The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

When Sony Pictures announced in 2010 that they would be rebooting their Spider-Man film franchise after a fourth movie in Sam Raimi's series just couldn't get made, the response was mixed. Fans just didn't want to see the story start over. And that reboot, titled The Amazing Spider-Man, still managed to be a big hit in spite of some lukewarm reviews. But I enjoyed the movie and anticipated where the story could go. And two years later, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has arrived to more lukewarm reviews, and I still had to see it anyway.

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is having the time of his life being Spider-Man. He gets to help people, much of New York City loves him, and even the cops have began to mellow out in regards to his presence. The catch, though, is that it's started to strain his relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). They're madly in love with one another, but Peter is troubled by the promise he made to Gwen's father as he died, a promise to stay away from her before she too incurs the wrath of Spider-Man's enemies. This causes more and more tension between them despite their affection for one another, with Gwen growing more and more frustrated by the feeling that Peter is keeping her at arm's length.

But as is the case in most superhero movies, things quickly get more complicated than the protagonists would prefer. It begins with Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), a nerdy, socially awkward electrical engineer at Oscorp Industries. The frequently mistreated Max idolizes Spider-Man after the friendly neighborhood web-slinger saved him from being hit by a car. But Spider-Man can't save him from another accident, one that sees Max slip while repairing a damaged power line in an Oscorp laboratory and fall into a tank of genetically-altered electric eels. Now imbued with the ability to absorb, discharge, and manipulate electricity, an increasingly paranoid Max ― now answering to the name "Electro" ― now has an outlet with which to strike back against all those who have wronged him... including Spider-Man.

The arrival of Electro in Spider-Man's life is mirrored by the return of a childhood friend into Peter Parker's. With the recent death of his estranged father, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) has inherited the position of CEO of Oscorp. But he has also inherited the rare, strange disease that killed his father, and Harry believes that the experiments with spiders that led to Spider-Man gaining his powers could also cure him. Those spiders were thought destroyed after a number of lawsuits against Oscorp, so the only way to acquire the necessary elements to create a cure would be through Spider-Man's blood. But Spidey shoots him down, claiming that nobody's certain if that would work at all. The further bad news that Oscorp's board of directors has framed him for several acts of corporate malfeasance and voted to have him ejected from the company drives Harry over the breaking point. His anger with both Spider-Man and Oscorp lead him to seek an alliance with Electro and bring their enemies to their knees.

I'll admit to entering The Amazing Spider-Man 2 with a wee bit of trepidation. I enjoyed the first one for what it was worth, but still left the theater thinking it was okay but not great. And I fully expected the sequel to be more of the same without bothering to improve or anything like that. Basically, I thought it might get hit with a devastating case of "sequelitis." But much like its predecessor, I was actually rather surprised by how well The Amazing Spider-Man 2 turned out. It's got its fair share of flaws and imperfections that keep it from being all that it could be, but I still thought it was entertaining. And sometimes, isn't that really all you can ask for?

Returning to the franchise is director Marc Webb, who once again makes the movie feel like everything that happens is a grand adventure. He finds a nice balance between the slower, character-driven scenes and the fast-paced action sequences that allows both to have a bigger-than-life scope. Everything feels grander than it probably really is. And those action sequences, oh my goodness. They're exciting, fun, and engaging, and while the movie doesn't really match the intensity of last month's superhero epic Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Webb still hits the right notes when it comes to putting together something cool.

Webb also tries to duplicate his success from the previous movie in regards to the 3D effects, but here, the whole effort just seems pointless. There are some moments that look really cool in 3D, but it never really strikes me as something that contributes to the movie. I just came away with the feeling that the movie was only in 3D because the first one was, so they might as well keep going. Besides, every summer blockbuster nowadays has to be in 3D, right? That's how it works, isn't it?

But that's easily overcome by just watching the 2D version instead. Where the movie really starts falling apart, however, is its script. Credited to Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Jeff Pinkner, the script gets bogged down because way too much is going on than needs to be. It gets exhausting after a while because there are a few too many plot threads being strung along. We've got Peter and Gwen's love story, Peter learning more about how and why his parents died, the genesis of Electro, and the downfall of Harry Osborn. All we needed was to bring back the whole subplot of Peter trying to find Uncle Ben's murderer from the first movie and we'd have been set. It never really seems focused on telling one succinct story and suffers because of it.

I also thought the introduction of Harry and his quick evolution into the Green Goblin was handled all wrong. The character feels like he was added into the movie as an afterthought, as if Kurtzman, Orci, and Pinkner were told they had to include him by the studio and/or Marvel Comics. He and Peter never really feel like they're old friends at all, and the decision to rush him into villainy so quickly rather than build any relationships with the characters outside of "good guy vs. bad guy" makers the whole thing feel like a waste. Did your movie absolutely need to have two villains? I know Sony wants to make a movie based on the "Sinister Six" gang of villains sooner rather than later so they'd want to start introducing its members as quickly as possible, but come on now.

But the movie at least benefits from some very good acting. The weakest of the cast is Dane DeHaan, who I didn't think was particularly bad, but just okay at best. I actually didn't think he had a believable chemistry with Andrew Garfield at first, but upon further reflection, that awkwardness in their scenes actually fit how the relationship between the characters was supposed to be. On second thought, DeHaan's performance might not have been as weak as I believed at first. Perhaps those weaknesses could be more easily blamed on how poor the script is and what DeHaan had to work with.

Moving along to the movie's other villain, I really liked Jamie Foxx's performance. The whole "tread-upon nerdy guy is corrupted by power" thing is kind of a cliché (DeHaan actually played a similar character in Chronicle two years ago), but Foxx still pulls it off with gusto. He's obviously having a great time playing the character, and his sympathetic portrayal of Electro both before and after he acquires his superpowers makes one want to follow his every move.

But the true highlights of the movie are Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Both are immensely likable and engaging, and they have a cute, believable chemistry together. Individually, they're great as well. Stone gives Gwen a bravery, strength, and intelligence that are really great to see from a love interest in a superhero movie. Gwen is no damsel in distress, and it's through Stone's performance that one could understand why Peter would love her so much.

Garfield, meanwhile, is fantastic as Spider-Man. He's very charismatic in the role, effortlessly balancing the movie's action, drama, and humor. Garfield approaches Peter in a way that makes him feel like the character's actually stepped out of the comics, always making jokes to throw his enemies off-guard and diffuse tense situations while struggling with a rocky personal life. He plays it very well, like he was born to be Spider-Man. And no matter what flaws this movie or its predecessor may have, they're both far better for having Garfield and Stone in front of the camera.

I won't lie, I did enjoy much of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I thought it was really entertaining for the most part. But the problems I had with its script held it back from being the wondrous spectacle I thought it could have been. I guess I've been spoiled by Sam Raimi's first two Spidey movies, but it just feels like there's something lacking here. There's slick direction and some fantastic acting to be found here, but at the end of the day, I thought it was just another sequel that felt like more of the same. The movie could have been more than just "not bad." It could have been great. I can settle for not bad, but I shouldn't have to. I do look forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here, especially considering how this movie ended, but all I can do with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is just shrug and say, "Eh, it's alright, I guess." And as much as I hate to say it, sometimes that's the best you can ask for.

Final Rating: ***

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

While Marvel Studios may have seen an unbelievable amount of success with The Avengers a few months ago, Marvel Comics has always been about Spider-Man. The red-and-blue webslinger has been Marvel's de facto mascot for decades, and as such has appeared in a ton of different places. Cartoons, TV shows, a Broadway musical, all the merchandise you could possibly think of... Spider-Man's been there, done that.

In recent years, though, Spidey's most well-known appearances outside of comic books have been in Sam Raimi's trilogy of movies starring Tobey Maguire. But after the lukewarm fan response to Spider-Man 3 and creative differences between Raimi and Sony Pictures, the fourth entry in the series was cancelled before it got past the writing stage. Rather than continue developing Spider-Man 4 without Raimi, Sony chose to reboot the franchise and wipe the slate clean with a new take on Spidey's origins. And while the resulting reboot ― drawing its name from Marvel's flagship Amazing Spider-Man comic ― seemingly got lost in the comic-inspired summer blockbuster shuffle thanks to the mega-huge releases of The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, this new Spider-Man movie is still worth seeing.

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) has spent much of his young life wondering about secrets. The biggest one of them all is why his parents chose to leave him to live with his aunt May (Sally Field) and uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) when he was only four years old with nary a word as to why. And after their death in a mysterious plane crash, he long believed the answer would forever escape him.

But when Peter discovers his father's briefcase, he finds a stack of hidden documents that lead him to Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), a biologist working on cross-species genetics at the pharmaceutical company Oscorp. Peter sneaks into Dr. Connors's laboratory during an internship tour and discovers a room where genetically-modified spiders are spinning webs constructed of extremely durable cables. One of these spiders sneaks into Peter's clothes and bites him, bestowing upon him heightened agility and reflexes, enhanced strength, and a sixth sense that alerts him to danger.

As he learns the ins and outs of his new abilities, Peter approaches Dr. Connors with his father's paperwork. Dr. Connors, impressed by how well Peter comprehends the complexities of all the scientific jargon written in these papers, explains that he and Peter's father were working on a serum that would allow amputees to regenerate their missing limbs similar to lizards. And with Peter helping with some of the math, Dr. Connors has come closer than ever to perfecting his serum.

Unfortunately, Peter's dealings with Dr. Connors cause him to forget a few things around the house and leads to an argument with Uncle Ben. Peter storms out of the house, but when he tries to follow him and diffuse the situation, Ben is shot and killed by a guy holding up a convenience store. A heartbroken Peter hits the streets looking for the killer himself, using his abilities to capture muggers and carjackers as he searches for his uncle's murderer.

Donning a red-and-blue costume and mask inspired by Mexican wrestlers, Peter's vigilante antics make him a folk hero known only as "Spider-Man." But since vigilantism is technically illegal, it's also made Peter a target of the New York Police Department. The fact that the NYPD's captain, George Stacy (Denis Leary), is leading the manhunt for Spider-Man makes it especially rough on Peter, primarily due to his blossoming courtship with Captain Stacy's daughter Gwen (Emma Stone).

Things are going to get a lot worse for Peter, however. Dr. Connors, pressured by his superiors at Oscorp to rush human testing on his regenerative serum or face losing his job, injects himself with the formula. It is an initial success, as he regrows his previously missing arm. It almost immediately goes south, though, as it mutates him into a lizard-like beast. His sanity takes a drastic downturn as well, leading Dr. Connors to conclude that he should expose all of New York City to the serum. Realizing that the lizard creature he's been fighting is Dr. Connors and racked with guilt that his input led to this problem, Peter takes it upon himself to save the day even as the NYPD tries to bring him in.

The Amazing Spider-Man marks the third and final Marvel movie to be released this year, following behind Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance and the money-making juggernaut that was The Avengers. It isn't the best of the three, but I honestly cannot call it the worst either. The Amazing Spider-Man is genuinely fun, full of moments that are a real treat to behold. The first two chapters of Raimi's Spidey trilogy might be held in higher regard, but this movie can easily stand alone as something good.

Helming the relaunch of the franchise is director Mark Webb, whose name could only be more appropriate if it were "Peter Parker" or "Stan Lee." Webb's direction is fantastic, excellently maintaining a sense of adventure through the whole movie. There's also a certain level of curiosity, in that you know Uncle Ben is doomed and that Spider-Man will save the day at the end, but Webb sucks you in and makes you want to see what happens next. It helps that Webb is armed with a talented cast and amazing special effects, both of which really boost the movie.

I also have to admit that I really liked how Webb utilized the movie's 3D effects. While there are moments where the movie would have worked just well in 2D, Webb still utilizes the 3D in a way that makes the extra charge on the ticket worth it. It's especially evident during the first-person sequences where Spider-Man leaps from rooftop to rooftop. The 3D makes these bits look even cooler than they would have in 2D, to the point that it probably would have blown my mind if I'd seen it in IMAX.

Unfortunately, as good as the direction and the 3D are, I thought the script was just kinda mediocre. Written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Steve Kloves, the script suffers from muddled storytelling and a pretty big plot hole. The whole "Spider-Man's father kept some dark secrets" angle becomes a complete non-factor almost immediately and isn't mentioned again until the extra scene partway through the end credits. Did the writers just forget about it? Were those scenes cut out of the movie during the editing process? If you're not going to do anything with it, why even bring it up at all? It's like they came up with it and forgot about it twenty pages into the script, and by the time they remembered it, they figured they'd just save the answers for the sequel.

But at least Vanderbilt, Sargent, and Kloves managed to do right by the characters. They not only keep them true to their comic book counterparts while doing something new with them, but Vanderbilt, Sargent, and Kloves make them all enjoyable in their own ways. And considering how great a job the cast does, it's just icing on the cake.

And let's talk about the cast for a second while we're at it. Playing the lead role is Andrew Garfield, who at 28 years old doesn't really look like a believable teenager. But age discrepancies aside, Garfield is very, very good as the titular superhero. He absolutely nails the part, playing Peter with the necessary pathos and giving Spidey a joking, smart-aleck attitude, both of which are needed to accurately play both facets of the character. Garfield was a great choice for the movie, and I'm looking forward to seeing him in future sequels.

I can say the same for Emma Stone who I found to be quite charming and sweet as Gwen Stacy. Stone plays Gwen with a warmth that makes it easy to understand why Peter would fall for her in the first place. She and Garfield have a believable chemistry together, and their scenes have a likable cuteness thanks to how well they play their roles.

Rhys Ifans also puts forth a great performance as the movie's resident villain. Ifans approaches the part differently than how others have played comic book supervillains, giving Dr. Connors a real "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" vibe. He knows that he's a monster, but is too mentally unstable to stop himself. I actually felt that Ifans's performance was quite captivating; While he might not have the same menace as Heath Ledger's Joker or the scenery-chewing over-the-top silliness of Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin, Ifans still plays a damn fine villain.

And I really don't have anything bad to say about the rest of the supporting cast either. Denis Leary is a lot of fun in his role, while Martin Sheen and Sally Field knock it out of the park. The roles of Uncle Ben and Aunt May are crucial to the Spider-Man mythos, and Sheen and Field absolutely nail it by making their characters feel real.

I know practically everyone who sees The Amazing Spider-Man has and will compare it to Raimi's trilogy. But I honestly don't think that's really fair to the crew that made this movie. It should be judged on its own merits, and by doing so, one might be pleasantly surprised by how well it turned out. Calling the movie perfect would be a lie, but it's still a fine, exciting piece of entertainment that I enjoyed a lot. Now if they can just sort out all of the legal issues and get Spider-Man in The Avengers 2, we'll be set. 

Final Rating: ***½

SpiderBabe (2003)

Have you ever made a decision that you knew would probably be a stupid one as soon as you made it? I'm having one of those moments right now. I'd recently had the idea to broaden my horizons in terms of the movies I review here, which led me to SpiderBabe, the movie this post will cover.

As you might have guessed, SpiderBabe is an obvious parody of Spider-Man, made to cash in on the success of Spidey's first movie. But it isn't just any parody. No, it's the softcore porno parody. Yes, "Sutton at the Movies" has finally run out of regular movies to review and is now tackling softcore pornography. And I used to be such a nice boy.

But before this blog is finished circling the drain, let's have a little history lesson. SpiderBabe was the creation of Seduction Cinema, a label of micro-budget film company EI Independent Cinema. And as the name suggests, Seduction Cinema specializes in the type of movies that you'd see on Cinemax at 2:00 in the morning. They're no stranger to doing what they call "sexy spoofs," with movies like Play-Mate of the Apes, Lord of the G-Strings, and Batbabe: The Dark Nightie to their credit. SpiderBabe is simply another in their rather extensive pornographic portfolio.

But why would I step outside of my comfort zone and review softcore porn now? Perhaps it's in the challenge of it. You can't exactly approach a movie like this like you would a traditional movie, can you? Plus I'm a total sucker for pretty much anything related to superheroes, so why not give it a shot? So let's take a look at SpiderBabe and watch this blog become a man.

Our tale of sexy superheroics focuses on Patricia Porker (Misty Mundae), a timid high school student who often finds herself being picked on by her classmates. But the life she knows is about to change, as she is bitten by a genetically-altered spider during a field trip to a science lab. The bite not only enhances her libido, but imbues her with the abilities to climb walls and shoot webbing from her crotch. Yeah.

Desperate for some quick cash, Patricia signs up for a match with a local wrestling promotion with the name "SpiderBabe." But after she fails to stop someone from robbing the box office, the thief ends up killing her uncle (Peter Quarry). Wracked with guilt over her inaction, Patricia dedicates herself to using her powers for good... and getting laid.

Since every good superhero needs a supervillain, SpiderBabe will soon have a foe of her own. Enter Lucinda Knoxx (Julian Wells), the power-hungry sister of Patricia's best friend Lisa (Darian Caine). Wishing to have superpowers of her own, Lucinda uses the same genetic engineering that the spider that bit Patricia underwent. The procedure causes her to develop an alternate personality, that of the villainous Femtilian. And like any good supervillain, Femtilian's ultimate goal is world domination. This goal, however, will most certainly pit her against SpiderBabe in a battle of good versus evil. 

SpiderBabe is one silly movie. There's no two ways about it. The movie is cheap-looking, the acting is all over the place, the jokes are sophomoric, and then there's that whole "softcore porno" thing. But believe it or not, SpiderBabe still manages to be an amusing movie. It obviously had a miniscule budget and couldn't possibly come close to replicating Spider-Man's special effects or production value, but it does make up for it by ratcheting up the camp factor. The movie's a dumb one, but it knows this and plays it for all its worth.

The movie was directed by Johnny Crash, who did as good a job as he could considering he had practically no budget to work with. A lot of Seduction Cinema's sexy spoofs look the same, with cheap costumes and props, lazy cinematography, and sets that look like they're borrowed from a local high school drama club. I mean, they're making softcore porn, what do you expect? But Crash makes it work. With the better-than-the-norm cinematography and shooting locations that don't look like someone's backyard (they actually filmed in Times Square, for crying out loud!), the movie looks a lot better than it could have. It's still cheap-looking, especially when the cheesy green-screen effects, but it could have been a lot worse.

The script is also a bit better than one would expect. Written by John Paul Fedele and Terry West, both of whom have appeared in and worked on the crew for numerous titles in the Seduction Cinema and EI Independent Cinema libraries, the script has quite a few genuinely funny moments. The humor comes more from goofy one-liners than anything else, but funny's funny, and I'll take what I can get. But the truth of the matter is that the script is good enough that with a little spit and polish to eliminate the whole porno element, along with a bigger budget and legitimate actors, SpiderBabe could have been the mainstream Spider-Man spoof instead of Superhero Movie.

But last on my list is the cast, which is mostly made up of members of Seduction Cinema's cabal of nubile young women. Watch a few of their movies, and you'll see the same actresses more than once. But of all of them, their poster child is Misty Mundae, who plays SpiderBabe's title character. I've seen her in a few movies in various genres (and under different names, too), and I must admit that I enjoy her work a lot. Even though most of those movies have been pretty awful, I've always thought that Mundae was charming and downright funny. SpiderBabe is no exception, as she's a lot of fun to watch. Mundae's got a sharp comedic wit that makes even the dopiest jokes worth laughing at, and is cute as a button to boot.

I wish I could pay the same compliments to the rest of the cast, but really, I can't. Outside of Mundae, there isn't a single performance in the movie that's worth watching. Just because this is a porno doesn't mean you can't at least try, ladies. I mean, you've gotta do something in movies like this besides get naked and grope each other, right? But I guess I could play nice and talk about the major players besides Mundae.

Playing the villainous Femtilian is Julian Wells, and let me tell you, Willem Dafoe she ain't. You can tell she's trying to channel Dafoe's Green Goblin by overacting as hard as she can, but she's barely okay. She's watchable at best, and even that's pushing it. At least she's better than Darian Caine, who plays SpiderBabe's answer to Harry Osborn. Caine's performance is exactly what you'd expect from a movie like this: pretty darn lousy. But she doesn't have all that many scenes, so she isn't around for too long.

I'm still amazed that I actually sat down and wrote a review for a softcore porno parody of Spider-Man. I feel like I should be ashamed of myself. But as bad as the movie is, it's still a lot of dumb, dopey fun. And it isn't really that much of a porno either, since the sex scenes aren't any more explicit than what you'd see in a typical R-rated movie. It's mostly naked groping. Seriously. But with or without those scenes, SpiderBabe is a silly flick that nobody who watches it could ever in a million years take seriously. I'd be a fool to say it's actually a good movie, but it's an amusing watch if you do stumble upon it. And at least the movie tried being clever, instead of just calling itself Spider-Man XXX: The Porn Parody, like the recent Batman adult movie did. There's nothing wrong with having a little imagination, right? 

Final Rating: **½

Superhero Movie (2008)

Of all the different kinds of comedy movie, there's a particular brand known as the spoof. They gained prominence in the '70s and '80s with classics like Airplane! and the Naked Gun trilogy, while other flicks like Johnny Dangerously, Spy Hard, Hot Shots, and the work of Mel Brooks have made their own contribution to the genre over the years. They might have taken on different subjects, but they were all unified in the way they went about it. Instead of singling out certain movies, they set out to lampoon a certain genre and use its clichés for comedic purposes. And in my opinion, they were better movies for it.

But that idea changed at the turn of the twenty-first century, when Keenan Ivory Wayans unleashed Scary Movie upon the world. Scary Movie did the exact opposite of the parodies that came before it, using gross-out humor to blatantly mock and imitate popular horror movies. It was a thoroughly mediocre movie, but it proved successful enough to inspire a number of sequels and clones.

While Not Another Teen Movie was actually an okay movie, the majority of these Scary Movie wannabes have been absolutely dreadful. Go watch Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, and Disaster Movie, and tell me they aren't horrible. The movies are basically vehicles for the directors to find as many ways to inflict physical punishment upon as many celebrities and famous characters from other movies as they can before the closing credits roll. But with teen movies, date movies, disaster movies, and blockbusters having gotten the "_____ Movie" treatment, it was eventually time for comic book adaptations to be the subject of a lame parody. And that's just what we got with Superhero Movie.

Rick Riker (Drake Bell) is your typical high school loser. He's regularly abused by bullies, and he carries an unrequited torch for Jill Johnson (Sara Paxton), the pretty girl next door that doesn't even know Rick exists. The only people who'll even give him so much as the time of day are his aunt and uncle (Marion Ross and Leslie Nielsen), and his only friend, Trey (Kevin Hart). Rick's pitiful life eventually takes an eventful turn when, during a school field trip to an animal research lab, he is bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly. The bite imbues him with super-strength, the ability to walk on walls, and almost total invulnerability. Oddly enough, his abilities don't allow him to fly, which is kinda weird considering it was a dragonfly that caused all this. Anyway, Rick chooses to use his newfound powers to become a masked superhero dubbed "The Dragonfly."

And every good superhero needs an archenemy as well. Terminally ill scientist Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) has created a machine that could potentially cure his illness. However, the machine malfunctions during the initial run and instead of curing him, Landers is instead finds himself able to suck the life from people and use it to prolong his own. Each person he drains only provides a temporary fix, but Landers deduces that if he were to drain several thousands of people at once, he would become immortal. Landers adopts the criminal persona of "Hourglass" to achieve this goal, eventually bringing him into conflict with Rick, who tries desperately to save the city and get the girl.

The recent glut of spoof movies have given us nothing but a bunch of movies that are each more stupid than the last. But the odd thing is that Superhero Movie is actually better than much of its brethren. It helps that Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer — the wastes of space behind the majority of the "_____ Movie" disasters — had nothing to do with this one. That works in the movie's favor, as it elevates it from total garbage to the level of merely lame and mediocre at best. While the movie could have been better, it could have been a whole heck of a lot times worse. It tries desperately to both fit in with the style while standing alone as its own movie, which ultimately does it more harm than good.

When it comes to direction, movies like this don't need to be very complex. In truth, comedy is most often best done when it's kept simple. Craig Mazin keeps this in mind, as his work is effective in its simplicity. And outside of some cheap-looking production value, an instance of very ugly CGI, and some obvious green screen work, Mazin's directorial work is okay. His writing, however, could have used quite a bit of work. A lot of the jokes unfortunately fall flat.

But I'll give him credit for writing a movie with a coherent plot that, for the most part, actually sticks to the genre it's supposed to be lampooning. The spoofs made by Friedberg and Seltzer overload themselves on excessively random pop culture references that are completely unrelated to their central themes. For example, what does Chris Crocker's "leave Britney alone!" YouTube video have to do with a parody of 300, besides making the movie even more annoying? Or why do Iron Man, Batman, Hellboy, the Incredible Hulk, Indiana Jones, Hannah Montana, Flavor Flav, Jessica Simpson, Justin Timberlake, Dr. Phil, Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse, Beowulf, Alvin and the Chipmunks, and characters from Hancock, Juno, 10,000 B.C., Superbad, No Country for Old Men, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Speed Racer, Kung Fu Panda, High School Musical, The Love Guru, Sex in the City, Enchanted, and Wanted appear in what's supposed to be a parody of disaster movies?

Mazin does commit this offense a few times, with a running gag involving Stephen Hawking and a parody of Tom Cruise's leaked videos about Scientology. While I don't really understand the point of the Hawking bits, Mazin does try tying the Tom Cruise joke into superhero movies. But alas, the joke just isn't funny. And seriously, did we need the Stephen Hawking gags? I'll admit to chuckling a bit at the thought of him being depicted as a lecherous pervert, but did we really need to have him get beat up in every one of his scenes? Isn't that a bit distasteful? Or did I miss the announcement that the repeated abuse of a handicapped person was funny now?

I also think it's odd that with a genre as diverse as superhero movies, Mazin chose to focus primarily on the first Spider-Man movie. Why a movie that was six years old at the time, and not something relatively more recent? Maybe it was to keep that more coherent plot I mentioned, but references to movies outside of Spider-Man are few and far between. There's a quick parody of the scene where Bruce Wayne's parents die in Batman Begins, characters from X-Men and Fantastic Four have cameos, and there's references to the curiously frequent alliteration seen in the naming of comic book characters.

But other than that, it's all Spider-Man. I mean, I'm not really sure how this would be a parody of the entire genre. Did Friedberg and Seltzer use up all the other superhero movies during their spoofs? And what's with actually having characters from X-Men and Fantastic Four actually in the movie? Could Mazin not make a "_____ Movie" without having the gag where something incredibly stupid happens to characters from other, better movies? Did we need the scene where Professor Xavier's annoyingly sassy female doppelganger beats up the Invisible Woman? Did we need to see Wolverine using his claws to shave his legs? Did we need the scene where the Human Torch is surprised when he actually catches fire, and Dragonfly tries to put him out? Did we even really need the whole subplot where Professor Xavier tries to contact our main character? It's not like these scenes actually contribute anything to the movie. They go on way too long, they don't lead anywhere, and they don't add to the story. It makes me think that they were only added to serve as filler.

Remove the characters from other movies, the Tom Cruise and Stephen Hawking jokes, and other needless scenes that wear out their welcome incredibly quickly (one where Rick is practically gang-raped by animals, another where Rick almost gives away his hiding place due to an inability to hold his urine, and one more where a romantic moment between Rick and Jill is repeatedly interrupted by a ninety-second fart joke), and the movie's surprisingly short 75-minute theatrical running time would have been reduced to just a little over an hour. But not only does it prove that these scenes weren't very good when only padding the running time, but it shows that Mazin apparently couldn't come up with enough material for a longer movie. (Though I am perplexed by the fact that they created an 85-minute extended cut for the DVD, along with putting a few deleted scenes on there as extra features. Why not just restore the deleted scenes, and release the whole thing in theaters instead of that super-short theatrical cut?)

Rounding out the movie are the actors, many of whom are unfortunately just kinda there. It's the cast that makes or breaks comedies, and it really doesn't help that most of the time, it feels like they aren't even trying here. I can't say I really blame them, since a lot of the jokes are awful. But come on now, they could have least done a little more to earn their paychecks. I will admit, though, there are some bright spots in regards to the acting. For starters, I liked Drake Bell's work. After spending the better part of the decade appearing on kid-oriented sitcoms on Nickelodeon, Bell gets his first real chance at mainstream success here. He makes the most of it, putting forth a funny performance even when the material fails to do him any favors.

Bell manages to pull off the physical comedy like a pro, and even the really awful jokes are a bit better thanks to him. Granted, he can't save every joke. But he does what he can, and I can't fault him for that. I also enjoyed Christopher McDonald's performance as well. He chews the scenery in every scene he's in, and makes things all the more entertaining. I really can't quite say the same for Sara Paxton, though. She's cute and all, but she doesn't really do anything to make herself a memorable part of the movie.

Among the supporting cast, I liked Kevin Hart and Brent Spiner in their small parts, and I felt that Tracy Morgan was okay in his ultimately pointless role. And if I never see Regina Hall in another movie, I'll be okay with that. And rounding out the cast, we have Marion Ross and Leslie Nielsen. Ross is thoroughly wasted, her only really notable moment coming via a very unfunny fart joke. Excessive farting may have been funny in Blazing Saddles, but thirty-five years later, it isn't funny anymore. And I liked Nielsen, but you really get the feeling that he's resigned himself to doing spoof movies for the rest of his life. You never hear about anybody hiring him based on his work in Creepshow or the original Prom Night. It's always Airplane! or The Naked Gun instead. Maybe it's because he can get an easier paycheck doing spoof movies, I don't know.

You know, I decided to skip Superhero Movie during its theatrical run. I figured that it would have been just as terrible as all the other recent spoof movies, which would have left me burning with such a white-hot rage that my fury would have reduced the entire theater reduced to a pile of smoldering ash. But it turns out that Superhero Movie wasn't so bad after all. No, I couldn't call it a good movie. But as a guilty pleasure, it works. The movie is actually really confusing, to tell you the truth. A lot of the jokes aren't funny, and the satiric moments aren't very witty.

But a part of me wants to like it. Is it due to the whole superhero thing? I'm not sure, but I almost feel ashamed of myself. At least it's better than the Friedberg/Seltzer spoofs, so it has that going for it. So I guess I'll give Superhero Movie two and a half stars on my typical five-star scale. Maybe one day, they'll find a way to do a parody of all these parodies. But then again, why would somebody want to make a movie that would be that bad, even intentionally?

Final Rating: **½

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

I think it's safe to say that Spider-Man is, if I may use a metaphor, the goose that laid the golden egg for Marvel Comics. In the forty-five years since he was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, Spider-Man has not only become Marvel's flagship character, but one of the most beloved characters the comic book industry has ever seen. That popularity has been most evidenced as of late by the incredible success of the live-action movies starring the web-slinging superhero.

The movies have raked in a lot of cash from both moviegoers and the resulting merchandise sales, and helped to revolutionize the way superhero movies are made. But with the first Spider-Man movie and its sequel earning recognition as two of the best comic book adaptations ever put to film, a question ends up being raised. That question: What happens when an ultra-popular movie franchise starts to run out of steam? The answer: You end up with movies like Spider-Man 3.

While it advanced an important story arc within the movies and introduced characters who've been important parts of Spider-Man's history, it fell into the same trap that Batman Forever and X-Men: The Last Stand fell into by proving that on occasion, the third time isn't exactly the charm.

Life couldn't be much better for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire). He's dating the girl of his dreams, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), he's doing well in college, his work as a freelance photographer for the Daily Bugle is going well, and New York City has finally grown to love his alter ego, their friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. But as always in movies like this, a rocky road lies ahead for our hero. Harry Osborn (James Franco) continues to blame Peter for killing his father, and with the discovery of a hidden cache of Green Goblin equipment, he plans on having his revenge.

That's not the only kink in the road, either. Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), the true murderer of Peter's beloved uncle, has escaped from prison. And thanks to an accident at a scientific testing facility, his entire body has turned into living, malleable sand. Using his newfound condition as a way to commit daring bank robberies, he crosses paths with a vengeful Spider-Man, who intends to make Marko pay for his crimes. These feelings of anger along with the pride in himself that he's developed thanks to Spidey's surging popularity, are only made worse by a symbiote from outer space that has bonded with Peter and manifested itself as a black duplicate of his Spider-Man costume.

All of the negative elements of Peter's personality — particularly that pride and anger — are amplified to an extreme degree by that costume. His growing hubris alienates Mary Jane and pushes her away, while his enhanced aggression leads him to become more violent. This violent behavior evidences itself when he nearly kills Marko, then disfigures Harry's face with a live grenade during a fight. After a subsequent argument with Mary Jane ends with him punching her, a shocked Peter forcibly tears himself away from the symbiote... only for it to end up in the hands of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace). A rival photographer who lost his job at the Daily Bugle after Peter proved he'd doctored a picture of Spider-Man, Brock has been praying for Peter's death. And with the symbiote, his prayers are one step closer to being answered. Now faced with three new villains and a crumbling relationship with Mary Jane, Peter's life couldn't be much tougher.

Did that plot synopsis sound complicated and convoluted? Try writing it all. You'd be surprised at how much I actually left out in order for it to make any sense. Spider-Man 3 is a straight-up mess of a movie from start to finish, with too much going on and not enough effort put into making sense of it. The movie is two hours and nineteen minutes long, which should have been plenty of time to properly develop something and make a movie befitting of the reputation the other two have developed.

But there's just so much going on, that 139 minutes still isn't enough time to do it all. It's a movie that could have benefited from being either forty-five minutes longer in order to resolve things properly, or had something (or some things, plural) taken out so more concentration could be put on something else. The flawed narrative ends up hurting the movie, resulting in a failure to come close to any sort of expectations that anyone could have for it. After two awesome movies starring Spider-Man, how do the creative forces behind Spider-Man 3 look at this movie and decide that it's a worthy successor? Could someone answer that question for me, please?

I guess we'll start with Sam Raimi's directorial work first. I'll give credit where credit is due and say that he does a fine job here. It doesn't seem quite as good as how he handled the previous two movies, but Raimi's efforts are still solid. He's shown time and time again that he has a knack for creativity when he's working behind the camera, and he doesn't disappoint with Spider-Man 3. Raimi also gets some fantastic camerawork from cinematographer Bill Pope, along with great a musical score from composer Christopher Young (who excellently duplicates the themes crafted by Danny Elfman in the previous movies). My only real problem with Raimi's work, though, is that he feels like he's just going through the motions. Maybe doing three of these movies in six years has worn him out?

I felt like he'd put it into auto-pilot, and thus, we end up feeling like we've seen this all before. It doesn't help that the CGI effects have taken a big step backward. With the exception of the scene where Sandman initially reconstitutes himself after being atomized at the test facility (a scene that looks absolutely amazing, I must admit), the CGI appears to have reverted to the not completely convincing nature of the original movie. I said in my review of the first Spidey movie that the hero and the villain looked like video game characters, something I can also say about Spider-Man 3.

To be more specific, the initial fight between Peter and Harry looks like a cartoon, with not that many realistic-looking moments to be found. It's still an exciting scene, don't get me wrong. It would be fantastic if the movie was done entirely in CGI. But because in a live-action movie, it looks sloppy. I know that's not entirely Raimi's fault, since he's not in charge of the computer imagery department, but you'd think he would have the final say in what went into his movie.

Next up is the screenplay, written by Raimi, his brother Ivan, and Allen Sargent. I'll put it simply: the script is bad, very bad. It not only suffers from many of the same flaws that plagued the previous two movies (like Spidey somehow managing to lose his mask over the course of the final battle), but is hindered by the aforementioned problem of bringing way too much to the table. It's like the Raimis and Sargent had the idea to cram as much stuff into the movie as they could, just in case there wasn't a Spider-Man 4. There's Sandman, the Venom symbiote, the romantic squabbles between Peter and Mary Jane, the introduction of Gwen Stacy, and the further evolution of Harry's hatred of Spider-Man. They even work in a little time for Curt Connors, a character who becomes the villainous Lizard in the comics. So much stuff is crammed into this movie that there's not enough space for things to develop in a satisfactory matter.

Because there are so many dangling threads, it takes forever to tie them all up. By the time they circle back around, you've almost forgotten about what's happened previously. It doesn't help that a lot of things, like the poor attempt at resurrecting the Peter/Mary Jane/Harry love triangle, just spin their wheels and don't accomplish anything. The scene where Mary Jane rebuffs Peter's marriage proposal is an effectively sad one, but other than that, we're presented with some of the cheesiest melodrama since Degrassi Junior High.

And that's what makes things so bad. The whole script poorly handles everything that comes along. Take Gwen Stacy, for example. She's one of the most critical supporting characters in Spider-Man's history, a character who shook up the entire American comic book industry when she was killed off back in the '70s. She is finally introduced into the movie franchise here, but despite her importance to the Spidey mythos, she's treated almost as an afterthought. She's given right around ten minutes of screen time in the finished film, which amounts to practically nothing in the grand scheme of things. For all the movie version of Gwen is worth, they could have given the character any random name and it wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever. It's as if the Raimis and Sargent saw how the Alicia Masters character had been rendered virtually useless in the Fantastic Four movies, and said to themselves, "Yeah, we can do that."

The script also suffers from the cheapest, most contrived climax imaginable. There's Mary Jane playing the damsel in distress (again!), the downright silly way that we arrive at Sandman's fate, and an astoundingly stupid deus ex machina that resolves the "Harry hates Spider-Man" arc in a way that insults the intelligence of everyone who has become emotionally invested in this trilogy. Did the writers paint themselves into a corner during the writing process and have to rush the ending?

That's one of the movie's biggest problems; everything feels rushed, which ends up making everything look bad. That deus ex machina is particularly offensive, as there is absolutely no logic behind it. Without spoiling too much, I'll say that it involves Harry learning the truth about the Green Goblin's death. That might not have been such a big deal had this discovery been handled differently. But it's done here in a way that makes you wonder why nobody said anything about it sooner. It's lame beyond words.

And speaking of lame, how about the movie's depiction of Venom? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Venom is one of Spider-Man's most popular villains, but the character's fans are utterly crapped on by Spider-Man 3. Eddie Brock is only a minor annoyance throughout the movie, and he doesn't even turn into Venom until the last thirty minutes of the movie. And when Venom does appear, he ends up looking really weak in the long run. Venom's entire run in the movie consists of asking Sandman if he wants to team up, fighting Spider-Man, and dying like a punk. That's it!

I've heard from various sources that Sam Raimi has never been a fan of Venom, but that producer Avi Arad pretty much forced him to shoehorn the character a movie that had no place for him. Even if Arad did force that, there's no reason to write such an awful version of the character. Frankly, Venom is a character that could have used his own movie without the two other villains bogging him down. It would have been a lot better had they put New Goblin and Sandman together in this movie, then saved Venom for Spider-Man 4. But instead, we're stuck with this big ol' letdown.

I guess we'll wrap things up with the acting, which is the very definition of "mixed bag." Some of the cast is good, some of them are bad, and a few of them are mediocre at best. On the good side, let's start with the leading man, Tobey Maguire. Maguire puts forth an impressive performance, playing the role as if he were a drug addict. The black suit is like Spider-Man's heroin, and his infatuation with it leads to terrible changes in his personality and ruins his relationships with his loved ones. That stress pushes him deeper into the addiction that is slowly ruining his life, and he's forced to live with the consequences once he finally breaks away from it.

Maguire handles this with conviction, making a performance worth watching. The aforementioned scene where Mary Jane dumps Peter when he tries to propose is so sad, and it's all because of Maguire. But as good as he is, did we really need the the scene where he struts down the street in a fancy suit? Okay, he's supposed to be a narcissistic douchebag, I get it. I don't need to see him with a goofy haircut that makes him look like the lead singer of some lame emo band, strutting around like he's a only paint can and a Bee Gees song away from doing his interpretation of Saturday Night Fever. And did we need the whole jazz dance routine? Why not just rename the movie to Spider-Man: The Musical and be done with it? There were other ways to build up to Peter punching Mary Jane, but they went with this awful scene? None of the lame parts are Maguire's fault, since he isn't the one who decided to put those scenes in the movie, but they make him look really bad.

And in the role of the female lead, Kirsten Dunst isn't as good as she was previously. Dunst's interviews during the promotional campaign made her sound likes he only agreed to do the movie because Sony offered her a huge paycheck. Perhaps they paid her too much, because I personally felt that her work wasn't all that impressive. (I could say Maguire's interviews came across the same way as Dunst's, but he still did a decent enough job.) I enjoyed Dunst's performances in the first two movies and thought she and Maguire had good chemistry together, but I really can't say either of those things came across Spider-Man 3. Yeah, Dunst plays a believable damsel in distress, and there are a few scenes where she isn't all that bad But other than that, I have to say I wasn't exactly impressed.

On the other hand, I did like James Franco as the ultra-cocky, slightly insane Harry Osborn. The character's evolution throughout the trilogy has been worth following, and Franco's consistent performances in all three movies has really helped that. The other villains also do their fair share of good work. Topher Grace wasn't exactly the first person I'd have thought of when it comes to casting Venom, mainly due to his comedic work on That 70s Show. But Grace shows that he's up to the challenge, playing Eddie Brock as a total and complete weasel. And when he finally gets the all-too-brief opportunity to play Venom, he pulls off the "drunk with power" aspect convincingly.

Perhaps the best performance in the movie, however, comes from Thomas Haden Church. The Sandman character is depicted here not as being truly villainous, but as someone who fell into a life of crime only because it was the quickest way to help his sick daughter. Sandman's intentions are noble even if his methods are not, and Church's sympathetic portrayal excellently conveys that. It's a shame such fine work is stuck in such a mediocre movie. The rest of the cast, the ancillary performers left to the background, also do very well. Bryce Dallas Howard and Rosemary Harris are likeable as Gwen Stacy and Peter's aunt May, despite their characters being shuffled off into almost complete irrelevance. The movie's comic relief are particularly great. Bruce Campbell's extended cameo as a maître d' at a French restaurant is hilarious, and J.K. Simmons and Elizabeth Banks have a fun comedic timing together that makes the Daily Bugle scenes thoroughly entertaining.

I really wanted to like Spider-Man 3. The first time I saw it, I actually didn't think it was all that bad. But just like the movie's hero, the negative aspects become more pronounced the the more times I watch it. There are some good things in there, mainly amongst the cast. However, the truth is that Spider-Man 3 is one of the most frustratingly disappointing movies I've ever seen. By the time the closing credits roll, you're left asking, "Where the hell did this go wrong?" That's a good question, but I'm not really sure if I have an answer. Obviously, something went wrong during the creative process. It's just a shame that nobody caught that problem, and we thusly ended up with what we got. I guess I'd give Spider-Man 3 two and a half stars on my usual Five Star Sutton Scale, and I hope that future Spider-Man sequels don't suffer like this one did.

Final Rating: **½

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

If anything is assured in the motion picture industry, it's that a successful movie will spawn a sequel. Many times, these sequels are undeserved or not necessary. I mean, how many people did you hear begging for Blair Witch 2? Other sequels merely regurgitate the plot of its predecessor and present us with the exact same thing we saw before with some minor changes (such as the majority of the Friday the 13th sequels). But a few times, we get a sequel that is a little different, one that actually continues the story for a change. Movies like Terminator 2 and the final two-thirds of the Back to the Future trilogy are examples of that, but what's rarer is a sequel that's actually better than its predecessor. That list is so short, you could probably count all the movie's on the list on two hands and have fingers left over.

But one of the movies on that list is Spider-Man 2. The first Spider-Man was great, but its sequel actually surpasses it. Spider-Man 2 is one of those rare sequels that is more entertaining than its predecessor, earning a spot as not only one of the best sequels ever, but joining an elite list as one of the best superhero movies ever made.

It's been two years since the end of the previous movie, and Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is finding it extremely difficult to lead his dual life. He loses his job as a pizza delivery boy and nearly loses his job as a photographer at the Daily Bugle, he's slowly flunking out of college, and he has barely enough money to pay his rent. For the life of me, I can't figure out why ol' Pete's landlord is always up in his grill about the rent. You couldn't pay me enough money to live in Peter's apartment, so I don't really blame him for being a little lax in regards to his rent payments. In a fair world, Peter's building would be condemned and scheduled for demolition, because people in third-world countries have better living conditions. But hey, it's just a movie, I should really just relax.

Anyway, Peter's one more crappy situation away from a complete nervous breakdown, but he isn't the only one who's struggling; his loved ones are struggling too. His beloved aunt May (Rosemary Harris) is unable to make ends meet, and is facing a foreclosure on her home. Peter also often finds himself struggling to get along with his best friend and OsCorp Industries chief Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry has become quite bitter since we last saw him, blaming Spider-Man for his father's death in the prior film and resenting the fact that Peter won't tell him anything about our friendly neighborhood web-slinger. He also seems to have become a raging alcoholic, but that's just the impression I get. Of course, little does Harry know that not only was his father the Green Goblin, but that his best friend and the man he wishes death on are one in the same.

Unfortunately, not only is Peter's friendship with Harry strained, his relationship with budding actress Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) on thin ice as well. He and Mary Jane obviously love one another and want to be together, but despite her best efforts, Spider-Man is higher on Peter's list of priorities. While Peter's desire to keep Mary Jane safe from various supervillains is noble, his inability to explain why he continues to disappoint her unfortunately pushes Mary Jane into the arms of another man: respected astronaut John Jameson (Daniel Gillies), the son of Peter's boss, Daily Bugle publisher J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons).

But Peter's life is about to get much more complicated. After a little discussion with his physics professor, Peter sets about on actually doing some schoolwork for a change. He decides to write a paper on Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), a brilliant scientist whose latest project is being funded by OsCorp. An enthusiastic Harry introduces Peter to Dr. Octavius, and the pair have a long talk that stretches into the evening. The two bond over dinner, and when the discussion turns to their love lives, Dr. Octavius and his wife Rosalie (Donna Murphy) offer Peter some quality advice on how to win a girl's heart.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Octavius and OsCorp host a demonstration of the doctor's project, a self-sustaining fission reaction that could infinitely generate the power of a small sun. What's even more impressive is the tools that Dr. Octavius utilizes to manipulate said fission reaction: four massive robotic arms that plug directly into his cerebral cortex via a series of pins into his back, operated by an artificial intelligence programmed to follow the doctor's mental commands. Dr. Octavius plugs his robotic tentacles in and begins the process, but unfortunately, an error in his calculations leads to disaster. Fate decides to play a cruel joke on the gentle scientist, as the fission reaction goes out of control and causing an intense magnetic fluctuation that results in Rosalie's death and the four robotic arms becoming permanently fused with Dr. Octavius's spine. Said fusion also destroys a crucial piece of safety equipment and allows the A.I. of the arms to directly access the doctor's brain.

With his wife dead and his dream ruined, Dr. Octavius is a broken man. The tentacle A.I. senses it, and using their open tap into the doctor's brain, the tentacles direct Dr. Octavius to stage various bank robberies to fund an even bigger version of his fission reaction generator. Dr. Octavius protests at first, but relents, soon earning the nickname "Dr. Octopus" (or simply "Doc Ock" for short) from the Daily Bugle. He creates for himself a new laboratory in an abandoned warehouse on the East River, but the bad part is that if his previous error goes uncorrected, his fission generator will end up vaporizing the entire island of Manhattan.

With a new supervillain in town, and more stress and frustration piling on as time goes by, Peter soon finds himself losing his powers. He begins slipping off walls while climbing them, he finds it harder to spin webs, and his spidey-sense starts dulling. It's capped off by Mary Jane's announcement that she'll engaged to marry her new beau, which finally pushes Peter over the edge. In perhaps the movie's hardest-hitting moment, Peter dumps his costume into a trash can and proclaims "I'm Spider-Man no more." His retirement from the superhero world apparently creates nothing but rosy skies for Peter. He's finally able to start enjoying life without those pesky crime-fighting responsibilities, he makes nice with his landlord's daughter Ursula (Mageina Tovah), and he even takes a few steps to rebuild his crumbling friendship with Mary Jane.

But he isn't able to enjoy his new life for long. Doc Ock turns to Harry for an extremely rare mineral needed to rebuild his fission device, and Harry promises him as much of the mineral as he can get if Doc Ock brings him Spider-Man. How do you get to Spider-Man? Through his personal photographer, Peter Parker. Doc Ock kidnaps Mary Jane and threatens to kill her if Peter fails to produce Spider-Man, thus beginning a third act that climaxes in Peter once again donning his old red and blue suit to not only rescue the love of his life, but prevent Dr. Octopus from activating his device and destroying Manhattan.

Wow. That pretty much says it all, "wow." I mentioned in my review of Spider-Man that I thought it ranked up there with Superman II as one of the best comics-to-film adaptations ever, but Spider-Man 2 quite possibly exceeds it. And I love Superman II too, so Spider-Man 2 has gotta be good to be better than that. As with the prior movie and the comic books, Spider-Man 2 is not about a superhero struggling with a secret identity; it's about a young man struggling with life. And yeah, he's got that whole superpower thing going for him too.

The movie succeeds in directly translating what made Spider-Man so popular to begin with. Peter Parker is such an identifiable character, and each of us can connect with him on some level. He's not some godlike crusader from a far-away planet like Superman, nor is he a shadowy millionaire consumed with vengeance like Batman. Spider-Man is just a regular kid with an inferiority complex and slipping grades, who's unlucky in love and unready to accept the responsibilities that come with his superpowers. All the feats of daring-do are fun to look at, sure, but the story is what drives the movie.

Sam Raimi returns to the Spidey saga's director's chair, and he once again presents us with a film worth talking about. His directing shines brightly, and even echoes some of his older work with the excellently-done operation scene following Dr. Octopus's accident. While there were some bits I could have done without (such as the awkward Peter/Ursula subplot that went absolutely nowhere, and the cheesy Uncle Ben dream that was probably just included to get Cliff Robertson and the "with great power comes great responsibility" line into the movie), Raimi's work here is much slicker, even better than what we saw in Spider-Man. The CGI is also drastically improved, looking much more realistic. Spider-Man and the Green Goblin looked like video game characters in the previous movie, but Spidey and Dr. Octopus look lifelike here. So whoever decided to improve the CGI, good job. I also would like to give props to Danny Elfman, who keeps churning out these wonderful superhero scores like it's nothing. The guy's definitely earned his reputation as one of the greatest in the industry.

Just like the first movie, Raimi not only gives us a film to talk about, he shows us a villain who's just as conflicted as its hero. While the Green Goblin was a criminal simply because he was a schizophrenic psychopath, Dr. Octopus is a villain simply because fate dealt him a crappy hand in the card game of life. Despite not having a lot of screen time before his transformation into a supervillain, we learn that Dr. Otto Octavius is a peaceful man who's madly in love with his wife and truly desires to make the world a better place.

His true nature only makes it all the more tragic when he's becomes a half-mechanical maniac who has no qualms against putting millions of lives in danger in order to make his dream a reality. While his descent into madness can be blamed on his tentacles and their malicious A.I., his new life of crime can also be attributed to the psychological scarring brought on by the failure of his experiment and the death of his wife. He's a broken man with a broken spirit, but the tentacle A.I. offers him a chance to rebuild his experiment through lots and lots of robbery. Because he has nothing else left, he lets the A.I. guide him as an escape from his failure.

The effectiveness of Dr. Octopus's duality is a testament to the talent of Alfred Molina. He'd be the highlight of the cast if it weren't for Tobey Maguire, who returns as the titular web-slinger. He once again carries the movie, displaying the strength and inner struggle that Peter Parker needed. Meanwhile, James Franco turned his James Dean Brood Machine™ up to eleven and gave us another watchable performance. And unfortunately, I wasn't as thrilled by Kirsten Dunst as I was in the previous movie. While she certainly isn't bad, I just wasn't impressed. However, I will give her credit: she and Maguire have great chemistry, and if the Peter/M.J. love story gets an even bigger piece of the pie in Spider-Man 3, I'm ready for it. And a great big thumbs-up to J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, who unashamedly stole every scene he was in.

A few people have dismissed Spider-Man 2 as overrated claptrap, but I absolutely love it. I'm not even that big of a Spidey fan, but there's no denying that Spider-Man 2 is nothing shy of unbelievable. With better CGI, more exciting action scenes, and fun humor, the movie can easily look past the love story being accentuated to almost annoying proportions and a lack of main emphasis on Dr. Octopus. Complaints aside, I found Spider-Man 2 to be much more satisfying than its predecessor, and quite a satisfying movie in general. I'll give the movie four and a half stars, and I think it fits fine there. 

Final Rating: ****½

Spider-Man (2002)

"With great power comes great responsibility."

That one line, simple as it may be, is a line that has inspired countless comic book fans while serving as the motto for one of the most beloved characters in comic history. Spider-Man has become perhaps the most enduring character on the Marvel Comics roster since being created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962, his popularity rivaled by only a few. A character that millions have connected to and identified with in the four decades since his debut, Spider-Man's motto has echoed through the years and has driven him to serve the greater good with the hopes of atoning for one tragic failure to act.

The character sparked at least three animated shows, and was one of a number of Marvel characters (including the Incredible Hulk and Dr. Strange) to inspire a live-action TV-movie in 1977. Much to the dismay of fans, the TV-movie was poorly done and has been forgotten for the most part. Twenty-five years passed before Spider-Man was seen in a live-action movie again, but after comic book movies became big business, horror director (and longtime Spidey fan) Sam Raimi stepped up to helm Sony's big-screen adaptation of your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man that's worth talking about.

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is your typical high school geek. He's a brilliant student and genuinely nice guy, but he's a total social outcast whose shyness barely allows him to even say hello to the girl that's won his heart, next door neighbor Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). His only friend is Harry Osborn (James Franco), but their relationship is often strained with jealousy, as Harry's wealthy industrialist father Norman (Willam Dafoe) prefers the intelligent Peter over his own average son.

During a class field trip to Columbia University's genetics lab, Peter is bitten by a biologically-engineered spider that has gained various extraordinary powers via the wonders of science. A huge blister appears on his hand around the bite, and the spider's venom makes Peter so sick, he barely makes it home before he passes out in the floor of his bedroom. After a difficult night's sleep, he wakes up seemingly unaffected, but soon discovers that his body has been altered dramatically. Not only has Peter gained 20/20 vision and a significant change in muscle tone, but he has the ability to shoot strands of strong webbing from his wrists, an ability to climb walls and cling to any smooth surface, and a "spidey-sense" that gives him a psychic warning of danger. While he loves the fact that his new superpowers allow him to humiliate bullies and things like that, Peter's secretive behavior prompts the concern of his uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and aunt May (Rosemary Harris).

On a trip to the library, Uncle Ben confronts Peter and stresses to him that with maturity and power comes great responsibility. Peter impatiently yells at him, telling Ben to stop acting like he's his father before sneaking off to his true destination: Madison Square Garden, where a local pro wrestling league is promising a $3,000 payday to anyone who can last three minutes against their top star, Bone Saw McGraw (Randy Savage). Dubbed "The Amazing Spider-Man" by the ring announcer, Peter soundly knocks out McGraw in a cage match and stands triumphant.

However, despite his victory, the fight promoter only pays Peter a meager 100 bucks, unfairly cheating him out of the full prize because Peter won in two minutes instead of going the full three. Naturally, Peter's a little honked off at getting gypped. You would be too, if you were promised 3000 George Washingtons to hang out with and you only got one lousy Ben Franklin wanting to bum a ride off you and raid your fridge. Peter does, however, gain a little satisfaction in his subsequent retaliation, refusing to help an arena security guard stop a criminal from taking off with the gate money.

Returning to the library, Peter's satisfaction turns to horror when he discovers Uncle Ben has been shot by a carjacker, arriving on the scene just as Ben dies. Enraged, Peter dons his wrestling outfit and pursues the carjacker, swinging over the crowded streets with his webbing. He confronts the killer in an abandoned warehouse, only to learn that the man who murdered his beloved uncle is the same man who held up the arena box office. Peter loses his temper and violently pushes the killer, who trips over a pipe and falls out a window to his death.

Following his graduation from high school months later, Peter's guilt over Ben's death prompts our hero to put his uncle's advice to good use. He designs a new and improved Spider-Man costume, and becomes a masked superhero fighting crime across New York City. He eventually thinks of a way to earn a living from it, taking pictures of himself in action and selling them to Daily Bugle publisher J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons). Jameson gladly purchases Peter's Spidey photos, falsely portraying Spider-Man as a criminal because it sells newspapers. While this is going on, Norman Osborn is undergoing a transformation of his own.

To protect his company from losing a vital military contract, he tests an experimental performance enhancement chemical on himself. The chemical increases his strength and intelligence, but as a side effect, it drives him completely over the edge, forming a malevolent alternate personality that urges him kill anyone who stands in his way. Using his company's prototype armor, a glider, and a spooky green helmet, Norman goes on a rampage at a festival in Times Square, incinerating his company's board of directors with a grenade, nearly killing Mary Jane in the process. Spider-Man saves the day, but after an incident at the Daily Bugle, Jameson soon prints headlines that the two are in cahoots, dubbing Norman's violent new persona "The Green Goblin."

As the Green Goblin, Norman sees the potential in forming a partnership with his wall-crawling nemesis. Both of them are masked, both are made to look bad by the Daily Bugle, and both have abilities beyond those of normal people (even if the Goblin's abilities are thanks to military technology). Good ol' Spidey chooses the side of good, but wouldn't you know it, the Green Goblin doesn't respond to rejection too well. Peter must now deal with the Green Goblin while his own dual identity further strains his friendship with Harry and puts the lives of Aunt May and Mary Jane in danger.

Spider-Man is one of those rare movies that transcends the superhero genre, and becomes just a great movie overall. The thrills and acts of superheroism are secondary to actually telling a story about people, and how their lives are affected by heroes and villains. The movie actually takes the time to give us characters that we can truly care about, connecting to the story's more human aspect. Peter Parker begins as a shy teenager that everyone kicks around, but by the end of the movie, we've come to really know him. We can see inside his head, and watch as he evolves from a nerdy little wiener living with his aunt and uncle in Queens to a weathered young man who's probably seen more tragedy than he should have.

That evolution is something that is also seen in the relationships between each character. The development of Peter's at-first unrequited love for Mary Jane is wonderful, definitely the movie's key ingredient. As stated in the opening monologue, "This, like any other tale worth telling, is all about a girl." While Spider-Man 2 deals more with the relationship between our hero and his lady love, the blossoming Peter/Mary Jane love story can definitely lay claim on a portion of center stage here.

As far as staying true to the comic book, that I can't comment on. I'm not a regular reader of comic books, but I did think some of the liberties taken were well-done. I personally felt giving Spider-Man organic web-shooters was a great idea, as I thought the homemade shooters probably would have just gotten in the way. So I'll give them credit for actually one-upping the source material here. Longtime horror director Sam Raimi ventures into the world of action fantasy, and while restrained, his style definitely comes through.

Well-crafted shot compositions, well-made fight sequences, and he even worked in Bruce Campbell, his brother Ted, and his old '73 Oldsmobile. From The Evil Dead to multimillion-dollar blockbusters and movies with Katie Holmes topless... our little Sammy has grown up. And that score by Danny Elfman is wonderful! Quite different than his score for Batman and Batman Returns, his engaging score here works to up the excitement during the big action sequences. Great stuff from Elfman, as usual.

Meanwhile, while the visual effects are great for the most part, I found the CGI to be really lame in some places. Once scene features Peter proudly jumping from rooftop to rooftop after discovering his newfound powers, but he looks more like something from a video game than a kid who just got bitten by a mutant spider. And the Green Goblin's glider work many times looks like someone's holding a picture in front of a backdrop and moving him around, especially in the Times Square scene. This kind of stuff might fly in Spider-Man: The Game, but I'm not letting them off the hook here. That's not how I roll.

Tobey Maguire is absolutely superb as Peter Parker. In fact, he's so good as Peter than he's almost more charismatic than his superhero alter ego. Imagine a Superman movie where you'd rather watch Clark Kent for two hours instead. Yeah, it's like that. He wonderfully shows us a young man with an inordinate gift, torn with guilt over the senseless death of his uncle. And Spidey's nemesis, Willam Dafoe, is nothing short of brilliant. The guy just looks insane from the start, and it's fun to watch him switch between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as he straddles the line between convincing and completely over the top. James Franco's low-key brooding is fun to watch, and Kirsten Dunst is both pretty and charming as usual.

I doubt they could have gotten a much better J. Jonah Jameson than J.K. Simmons, because the guy is hilarious and steals almost every scene he's in. Perhaps the most understated cast members are Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris as Peter's beloved aunt and uncle. They make Ben and May the kind of relatives we'd all like to have on our family tree, bringing a much-needed warmth to the movie.

Along with its sequel, I'd say Spider-Man ranks right up there with Superman II as one of the best comic book translations ever made. The cast is awesome, the action is fun, the love story is gripping, and the direction is absolutely awesome. Even if you don't read comics or don't know much about the character, you can't go wrong with Spider-Man, folks. Four stars easily.

Final Rating: ****