disappointed with the film. There was simply too much about this movie that rubbed me the wrong way. And I find this sad, considering that Spider-man has always been my favorite Marvel Comics character for years.

The main aspect about this movie that irritated me was the main villain's goal. The Disney/Marvel publicity machine had hinted for months that "FAR FROM HOME" would explore the aspects of an alternate universe. In fact, the Mysterio character was supposed to be from an alternate universe who had arrived in this one to defend Earth against the Elementals. Instead, this all proved to be cheap plot twist that originated from revenge. The main villain, Quentin Beck, was a former Stark Interprises employee, who had been fired by the late Tony Stark for his unstable personality. Stark had also stolen Beck's holographic technology for his own private use, embittering the latter even further. With Tony dead, Beck settled with deceiving Peter Parker into handing over E.D.I.T.H. to him. I could not believe what this story had been reduced to . . . another Spider-man movie in which the main villain had a grudge against Tony Stark.

Then again, I should have known better. For some reason, the movie's narrative seemed unwilling to touch upon or explore any grief that Peter may have experience over Tony's death. I take that back. The movie featured one scene in which Peter and Tony's former security chief, Happy Hogan, did discuss the dead Avenger. But there were no other scenes in which Peter dealt with the emotional consequences of Tony's death. Instead, he spent most of the movie being torn between plotting to win M.J.'s love and "helping" Beck and Fury deal with the Elementals. Which would have been fine with me, considering my dislike of Tony Stark. But instead of allowing Peter to face the emotional consequences of Tony's death, the movie included scenes of Robert Downey Jr.'s mug being plastered on a wall or a billboard or in a dream. After I saw Downey Jr.'s face for the fourth time, I had to fight the urge to throw something at the movie screen. It was sooooo fucking annoying. What I found even more annoying is that for the second time, the main antagonist's villainy sprung from some past action of Tony Stark's. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has managed to make two of Spider-man's well-known villains more about Iron Man, instead of him.

I still find it ridiculous that the MCU seems hellbent upon making Spider-man's villains more about Iron Man, instead of Spider-man. And then there was the matter of E.D.I.T.H. Why on earth would any responsible adult will a dangerous piece of technology like E.D.I.T.H. to an adolescent? Why? Why did the screenwriters treat this dangerous and irresponsible action on Tony's part as a source of comedy? Come to think of it . . . when did Tony make this decision to bequeath the glasses to Peter? During the last five years of his life, Peter had been dead, thanks to Thanos' snap in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". He had been resurrected at less than two hours before Tony's death. So, when did Tony decide to bequeath E.D.I.T.H. to Peter? Had he included this legacy in his will before the events of "INFINITY WAR"? If so, why did he fail to change his will following Peter's death? Especially, since he and Pepper Potts managed to get marry and conceive a daughter? Or did he create a new will, while building a time machine (MASSIVE EYE ROLL) for the Avengers? I have never heard of anything so stupid in my life . . . even for a comic book movie. One more thing - how did Quentin Beck and his co-conspirators discover that Tony had bequeathed E.D.I.T.H. to Peter? Was Tony stupid enough to post his will electronically? And why in God's name would the MCU allow Tony to create something so dangerous and not treat it so seriously? What was the franchise thinking?

I had assumed that "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" would explore the aftereffects of both Thanos' snap and the Blip that had resurrected Peter and others who had been killed by the former. It barely did. The movie revealed that Peter and his aunt, May Parker, were helping other resurrected victims of the Snap in Queens, New York; who had had returned to life to find themselves homeless by staging some kind of fundraiser with Spider-man. I had learned via the MCU Wiki page that May Parker had also been killed by the Snap. I find this odd, considering that the same website had made it clear that she had survived the Snap back in 2018. And if both Peter and May had been killed by the Snap, why did they NOT end up homeless after being resurrected? How did May resume her profession (whatever it is) after five years? How did she get her money back? Did her bank refund her money following her resurrection? The more I think about Peter and May's situation regarding the Snap and the Blip, the more I find myself disgusted with the MCU's handling of its overall narrative. Audiences never saw May deal with the discovery that her nephew was Spider-man. Audiences never saw Peter and May struggle after their resurrection. It seemed as if the screenwriters of this movie had become emotional cowards. Or perhaps I should simply label Kevin Feige as an emotional coward?

I have noticed that in past movies, he has never allowed the franchise to deal with the aftermath of serious events. At least not in the movies. "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." had to deal with the aftermath of the agency's fall back in 2014. The series had to deal with the rise of Inhumans - something that the movies never touched upon since the topic first came up back in 2014/2015. And now, it seemed apparent that the MCU seems unwilling to deal the aftermath of both the Snap and the Blip. Looking back, "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" was the wrong movie to follow "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME". It was willing to be some ham-fisted ode to Tony Stark, but it was obviously unwilling to explore how people like Peter and May Parker dealt with their deaths and their resurrections.

Speaking of the Snap . . . guess who else got killed? All of Peter's friends from his school's Academic Decathalon Team. ALL OF THEM - Michelle M.J. Jones, Ned Leeds, "Flash" Thompson and Betty Brandt. All of them. All of them had been killed by Thanos' Snap and resurrected by the Blip. All of them. You cannot imagine how much I found this incredibly contrived. According to the movie's narrative, those students who had been killed and resurrected were given a two-week trip to Europe during the summer. So . . . Peter, his four remaining companions from the last film, and a handful of other students were the only ones from Midtown School of Science and Technology who had undergone the Snap and the Blip? Just them? How convieeeennent. By the way, this was a shoddily planned trip. The movie never featured them visiting any place of academic interest. No one discussed or brought up the possible trauma of being killed and resurrected. No one.

And when did Peter become interested in Michelle "M.J." Jones? Audiences last saw her casually conversing with Peter at the end of "HOMECOMING", while he was mourning the end of his relationship with Liz, Adrian Toomes aka the Vulture's daughter. Sometime between the 2017 movie and this one, he became attracted to M.J. My God, how frustrating! It almost reminds me of the rushed development of Princess Leia Organa and Han Solo's relationship in the STAR WARS Original Trilogy. At least in that franchise, "STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE" revealed hints of Han finding Leia attractive. I saw no such hints in Peter's feelings for M.J. by the end of "HOMECOMING". So . . . when did he fall for her?

I was also surprised about how Nick Fury aka Talos managed to change the group's itinerary at short notice in order to get Peter to continue with the so-called "Elemental threat". How did he achieve this without alerting the school board or the travel agency? This made no sense to me. Speaking of the fake Nick Fury and Maria Hill . . . why? Why on earth would Fury allow two aliens (even if they were friendly) to impersonate him and Hill? Why? If he was on vacation, he should have immediately cancelled it when the so-called "Elemental threat" first appeared. But he did not. Why? This is not how someone as paranoid as Fury would behave. Was he really on vacation? This whole scenario regarding his identity was simply a joke to me. After the joke about his eye in "CAPTAIN MARVEL", it seems as if the MCU is hell bent upon making him the franchise's punch line. Has Kevin Feige recently developed a grudge against Samuel L. Jackson or something? It was worse for Hill/Soren since she/he barely said a fucking word. By the way, what has Fury been doing since the breakup of the Avengers? Which government agency was he working for when the Snap happened? Or was he operating his own security firm? How did the Snap and Blip affect his livelihood? I get the feeling that the MCU will never explain anything.

I would discuss the movie's ending, which featured Peter's identity as Spider-man being exposed by Beck or one of his colleagues. But I was too disgusted with the film to overall care. I am certain - or I hope - that this issue will be addressed in what I HOPE will be the final MCU Spider-man movie. Granted, I enjoyed the film's photography and the European locations. I enjoyed the performances of the cast led by Tom Holland. I especially enjoyed Jake Gyllenhaal's performance. And I enjoyed the romance between the Ned Leeds and Betty Brant characters (they eventually got married in Marvel Comics).

Unfortunately, the sloppiness and laziness of the film's writing, the narrative's unwillingness to address issues from the last two Avengers films, the heavy-handed ode to Tony Stark and Jon Watts' mediocre direction has led me to regard "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" as a complete bust. This is the second time that a MCU Spider-man movie has completely disappointed me. I really wish that Sony Pictures would resume producing Spider-man movies without any output from the MCU. I really do.

"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the twenty-third film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME". Directed by Jon Watts, the movie starred Tom Holland as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man:



"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) Review