Films That Didn't Click (Part 6): James Cameron's Avatar & Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire

In the season finale of this award winning series where I give contrarian opinions, we are doing a double feature of two 'classics.' James Cameron's Avatar and Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire. 

In the last episode, I said near the end that I was going to stretch the definition of the format. The point of this series was to review movies where my opinion went against the general fold. Mostly this meant films that I didn't like but everyone else loved. And in the last episode, I talked about films I gave a positive light at one point or another that were trashed by critics. 

However in this episode, these two films are films that weren't generally loved or generally hated. They're what they are called mix bags. Atlantis: Lost Empire came out to rather middling results. It's box office was alright, but it wasn't great. And frankly, it was honestly a miracle that Atlantis didn't plainly bomb. It was competing in a time where animation was shifting to the hot new world of CGI. Not only that, it was competing with one of the biggest trendsetters of CGI animation, Shrek. This is also a phase where Disney was trying to experiment with different types of stories in animation. This led to the 2000s era of Disney where their new selection was as hit and miss as the movie Atlantis. Sure, we got amazing stuff like Lilo and Stitch, but it mostly released titles like Home on the Range and Chicken Little. But anyway, despite its mediocre turn out, Atlantis would achieve cult status. It would share the status of films Disney hipsters love alongside Treasure Planet, Rescuers: Down Under, and for some reason the Black Cauldron. 

As for Avatar, its fate was a little different. And if you were conscious during 2008, then I don't need to explain what happened to Avatar. What was predicted to be a box office disaster turned out to be the biggest movie of all time. It is the highest grossing movie ever only being briefly unseated by Avengers: Endgame. It was critically praised earning three Oscars out of its nine nominations. This movie was huge. 

However, where Atlantis would only go up, Avatar kind of went down. Yeah, it is still the biggest movie ever, but do people ever talk about it anymore? Over the years, it sort of went into the annals of obscurity only coming up when talking about box office records, 3D, or hair sex. 

The film would also receive its fair share of contempt from critics and other artists. Some pointing out how similar Avatar was to other sci-fi and fantasy stories while others pointing out how Avatar is another Hollywood "white savior" story in the same vein as Dances with Wolves. Oh yeah, there are those Avatar sequels that are starting to become jokes in of themselves. Hey, if Duke Nukem Forever can come out, I'm sure the same can happen for Avatar 2-5. 

So in short, these films didn't so much click as slightly tickled general audiences. I guess the question now is what did I initially think of them.

Atlantis would very much be a worthy of the Films That Didn't Click category if it wasn't for the fact this film's reception was also mixed. This is a film I wanted to love for a while even as a kid. However, this film suffered from a thing I personally dealt with called "Disney First Act Syndrome." As a kid, I had a tough time sitting through movies. Unless you were Iron Giant, I could never finish a movie past a certain point especially Disney movies. However, I always loved the earlier parts of the film. For a lot of movies, this made sense in retrospect. Mulan still loses me once she gets to the camp. Movies like Dumbo and Lion King both have stronger first halves than second halves. And while I now love Pinocchio, I empathize with my kid self having to sit through the really slow parts of the movie. 

Atlantis had that same problem. I really love the first act as it introduced the quirky characters and the setting. But as the movie went along, I slowly stopped caring. I remember the scene that was consistently the cut off point for me was when they actually get to Atlantis. By that point, kid me just wanted to shut it off and go play on my N64. 

Conversely, my initial opinion of Avatar wasn't so much a "Film That Didn't Click" but a "Film That Simply Sucked." 

This film was a watershed moment for me. It was the first film I had genuine contrarian opinion on. I think this film made me a hipster. I did not get the appeal. Sure, the film looked good. And as I will explain later, the film's final battle may be one of the best action sequences ever. However, are those two things worth sitting through a nearly three hour movie that's generic and dull? Are we seriously giving a movie a Best Picture nomination and 2.8 billion dollars in box office just for a solid action sequence and CGI? 

As you might have noticed by now, I have an inverse reaction to these two films. It seems whenever one film gets me engaged and excited, the other leaves me bored and frustrated. Take the first hour as an example. Atlantis first hour was probably my warmest response to a rewatch I had on this series since Akira. I realized that age has quietly played a factor to my enjoyment of Atlantis. You might think this meant I started to get more of the adult jokes and asides, and that is part of it. However, there is also the fact that my literal comprehension of the text was marred by my lack of wisdom that came with being a child. To put it simply, I had the good sense to use subtitles this time around. Atlantis is one of best examples as to why I always use subtitles when watching a movie. The dialogue sometimes goes in a Tarantino pace. And as someone who has trouble hearing, I don't often catch that speed of dialogue unless I am reading it. The subtitles greatly improved my enjoyment of the film in the first half. Where as I kid I could really only enjoy the atmosphere and character designs. Here, I grew a stronger appreciation of the dialogue as well as each character's little backstory. Aside from Mole, the characters feel very grounded and don't feel like a typical Disney character. I would dare to say the first half of Atlantis is perfect. My only complaint is that I wish Whitmore was in the film more. However, I understand that the character serves mostly as a device to get the plot going. And granted, there is a lot of things I wanted more of, but we will get to that later. 

Conversely, Avatar had easily my harshest response to a rewatch. It felt like I was subjecting myself to my worst year of high school. 

The dialogue is just terrible. It is so hyper focused on the concept that American imperialism is bad that it will warp its characters to talk around that theme. The result are characters that are either boring or cartoonishly evil. On the boring side, you got Sam Worthington as Jake Sully, and the only reason I remember the character's name this time around was because they kept repeating his name which annoyed me for some reason. Sam Worthington just sucks. To his credit, the writing didn't help his performance at all. The character starts out as a comical dumbass that's lacking in basic cultural sympathy skills. He is a self aggrandizing vessel for the viewer where, even though he is Sam Worthington, he is picked by God as a chosen one. Yeah the critics may be been on to something with this film being white savior bull shit. Suffice to say, it gets worse as he becomes essentially the leader of the tribe and organizes the rebellion that saves the day. Apparently, someone like Sam Worthington is a charismatic leader which is something I can't say with a straight face. 

On the other side, you got Stephan Lang and Giovanni Ribisi. Aside from the fact that Lang is chewing up the scenery which was amusing, these characters were extremely frustrating. It feels like James Cameron wanted to write the douchiest characters ever, and I think he succeeded. The thing is that the douchiness by Ribisi and Lang doesn't make me better relate to the story, it just highlights the laziness of the writing. I understand people like this exist in real life. But if we are using that excuse, why the hell do we want to dignify those people by putting their kind on screen?

It's incredibly telling that a literal cartoon villain has more nuance and character than Avatar which segways back into Atlantis. 

While I don't like the villain in Atlantis, it is a palette cleanser after Avatar. Commander Rourke actually starts out pleasant. James Garner gives the character a nice homeliness to him. He's great. And when he turns bad, at least the film attempts to contextualize the shift. Rourke just wanted treasure. He didn't intend to kill anybody but the circumstances caused more impromptu albeit immoral actions. His shift and escalation as a villain is abrupt. But unlike Avatar, I could at least see some kind of arc. In Avatar, it's nothing. The villains start out wanting to infringe on native land and the film continues with them infringing on their native land. There is almost a layer of sadistic enjoyment on the part of the soldiers. Again, the film tries to make the characters as unlikeable as possible.  

Atlantis and Avatar are very different films. Other than their themes and genre archetypes, I see them as practically opposites. That is until we get to the romance elements. 

Let's start with Atlantis. I got to give credit to Kida as she is likable and interesting with her wonderful backstory that we see in the opening scene. The voice acting and the animation really sell the chemistry between Milo and Kida. But other than that, I find the romance to be a waste of time. Maybe if there was a way for Kida to join the film earlier it might work. It's just the relationship needed more than a simple sequence. Or rather, the film should have spent more time with the crew since we already spent a great deal of time with them anyway. 

Likewise, Avatar feels undeveloped. I suppose it is a little worse as the bloated runtime spends more time with the romance than Atlantis. However, if I had to pick the strongest character elements in this film, it would probably be the female love interest. I really enjoyed Zoe Saldana's performance as she basically carries the relationship dynamics between her and Sam Worthington. But overall, like Atlantis, it just feels like a waste of time. And like Atlantis, I rather they used that screen time to focus on things that would make the film more engaging, but I don't know how you can make week old bread less stale. Also as a side note, it is never explained how Zoe Saldana can speak English despite being an alien. They had a scene where they mention it, but it continues to go unexplained. 

It's strange that both films feel undeveloped, yet they are undeveloped for different reasons. In Atlantis, it's obvious the short runtime and Disney's all seeing eye made the film less of what it should be. Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise seem to have a way of making films way ahead of their time. With this and Hunchback of Notre Dame, it seems the only thing holding them back is Disney. If this story was made today, it could have been something really special. The tone could be more edgy. The characters could be explored more fully. This is a Disney Plus show dying to be made. Unfortunately, that would imply that Disney likes good ideas. 

Instead, we live in a world were something like Avatar has sequels planned. Where Atlantis is a 90 minute film that should have been two and a half hours, Avatar is two and half hour film that should have been 90 minutes. Where Atlantis is a wonderful world that just needed more time in the oven, Avatar is a uninspired one that Cameron indulgently shows every inch of. 

Before I end this review, I suppose it would be fair to highlight one quality that Avatar has over Atlantis. I gotta say, Avatar's last forty minutes are kind of great. Do they make up for the whole film? Of course not. However, I would be lying if I said the last forty minutes wasn't a marvel in action filmmaking. The air battle has a since of height that I've only seen in Miyazaki films. Overall, there is a sense of weight and physics which is something that is dire in action. It's why I can love the simplicity of John Wick but be underwhelmed when watching Avengers: Endgame. To me, this is the greatest strength of the special effects in Avatar. It isn't the 3D. It is the fact that everything is reacting to physical dynamics realistically creating an exciting action sequence. The strengths continue on the ground level culminating in one final showdown with Worthington and Saldana vs. Lang. While the mech sized combat knife is comical, it lends itself to an unironic good kind of schlock as oxymoronic as unironically good schlock sounds. It helps that the choreography, cinematography, and tension is excellent.  

By comparison, Atlantis leaves a lot to be desired. There is an exciting bit where Helga makes one final shot that shifts the favor to the heroes, but that's it. It lacks the dynamics that was seen when they faced the Leviathan earlier the film. It's not terrible. But by this point in the film, you already know how it is going to end and it becomes a formality. It ends just as you'd expect. For all of Avatar's flaws, it at least knew how to stick a great landing. 

That said, these films illustrate that a bad film with a good ending isn't better than a good film with a bad end. Out of the two high concept anti-imperialist films, Atlantis is easily the more enjoyable experience. In one last inverse, Atlantis is a film that clicked but Avatar is a film that undoubtedly didn't. 

Going Under | The Almost-Amazing Roguelite

It is December which means I am preparing for my end of the year retrospective of all things nerdy. As I was thinking about some of my favorite games I've played in 2021, there is this game that falls into this limbo. It's a game where I don't think is good enough to be among my favorites I played this year, yet it was too good to be relegated to a one paragraph honorable mention. I feel then the only option left is to review this game in full. After all, despite its flaws, it's a very interesting game. 

Going Under is a game released last year but was buried likely from that month's high profile releases. 

I mean good God, this game came out a week after Hades, Spelunky 2, and Mario 3D All-Stars which all released within days of each other. In Going Under, you play as an unpaid intern named Jackie who is hired at a tech startup company. As what you might expect from an unpaid internship, your character is 'encouraged' to do things that aren't within her job description. Usually, this implies menial office tasks. For our main character, it means going into the ruins of failed startups killing monsters that now roam these dungeons. 

Going Under doesn't hesitate in establishing the tone and satire that will be prevalent throughout the game. This game fully embraces its commentary on modern work spaces, the uphill battle of making a decent livable wage, and many other pieces of nonsense that plague our modern society. It has a very surehanded approach to this subject matter, and none of it feels insincere or pandering. It is easy then for me to say that Going Under is simply well written. The dialogue is sharp, and how the plot unfolds was natural and effortless. However, I feel that would undercut just how much care and attention this game puts in its theme. The game is more than sharp. In ways, it is practically genius. 

Everything about the gameplay plays into the aesthetic. You fight with laptops and office decorations. You can complete side quests to earn mentorships which gave you added abilities. You can go on Tinder dates which gives you an extra ally in combat. Listing how each aspect of the game plays into the theme would be a daunting undertaking. Some aspects unearth a whole wave of commentary that are fun to pick at from analytical standpoint. 

For example, there are a series of side quests from one mentor involving you doing arbitrarily difficult tasks. Things like beating a section without taking damage or not picking up power ups are required in order to progress. Between each side quest, the main character constantly questions why making tasks far more difficult is actually helping her grow to which the mentor gives some half-ass explanation. It made me laugh as I thought about the number of times I was asked to do arbitrary things for arbitrary reasons. I am telling you. If you have went through an internship, fellowship program, or even a class practicum, this game will feel like therapy. There is so much to relate to in this game, and the commentary is pointed but not to the level where it is self-congratulatory. This game is one of the best depictions of the superficiality of our modern day, and I love it for that. 

The story is practically perfect.....I just wish I can say the same about the combat.  

The combat is quite unpolished. Combat is a mixture of Breath of the Wild and Dark Souls. You pick up weapons that break instantly, your health is shown via hearts, and environmental hazards can be used against your enemies creating a dynamic similar to Breath of the Wild. Large boss monsters, dodge roll mechanics, and the camera/lock on system is similar to Dark Souls. All of this is fine and mixes well together. However, there are sore spots that make combat feel unfair. 

For one thing, I don't think it would be too much to ask that when an item breaks in Going Under, it should automatically cycle onto your next weapon. Instead it breaks and you end up finishing part of your animation doing tiny damage with your millennial fists. Like Breath of the Wild, the weapon doesn't do a great job indicating how many hits you have left before it breaks aside from a single warning. You lock on almost never locks on to the enemy you actually want to target. Enemies will attack from behind your camera view meaning you will sometimes get attacked by things you can't see. 

All of these seem trivial, but these problems are exacerbated as Going Under gets extremely hectic. Rooms are small. And as the game gets harder, these smaller rooms get filled with enemies that can quickly gang up on you. When reaction times come down to the seconds, little things like bad Z-targeting can become really annoying compared to slower paced games like Legend of Zelda. 

It doesn't help that this game is structured like a roguelite meaning this game encourages consistent skill, so unintentionally inconsistent mechanics make playing frustrating. 

Speaking of it being a roguelite, a lot of the roguelite elements are a bit of a mix bag for me. It doesn't take long to find a dominant strategy or at least a comfortable play style. *hint hint* I would suggest maxing out your mentor status on Swomp as he is objectively the best mentor in the game. There is a lot of mechanics that don't encourage the typical variety seen in most roguelites. There aren't that many synergies that are fun to play with. You have a shop that allows you to add additional power ups, but the shop only changes items once you empty out the store. I wish there was a way to cycle items even if it involved paying a price for it. I suppose this is the game's way to minimize the luck factor which is prevalent in roguelites, and to be fair they do a decent job doing that. For another example, you can equip a single power up before each run taking out the need for resets just get a specific build. However, it didn't help much as they didn't quite iron out all the luck factors. Later side quests for instance require luck in order to get a specific item or enemy encounter. This is the only part of the main game where I felt compelled to restart runs. It is also a good thing that this is the only part because restarting runs is terrible in Going Under. You don't automatically start a new run from the pause menu. You are instead booted out into the hub world after a load screen, then have to walk slowly to one of the levels, go through another load screen, and then you can start another run. Again, in any other game, this wouldn't be too much of a problem, but it does become a problem when looking at it as a roguelite. It doesn't help that many other roguelites basically perfected the concept of restarting runs. 

But going back to my initial point, Going Under isn't the best at having diverse gameplay. The way I see it most of the win condition is learning enemy telegraphs. Granted, that in of itself is fun. And additionally, Going Under has made hitting enemies very satisfying as they rag doll across the floor, but it isn't the most substantial thing ever. My playthrough time is telling evidence of that since I completed most of the game and only manage to squeeze a little over ten hours out of it. Compared to other games in the genre where I can easily put in sixty plus hours, and Going Under comes off very slim. I suppose a remedy for this is the optional Imposter Mode which amps the difficulty of the dungeon by making it longer and taking away perks you get in base game. It's fine as it fixes a few problems I have with its roguelite elements. Although, the way it addresses its problems are like flattening bumps on a mattress. Sure, restarting runs are a little faster but restarting is more common since the difficulty compels you to fish for certain powerups early on. It's great that the dungeons length and structure makes you think about each room differently adding some much needed variety. It's not so great that the length means more opportunities for the camera and Z-targeting to fuck up leaving you increasingly vulnerable. 

I can say that this game would make a great entry point if you are into roguelites since the game leans on the easy side excluding the Imposter Mode. However, at the same time, the game's lack of polish could make the combat frustrating to newer players. The way I see it, Hades still remains the quintessential gateway into the roguelite genre, but I digress. 

I still highly recommend Going Under if only for the story. I would love to see this above most indie titles out there to get a sequel/expansion. If this game fixed its little issues, this game can easily become one of my favorites. Going Under is the debut title of developer Aggro Crab. And yeah, Going Under has all the fixings of a typically great debut title. It's a little rough and far from perfect, but the passion is there. "blah blah blah, insert pun involving the title or its subject matter, and then end the review." 

Brooklyn 99 | A Modern Sitcom Series Review

I recently finished the entirety of B99 and was considering putting it on my best of television list next month. However, a simple ode wouldn't suffice for me. I feel an entire blog post is necessary to describe B99. Hell, I feel even an entire blog post isn't enough. I wish I could do a series of blog posts much like how I did for YU-GI-OH. Every few seasons has something interesting to talk about. In fact, because this show has been around since 2013, you can essentially cut the tree open and witness a tiny history of 2010 sitcoms. Brooklyn 99 is by all definitions a modern sitcom, and I mean that mostly in a good way. So let's cut to the chase. There's no fancy intro. As much as I wanted to talk about Malcolm in the Middle, the history of sitcoms, and somehow my love for plushies, I feel getting straight to the point would suffice. And again, we have a lot to cover, so let's begin...

Oh yeah, I think this goes without saying, but I am going to assume you have seen the entire show. There will be spoilers, and I will be light on explaining context for certain parts of the storyline. You have been warned. 

Seasons 1-2: 

The Slow Death Knell of Traditional Sitcoms

The "death of the laugh track" has been on my mind for a while. I'll be honest. The traditional sitcom format sucks, and it's weird that it refuses to die. Sure, there have been amazing work in this format such as Roseanne and Seinfeld. However, even those shows have been held back by the dated qualities of the traditional sitcom. The canned laugh track is distracting. And in instances like the Big Bang Theory, it can outright destroy the pacing of the jokes (if what BBT has can be described as jokes). The three camera setup used since the dawn of TV has slowly become inessential and is at best an inoffensive way of shooting scenes. At its worst is a restrictive setup that limits set design, blocking, and editing styles. Theoretically, you can film Roseanne in a one camera setup. The same definitely can't be said with B99 and the multicamera setup.  

Then there is the politically incorrect aspects which isn't necessarily a direct result of the traditional sitcom, but it is often associated with sitcoms. It may stemmed from the fact that sitcoms are very reflective to the politics of the time. And yeah, it can lead to some nervous collar tugging when some of the unsavory portions appear on screen. Thankfully, B99 is nowhere near as bad as other shows. However, I feel it is important to address these anyway. Plus, I wanted to get these out of the way as they stick out like a sore thumb. 

Gina (Chelsea Peretti) sexually harassing Terry would be bad even ignoring the real life assault that happened to Terry Crews. In a post #MeToo movement society, the way Gina and subsequently Madeline Wuntch act in the earlier seasons is gut wrenching. It's even more gut wrenching since this didn't bother me during my first viewing of Seasons 1 & 2. I guess the best thing I can say is that at least I changed for the better now than never. 

Thankfully, what still bothers me is the War on Drugs undercurrent that is seen through most of the show early on. While B99 is fairly good at handling heavy subject matter, as I'll explain throughout this review, it tends to squander on this topic. Criminalizing drugs has been a contentious subject matter due it being racially targeted unfavorably towards blacks and Latinx Americans. It's not like racism isn't addressed in B99. There are many instances where discrimination, microaggressions, and white ignorance is quickly demonized or at least quipped at. However, that doesn't extend when it comes to racism among suspects and criminals. Yeah, the criminals are racially diverse-and trashier criminals are often portrayed as white-which wasn't unnoticed, yet it takes a blind eye to how the War on Drugs disproportionately targeted minorities. 

God, don't even get me started on Black Lives Matter, but I suppose I will talk about that as that becomes more relevant. 

Excluding political stuff, there are still a handful of things that aren't great from today's perspective. One of the B99's cases of first season wonkiness is the relationship between Rosa (Stephanie Beatriz) and Boyle (Joe Lo Truglio). It's a one sided romantic interest that's very surface level and doesn't do either characters any favors. It doesn't help that I am fairly mixed on Boyle and Rosa as standalone characters to begin with. It seems most of Boyle's jokes tend to fall in the category of making his coworkers very uncomfortable, and most of them don't really land for me. However, Boyle's jokes also fall into the category of slapstick, and most of that works really well. I credit that to Joe Lo Truglio's performance whose a fantastic comedic actor and weirdly has also played a cop in a procedural crime drama much like Andre Braugher. It seems a lot of my love for the character stems from the delivery and presence of the actor. That extends to Beatriz as Rosa who is also excellent. However, the character herself doesn't get many interesting arcs. It isn't until much later in the series where they make her interesting. Of course, I will address it when we get there. 

Other than those three paragraphs of problems, the first two seasons of B99 are great. There my personal favorite in terms of restraint. Later seasons will gradually get more over the top through flanderization which we'll soon find out to be very hit and miss. I like how relatively grounded all the characters are early on especially Captain Holt (Andre Braugher) who arguably reaches his character peak in the first two seasons. He's hilarious and his humor doesn't distract from the fact that he is highly respectable and intelligent. Also, he's gay which is given as much fan fare as this sentence which I love. It's very normalizing seeing a gay character simply existing and being comfortable in the world around him. 

All the other characters do well and are each given solid episodes for their characters to shine (including Rosa and Boyle). Jake (Andy Samberg) and Amy (Melissa Fumero) have a much stronger romantic subplot that's simple yet effective. I wish we got to see the romance from Amy's perspective. But other than that, the relationship is incredibly wholesome and gets about as good as it gets in the first two seasons. 

I particularly love the episodes where the entire cast is assigned to take on one problem that isn't high stakes. The Halloween episodes are an obvious example, but my personal favorites are The Party and the Beach House which both feature the cast tip toeing around social situations too innocuous and relatable than what is expected from NYPD officers. I feel these episodes are where the characters and humor shine the brightest. 

The first two seasons of B99 feel like an introduction in avoiding most of the bullshit seen in traditional sitcoms. There are no laugh tracks but awkward silences and well timed editing cuts to punctuate the jokes. The cinematography isn't just a wide shot following shot-reverse shot. It's well purposed shots that can be intense for action oriented scenes of flat and still for comedic effect. It for the most part rids away the sins of the old hands. However, there is one problem that B99 was unable to shed. 

Seasons 3-4: 

The Sitcom Equilibrium

Let's talk about the TV equilibrium. It's an underused term, and one that I've only really heard from text books and college courses. For those that don't know, a TV equilibrium is a cycle where a show begins with a sense of normalcy. The events of that episode promptly disrupt that normalcy. But, by the end of the episode, the characters will overcome the event and everything will go back to normal. The cycle begins again in the next episode. 

I have mixed feelings on this concept. I get that realistically changing the dynamics of an episode would be a lot. It may require changing sets. And in the case of sitcoms, a genre that's the equivalent of comfort food, it's best not to challenge the safety that sitcoms provide. 

However, this also makes episodes lack any tension as we know most episodes will end with the return to the equilibrium. 

This is problem that we start to see in the beginning of season 3. Both seasons 3 & 4 begin with what seems to be a long term disruption to the dynamic. Season 3 has Holt out of the picture with a series of new captains taking his place. Season 4 begins with Jake and Holt both in witness protection. Both of these only last for a handful of episodes before some stroke of luck or arbitrary plot device fixes everything. Compared to My Name is Earl where Earl was in prison for half a season or Roseanne where characters will have completely different life situations season to season and B99 feels carelessly expeditious. 

Again, I have mix feelings on this. On one hand, I am ok with them going back to the equilibrium. B99 is comfort food. I don't watch it the same way I watch more challenging television. That said, there is no tension in these special episodes since we know we are going back to normal. And because there isn't any tension, it isn't interesting. It's why I consider these episodes some of the worst episodes for me. Although to the show's credit, they at least focus on the main cast. 

I can't say the same for some of the other episodes that focused on the reoccurring characters. I dreaded the ones with the Pontiac Bandit, the Vulture, Pimento, and a few others as their episodes don't really work for me. I suppose that is a personal taste as I know some people love these episodes. From my perspective, these episodes tend to take focus away from the main cast which is B99's strongest asset. The jokes also don't really land for me. 

That said, seasons three and four still maintain a decent quality, and they have a solid batch of episodes. My personal favorites include Moo Moo which is the first instance where an episode centers on modern racism. While I did just establish my dislike for B99's reoccurring characters, I did enjoy the episodes involving Jake's parents and Amy's father. The former being loved by me for simply exploiting my nostalgia for Married with Children. Finally, there is Cop Con which continues the trend of great episodes involving the entire cast taking on one stupid situation. 

We end season 4 really well with one of if not the strongest cliffhanger in the series as well as one of my favorite antagonists in B99. It leads our cast into a great new situation starting season 5. Although if past seasons taught me anything, it likely won't be long before everything goes back to normal.

 

Seasons 5-6:

How B99 Keeps It Fresh

We are getting into the late game of a sitcoms run. It's a scary time since there is an understandable temptation to keep things fresh. We don't want a Walking Dead situation where a story is simply going through the motions. However, there are risks when trying new things. 

These risks have since been labeled as tropes. There is the Cousin Oliver trope where a show adds a horrible character in an attempt at keeping things fresh. There is jumping the shark where a show does something outrageously out of character in order to stay interesting. I've already mentioned flanderization where a character's traits get exaggerated to where they become a caricature of their former selves. Unfortunately, B99 continues to suffer from that. Although, it still doesn't reach the lengths like the Office. That said, almost all the characters get a little more exaggerated. The worst examples, in my opinion, are Captain Holt and Amy. Holt becomes extremely condescending and competitive which contradicts his professional attitude, and Amy might beat Boyle at his own pervy game by how she responds to good organization.

Thankfully, B99 is far from the point where I would call the show bad which was a surprise to me considering season 5 was the worst in terms of ratings among all the seasons under Fox. I guess that is on me for taking ratings more seriously than Fox. 

Anyway, I posit that B99 keeps it fresh, so how do they do it? Well, I think tone is largely why I think seasons 5 & 6 work really well. This show gets heavier than usual. To summarize, in just two seasons alone, they expand on PTSD, touch on addiction, not being accepted for your sexuality, self-sabotage, the fear of a loved one not getting out of a dangerous situation alive, sexual assault and how that affects the politics of the workplace, the fears of therapy, having children, and likely other topics that I've failed to remember. 

That's not to say that every episode is some light dramedy. There are still some great straightforward B99 episodes that are as entertaining as you'd expect. However, it is more inclined to get deeper into these character's lives. I think the magic that makes long form sitcoms like this work is the understanding that these characters have been with us for a good portion of our lives. If you have been watching this show since it came out, it has been in your life for eight years. That's longer than most college programs and twice as long as Trump's presidency. It would be downright unfair if a show just did the same thing. Or worse, made the characters completely unnatural to what they were before. If you developed a parasocial relationship with fictional characters, you probably want to have a deeper understanding of them, and I feel B99 knows that. 

In the end, I found that while season 5-6 may not be the best in terms of good episode frequency, it has the best overall gems in the series. This is the season with the best Rosa arc by using her as a vessel to explore sexuality more thoroughly in society. It has arguably the best Halloween episode. It's also the season that has the Box episode which is consider by many to be one of the best episodes in the series. I don't quite put it on that level, but it is still a great episode. 

When I finished season 6, I went into the last few seasons more optimistic. And for a long running sitcom, that feeling is more rare than people realize. 

Seasons 7-8:

An Unfortunate Stumble Into Routine 

& B99's Elephant 

Ok never mind, now the show gets kind of bad. 

Let me say that B99 doesn't fall off as badly as more notorious examples of shows nosediving in quality. I feel like Malcolm in The Middle, the weaker seasons are still fairly enjoyable. However, it doesn't change the fact that seasons seven and eight don't live up to the better seasons. 

We start in season 7, and it is not very interesting. It's so uninteresting, I am trying figure out as I'm writing how I am going review this section. 

Season 7 mainly explores the same themes and situations in other seasons of B99 with a few little subversions here and there. Subversions include a new captain that is revealed to actually be good at her job instead of the string of awful captains from season 3. A quirky reoccurring character that turned out to be a major baddie. Oh by the way, Vanessa Bayer as Debbie was bloody wonderful and is easily my favorite reoccurring character on the show. Commissioner Wuntch just....dies. That came out of nowhere. And as another subversion, they don't do much with that plotline as I thought they would. 

That's it. The subversions aren't really game changers just fun little surprises that don't have much of an impact. The rest of season 7 is just more of the same. Jake and Amy have another relationship conflict as they try to have a child. Holt has problems with his career that once again gets quickly resolved since the writers stopped caring. The only great thing I can say about this season is the finale which is nicely chaotic and fun. The season itself is also pretty short, so I guess it is nice that the worst season is only a 13 episode slog instead of 22. 

So yeah, that season left a lot to be desired. It kind of makes the transition to talking about police brutality even more messy. 

I first started watching B99 in 2018. For some reason, a major event on my mind was the Ferguson unrest which was about four years ago at the time. Considering B99 came out in 2013 and the Michael Brown case was such a substantial story about police conduct, I figured there would be some mention of it in Brooklyn 99. There wasn't. 

There would be many high profile police related killings during B99's run, and I was shocked that it took all the way till George Floyd's murder for B99 to finally address police violence on the show. Granted, a lot of governments, corporations, and public figures seemed "better late than never" when it came with Black Lives Matter. However, I always thought B99 was better than that. I thought it was a show that was above "the better late than never" trend of social wokeness. This is the same show that casted multiple POC actors before Disney hopped on the diversity and inclusion band wagon. This is the same show that treated gay and bisexual characters with a sense of realism. It's a show that handled sexual assault and other mature subject matter gracefully. Yet when it came to easily the most hot button issue with police right now, B99 got cold feet. This show could have easily been ahead of the curb, but it felt like the show played it safe. You can only ignore the elephant in the room for so long.   

To the show's credit, B99 handles the subject of BLM about as gracefully as you might expect. At its worst, I am not big on how they bring Boyle into the discourse. While I understand that Boyle is basically the adjective "overcompensation" personified, I also think Boyle has the emotional maturity to avoid virtue signaling like he does in the BLM episode. For example, I always liked that Boyle always said Turkey Day instead of Thanksgiving in the earlier seasons. The show never draws attention to it, but it is a nice little touch that Boyle would use a term that is considered by many as more politically correct, so I was disappointed that Boyle was used as a surrogate for people who overly virtue signal. Granted, I also understand that the writers just needed to give Boyle something to do for the episode, and it would be weird for the episode to have a plot that is unrelated to BLM when the rest of the show is tied so heavily to the subject matter. 

Elephant aside, Season 8 is sadly more of the same. Like season 7, its strengths are the finale and that the season is fairly short. I suppose the finale does deserve more props since I've rarely seen a series finale that shows a deep love for its audience. Hell, I've rarely seen a series finale that isn't a complete dumpster fire. Here, B99 gets a little heavy on the fan service for my personal tastes. However, the rest of the episode is great, and it's full of the same chaotic energy B99 is known for ending on one of the most emotional and satisfying Holt speeches in the series. It makes you forget about the slog and the narrative low points and just relish in the good of not just in the show but in you as a human being. 

Conclusion

My overall feelings are a strange one. When I think of the best sitcoms ever made, I don't often put B99 alongside those shows. Yet, B99 has the qualities of some of best situational comedies ever made. It's unique, culturally relevant, and really really funny. The characters are endearing and grow naturally. And while the show falls victim to some typical television show problems, it stumbles much less than other shows of a similar length. Maybe with time, B99's status as a classic will be more apparent to me. 

And if judging by the quality of this show, I imagine that it won't take very long for that to happen. 

Additional Thoughts Too Unnoteworthy to Include in This Review But I'm Including Anyway

The final scene with Rosa, while conceptually good, was a tad sloppy for me. I appreciate that a sitcom character, a female one no less, doesn't end with her getting paired up with some random romantic interest for the sake of it. However, there is a layer where the show takes on a meta element where it feels like they're making fun of that trope. It comes off as the show is really proud of itself that Rosa didn't end up with someone. It was weirdly arrogant for the series especially since this is not the first high profile sitcom where a female character's happy ending isn't getting into a romantic relationship. *cough* Mary Tyler Moore *cough* 

On the contrary, the end to Jake Peralta's story is perfect. It is a textbook example of a character fulfilling his needs versus his wants. At the beginning, Peralta's wants were to be a great detective yet his needs were familial belonging and emotional maturity. A simple yet well executed arc that is more effective due to seeing this change over several years. 

On final nitpick on the ending, I am not a big fan of the final scene where the gang is reveal to come together to do their annual heist. It takes away the permanency of their lives changing and them going their separate ways. Golden Girls doesn't end with the Dorothy coming back saying "jk, one more hug" and neither should B99. Either end it at the elevator or do something a little subtler. 

I wished I spent some time talking about Scully and Hitchcock, so I will do that now. They're great. I like how it rides the line and doesn't get too homoerotic. It feels like a true platonic romance, and we need more of that in media. 

The season 8 arc with Holt and his husband could have spent more time in the oven. I suppose they set it up a little bit in previous seasons. I wish their relationship didn't come to a head so abruptly.

I really hate the Pontiac Bandit. It angers me he got an episode in every season. I found the character annoying. I never bought his friendship with Jake. And over the course of the series, Jake gets increasingly unprofessional when it came to Doug Judy. I was so mad when Jake gave Doug an out out of prison. Let that fucker rot!

While I like Gina, I'm bothered by how obsessed the show is with her. It bothers me that a character that's vapid, self-interested, and caddy is treated on the same level as figures of worship. Jeez, there is an episode called "Return of the King." You could say it is meant to be ironic, but it doesn't come off that way. Maybe she needed to get hit by a bus more to balance it out. 

I like that Jake and Amy don't go the Jim and Pam route like the later seasons of U.S Office. Casecation aside, the relationship is incredibly wholesome and stable. It is certainly a palette cleanser from honeymooner style sitcoms of the bumbling husband and bitchy wife. 

Lastly, B99 is a pretty solid procedural cop show. Well...they have the clichés of a procedural cop show, see Hank Green's song about it. However, it works here because it is spiced up by these quirky characters. The Box episode would be generic and boring if it were done in CSI or Law & Order. In B99, its unique and interesting. It is not so much the mystery itself is interesting. It is that it's in a genre not associated with mysteries. 

Rambling about Miles Morales & Stealth Games One Last Time

I guess my Spider-Man cravings weren't satiated from watching 14 movies, a television series, and a YouTube parody, so I am throwing in a Spider-Man video game as well. In retrospect, I'm glad I did this because Spider-Man is just as relevant in video games as it is in any other medium. 

I frankly don't have strong feelings for the Spider-Man games. Despite having played a handful throughout my life, the Spider-Man games where never a franchise that blew my mind. This extends to the Insomniac series of Spider-Man games which many have considered to be the best in the franchise. 

Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales is the second, or rather the .5, entry into the Insomniac Marvel series. Being a simple .5 entry, it is mainly an appetizer for the upcoming Spider-Man 2 as well as the Wolverine game. And being a .5 entry, the game is extremely short with nothing substantial to talk about, but I will find a way to stretch this to a thousand words anyway. 

Let's get the obvious talking points out the way. The visuals are beyond excellent and have some of the best looking animations in a video game. The side content is fairly solid and allows the player to do more with the core mechanics. This game has an obvious love for Spider-Man that very few comic book games have exude. 

In ways, Miles Morales is exactly like the previous iteration for better and for worse. 

In my eyes, the weakest aspect of this series has always been the story. It's not that the story is bad. And if I had to grade it based on my rubric, it would look something like this:

The problem is the same problem almost all the Spider-Man games have, a lack of focus. There is almost always too many villains, and they bloat the game too much. These games don't have the best writing to begin with. The dialogue can be on the nose. You rarely are in the dark on what's going to happen next. There is not much intense drama in the conflict, so it is hampered even more so when they decide to throw in more villains. I understand games need to have levels and by extension boss battles, but the story often suffers because of it. 

In fairness, this is where Miles Morales short length starts to work in its favor. Instead of double digit number villains, there are only four. Instead of having the feeling that the story should have ended five hours ago, like the first Insomniac Spider-Man, the story has an appropriate length. In fact, it almost felt like it could have been a little longer. 

From the objective standpoint, I'd say Miles Morales has the strongest narrative of the Spider-Man games since it is not as unfocused as the others. That said, it is still not that mind blowing of a story. 

The story is just too straight forward for its own good. An evil white guy masquerading as a kind philanthropist has technology that is harmful to humans. There is an awful but well meaning terrorist that tries to stop it but ends up doing something worse in the process. There is another well meaning villain that tries to convince the hero to essentially be evil through inaction. "SNOOOOORRE"

I suppose this segways into the gameplay, and the gameplay is fine. Yeah, Spider-Man games often fall into three categories. Either they are fine, they are less than fine, or they are bad. If it is any more or less, then the world would explode I suppose. 

The noted thing about these Insomniac Spider-Man games is that they are kind of teetering towards something more than fine. In the side content, for example, you can see glimpses of some Spider-Man at its best. The time attack challenges that forces you to do sequences as fast as possible are fantastic. In particular, I love the stealth time attack ones which I guess leads us into the second part of the topic at hand. 

When it comes to stealth games, there is a specific brand that I like to call "milquetoast" stealth. The kind of challenge where you plainly hide in bushes. There's barely any depth, and all the physical assertion extends to pressing the triangle button. Sometimes in milquetoast stealth, the stealth isn't even required. And if you get caught, you just go straight into the traditional combat. 

Miles Morales is much of how I describe the milquetoast stealth, but the typical dullness seen in milquetoast stealth sequences are gone in the time attack missions. 

First off, the missions are timed, obviously, meaning that you are forced to play extremely fast-again obviously. This completely discourages the safe play style of waiting in bushes making the pacing much more fun. It's great figuring out the routes to smoothly dispatch foes. I like how these time attacks really get you to use the various gadgets. 

It's shame you don't see the DNA of it in the main content. The combat, stealth, and web slinging are pretty basic. There's no strategy in dispatching mobs just pushing the circle button at the right time. There is no tension to the stealth because it is simply a matter of playing the waiting game or distracting a guard by hitting a trash can. Again, it's not bad. It's fine, but it could be more than that. 

I guess what I am asking for is more of a hardcore Spider-Man. It's something we are likely not going to get "cuz casuals, am I right." However, what I can hope is that Spider-Man is lean towards the things it gets right. More instances that encourage various playstyles. A story that is more streamlined, focused, and unique. A game that isn't bloated with crap it doesn't need. 

That said, I remain optimistic that Insomniac Spider-Man 2 will be solid. And as I've said for No Way Home, if it disappoints, I can always rely on Into the Spider-Verse 2. 

I guess that is the great thing about the Spider-Man franchise. For as bad as the franchise can get, the hero always comes back with something special. He can be down but can never truly be out. Some fan bases are resigned to a fate that their respective franchise may never reach past mediocrity, failure, or disappointment but not Spider-Man. For better or worse, you can use every adjective to describe Spider-Man at some point like bland, imaginative, emotional, frustrating, and flashy. However, at the end of the day. I feel most will use one word to describe Spider-Man, and that word is simply "amazing."  

An Ode to the Spider-Man Films (& How They Rank)

The Spider-Man movies: a film series that could have started the first Cinematic Universe, but it got rebooted too many times for that to really happen. A film series that's a gambler's die of quality. It sucks that it's like that. But on the bright side, the all-encompassing variety makes for a good ranking list. So today, I am going to list all the Spider-Man movies from worst to best. 

Of course, some rules need to be established. There can be a lot of semantics on what can be considered a Spider-Man movie. So to avoid any headaches, I am going to describe what qualifies for this list to better curate this ranking system. 

First, I am only including Spider-Man films that were produced, co-produced, or distributed by Columbia Pictures, so things like the Toei Spider-Man will not be considered for the running. Secondly, Spider-Man must be the main protagonist. Films where he merely makes an appearance or is a side character will also not count. That means no Infinity War, Civil War, or Three Giant Men. Yeah you thought I haven't heard of Three Giant Men. Well I have, and I don't want to be troubled by it. Almost half of this list is already going to be plagued by crappy Spider-Man movies. I don't want to add any more. Lastly, I am only looking at theatrically released feature length movies. If I tried to include shorts or television specials, this blog will never get done. Obviously, this goes without saying. But since I like listing rules and such in either threes, fives, or tens, I am including this rule as well. 

Also, if you want to know what I consider to be a good Spider-Man story, click here to read my review on Spectacular Spider-Man. I am going to be using the same format as that review in that I will be looking at each film for how it portrays Spider-Man, the villain(s), and its unique elements. And just for funzies, I will even throw in a rating system because I feel like playing generic movie pundit today.

Anyway, there is a ton of Spiderman content even with a stringent criteria. And since we are starting out with the garbage, I am going into this blog with a sense of dread. Well as the jaded sex worker might say, let's get this over with. 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 

Surprising no one except deeply disturbed Emma Stone stans, we have the Amazing Spider-Man 2.    

One of the problems with this ranking is how it will be difficult to talk about some of these films out of order. However, that won't be the problem in this case because there is plenty wrong with this movie without having to reference much of its predecessor. 

My feelings when trying to describe this movie are the same feelings someone may have when describing their flaming car accident to the police. Do you simply start from the beginning or do you just cut to the chase and tell them whose fault it is? 

In this case, the persons who ran the stop sign should be none other than Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. It's extra frustrating to hear it is them because this isn't even their first offense. Kurtzman and Orci are a pair of screenwriters that are to famous media franchises what Seltzer and Friedberg are to comedies or a parasite is to a living host. They started by ruining Transformers and the Star Trek series. However, before Kurtzman went off on his own to continue ruining Star Trek, they did one last collaboration which was singlehandedly ruining a Spider-Man universe. 

I'm not the biggest fan of either Transformers or Star Trek. But when those monsters got ahold of my Spider-Man, it got personal. Thankfully, these guys are not collaborating on movies anytime soon, so a disaster like Amazing Spider-Man 2 likely won't be happening again. However, it's important that we memorialize tragedy when they come to remind ourselves of the sacrifices and the fanboy tears shed when calamity struck. 

I am dwelling on these two because they really are to blame for why this movie doesn't work. The writing is God awful and has all the hallmarks of a terrible Kurtzman and Orci vehicle. Characters that are so surface level they might as well spell out their character arcs when they are introduced. Constant clichés that seem like an attempt to be dark and mature but come off eyerolling. This can be seen by the spectral Captain Stacy that ominously stares at Spider-Man or the many other little annoyances that are rife in practically every scene in the movie. Usually, I keep notes when I watch movies I plan on reviewing but writing every single little problem in this film proved unruly. For my sanity, it is best to just talk about the broader problems. 

The villains are some of the most incidental antagonists that have ever been put in a comic book film and seem there to set up some obligatory parts of a checklist. Rhino is there as an uninteresting opening grunt. Electro feels there simply to add an unique villain never seen in a Spider-Man movie and to give Spider-Man someone to fight. By the way, both of these characters are played respectively by Paul Giamatti and Jamie Foxx who both give career worst performances. Finally, there is Green Goblin which was added because the movie almost forgot to kill off Gwen Stacy. Oh yeah, we also need him for the eventual Sinister Six movie. Oh, there's also the uninteresting conspiracy around Peter's parents that we still got to build up for later movies. What are we doing again? 

It's movies like this that make you appreciate the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They're not perfect, but they can set up things little by little without the quality of the movie taking a significant nosedive. I cannot understand how a movie can be so obsess with movies that don't even exist yet while failing to manage its own story in real time. Peter doesn't really have anything going on in this movie and doesn't develop much. All he does is try to win Gwen Stacy back and investigate the conspiracy of his parents death. Both of which lead to disappointment for wildly different reasons.  

Speaking of Gwen, her character is also terrible in this film. I imagine that Kurtzman and Orci couldn't make her take her clothes off like they did with Megan Fox or Carol Marcus, so they didn't know what to do with her. So instead, they make her break up with Peter even though the last movie implied they were going to try to make it work. And then throughout the movie, Gwen is mainly used for little exposition bits and to be Peter's obligatory love interest that feels as poorly written as everything else in this film. She doesn't feel like a character but as another mark on the checklist as they do the famous death scene we all know and love. They just forgot to add emotional weight or shock that is tied to this famous moment. They took one of the most famous scenes in comic books and manage to make it feel anticlimactic. What else can you expect from the great Kurtzman and Orci duo? In fairness, it would be hard to make this death shocking with how expected it was. It would be like trying to recreate the Darth Vader twist in Empire Strikes Back. However, that doesn't excuse just how poorly written Gwen Stacy felt during the rest of the movie. When she feels as lifeless alive than when she was a mangled corpse, that's when you know that you have written a traditional Hollywood female character. 

I'm sorry. Can we go back to talking about the villains? They really did a poor job. If you really want an example of how poorly written this film is, look no further than Harry Osborne. We get one scene where they establish that Peter and Harry are friends. We get two scenes where Harry tries to enlist the help of Peter to try to find a cure to no avail and with no additional character development. And then boom, he goes crazy, injects himself with Nickelodeon goop and becomes the Green Goblin. Like this entire movie, it is sudden, amateurish, and underdeveloped. 

Amazing Spider-Man 2

It's one thing that this is the worst Spider-Man movie. It's another thing that this is also one of the worst comic book films period. I would almost argue that this is one of the worst movies period if competition for that title wasn't so brutal. There are going to be a few more bad Spider-Man movies after this. However, there is none that I am more glad to never see again than this one. 

The Amazing Spider-Man (1977)

The reasoning I wanted a ruleset was to avoid watching bootleg garbage. After all, I didn't want have to follow Amazing Spider-Man 2 with something potentially as bad. Unfortunately, even with the rules, I couldn't avoid talking about the often undiscussed Spider-Man films made for TV in the 1970s. They were released theatrically overseas, and a theatrical release regardless of where still counts. Ugh...I hate loopholes. 

The 1970s Spider-Man doesn't have a lot going for it as the lack of special effects couldn't possibly achieve the many powers Spider-Man has. With where special effects were at the time, there was no way this film could realistically show Spider-Man's powers to their fullest potential, so this movie is pretty dead upon arrival. But even forgiving the bad special effects, the rest of the film is very "TV." The few fight scenes this movie has are very awkward, mostly just random dudes hitting an unchoreographed Spider-Man with sticks. The 'powers' seen on screen are typically isolated incidents that are as about as inorganic as you'd expect from 1970s television. The big superhero moments like getting the costume or using his powers for the first time lack any kind of gravitas or cinematic flourishes. So it is bad, but that's ok. If you don't like it, then just watch the rest of the film because there is barely any Spider-Man to begin with. If you split the film up, you will get about 15% of actual Spider-Man and about 85% of characters standing in a room talking like an algorithm. Every once in a while you will get some bizarre or corny dialogue that admittedly breaks up the monotony, but that's it. This movie is ungodly boring. The only reason it ranks any higher is because it managed to do it without wasting more than $200 million. 

This is before I discuss any essential Spider-Man stuff, and the Spider-Man stuff doesn't reflect well either. 

For starters, it leaves out a lot of things that feel like no brainers in a typical Spider-Man story. There is no Uncle Ben origin, so the morality elements are completely non-existent. There is no Gwen or Mary Jane as a love interest. There are no villains off the shortlist of Spider-Man's rogues. Peter doesn't even get bullied in this one! 

By the time the movie finishes skinning what's left of the Spider-Man's source material, you realize that this film can only be reviewed on a curve. It's like grading an art student whose lousy but seems passionate. "At least they're trying..."

Like at least the movie recognizes that Peter has to balance work and superhero stuff. 

At least Peter is genuinely awkward. So awkward in fact, that I do not feel compelled to hang out with this incarnation of Peter if he were a real person. 

At least the opening is kind of neat. There is a mystery component that drew me in. Unfortunately, that is lost when you realize the villain is just some vindictive white guy. 

I don't know. I can't bring myself to hate this movie. It's honestly not an offensive portrayal of Spider-Man just an underdeveloped one. It's clearly hampered by its budget and the primitive special effects of the time. And hey, it is amusing when someone makes a lame piece of 1970s dialogue. 

Amazing Spider-Man (1977)

Unless you have an acquired love for 1970s television, there isn't anything worth watching even if you like to watch films ironically. It's a ninety minute movie that is clearly two twenty episodes with a liberal amount of commercial breaks. 

But hey, it is still somehow better than Amazing Spider-Man 2. 

Spider-Man Strikes Back

We follow Amazing Spider-Man with another 70s Spider-Man movie. This time its sequel, Spider-Man Strikes Back. And frankly, I don't have much to say on it. 

Why? Because it is basically the same movie. 

Really, take what I said about Amazing Spider-Man and apply it to this one. It would certainly save me the trouble. The only weird thing pointing out in this one is how the antagonists are three disgruntled college students which is utterly bizarre. Unfortunately, that is only temporary as the villainy is shifted to being just another white guy. However, I love the idea of a Spider-Man villain being three liberal college students for some reason. Marvel needs to start getting weird with their C level antagonists instead of using random comic source material like Aldrich Killian or Baron Zemo. Both characters whom I had to look up on Wikipedia because they were so forgettable, but I am getting side tracked. 

So that is Spider-Man Strikes Back. It's basically the same as the last movie. And now, I feel a little bad for leaving this section a little bare, so let's talk about something related to help add a little meat to things. 

I originally didn't want to talk about the Venom movies which should help explain why I had the "Spider-Man must be the protagonist" rule. Based on the people who actually liked the first Venom, I knew the movies weren't going to be my cup of tea, so I didn't watch it when it came out. However, my mind was changed with the release of Venom: Let There Be Carnage which got a few warm reviews even from people I respect. 

And considering these 70s Spider-Man movies gave me almost no feelings whatsoever, I might as well watch some movies that at least compel feelings even if those feelings are mild annoyance. 

Now that I watched both movies, I can kind of understand why these films work for certain people. These films have a real devil may care attitude that few films have a tough time replicating. It's hard not to come off as not giving a damn without coming off as desperate or pandering. As bad as these films are, there is a genuine sense that the creative team had a lot of fun making these movies. 

Because really, these films are bad. Both are really generic movies that try to be edgy and grim. If they decided to make the CGI look bad, these films could easily be a retro callback to the superhero films of the late 90s and early 2000s. 

The first act of Venom 1 really sells this. They spend an ungodly amount of time setting up everything. But then, likely because they want the movie to start already, Eddie Brock gets fired, loses his fiancé, and has to move into the apartment from Spider-Man 2 all in a span of five minutes. It felt very rushed. What was the point of spending half an hour setting up something that had a five minute pay off? Why does Eddie Brock's fiancé leave her laptop containing confidential information just lying around that's also protected by a password that can be easily guessed? For a moment, I was expecting Eddie Brock's fiancé to be portrayed as a bad guy for how incompetent and antagonistic she was early on. 

There are little moments in Venom 1 that feel either stupid or generic and not in a good way. Eddie Brock, a supposed intelligent journalist, presses a subject on shit he doesn't have great evidence to pin him on? Eddie Brock crashes a fancy restaurant where his fiancé and new boyfriend are eating which is a trope used so many times by comedies and romance movies that the trope should be considered an endangered species for how poached they are.  

That being said, there is a layer where I can't hate it despite Venom's flaws. I like the aforementioned new boyfriend character for how sympathetic and understanding he is. I thought the movie was going to be one and done with him, but he carries over to the next movie. There is a few cool scenes like the MRI scene or when Tom Hardy eats rotten food like a crackhead. The final fight with Riot was kind of cool in a Hulk vs. Abomination kind of way. It highlights how neutered the violence in these movies are but that is the least of these movies problems. She-Venom is....certainly a thing now. 

These movies flip back and forth from being painfully generic to being kind of interesting, and nothing is truly great about these films. Aside from the special effects, the Venom movies don't have anything going for them except maybe one other thing. Woody Harrelson as Carnage is almost excellent. 

I guess this leads to Venom 2 which is mostly the same in my eyes. There is some little things that I genuinely like. I like how Shriek, Carnage's girlfriend, is literally their weakness. Although, I can't give too many points because that was aped from the comics. I like that the movie is short which is an attribute I don't see nowadays in modern films. In fact, I appreciated it so much that I'm tempted to put it in my best of 2021 list for that alone. 

However the big draw is Woody Harrelson who is an inspired choice for Carnage. I would go as far as to say he is a the best casting choice for a Spider-Man villain since William Dafoe for Green Goblin. The only bad thing I can say about Carnage, bad wig notwithstanding, is that I wish he was in a better movie. 

Yeah similar to the first movie, this movie sort of flips back and forth from being bland and interesting. Except now, there is a layer to the film where it leans towards being almost shamelessly shlocky. There is an extended sequence where Venom is off on his own, and the symbiote practically grows into a character you would see on Marvel's Will and Grace. Now, the idea of the symbiote becoming a disaster gay sounds funny on paper, but the movie is so silly to begin with that it sort of makes me feel...*shrug.* 

Venom 

That's how I feel about the first Venom. I kind of shrug at its design, story, and characters. I don't hate it, but I don't quite get why some people like it so much other than its general tone of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. For everything unique and interesting about it is bogged by rather a generic and boring story. 

Venom: Let There Be Carnage

Venom 2 weighs about the same just with a star moved to a different place. I think Carnage is great just underexplored. I would love to see Carnage return just in a different movie. Maybe an actual Spider-Man movie. 

But while the villain is better, Venom certainly isn't as the character leans more campy. It doesn't quite work for me. 

But hey, the films didn't make me miserable. And say it with me now, "at least it wasn't as bad as Amazing Spider-Man 2."  

Spider-Man: The Dragon's Challenge 

We have finally reach the last of the 1970s Spider-Man movies. And just like the previous two, Spider-Man: The Dragon's Challenge is...

is..... 

.....

is.....

......

.......

.......

.......

.......

is a mini-series released during the era of classic YouTube. And as a fan of spoof parodies, old school YouTube, and of course Spider-Man, I was shocked that something like this went under my radar for so long especially for how well known it is in the Internet world. 

As you might have guess, this show is a spoof parody of bootleg versions of famous superhero movies like Three Giant Men as well as low budget Italian rip off films from the 70s and 80s. That's really it. You get exactly what you sign up for, and what you sign up for is some well made hilarity. As someone who has no nostalgic attachment to this show, I can easily say this show holds up extremely well for a YouTube series in the late 2000s.  

It holds up because it never strays from its one goal which is to authentically evoke the sub genre it's riffing. From the music and camera movements to the random violence towards women, Italian Spider-Man feels like the genre it is parodying. And unlike other modern parodies, Italian Spider-Man can be funny without having to rely on audience's prior knowledge of the genre. Sure, it helps to have an understanding of bad Italian films to enjoy the extra layers of the comedy, but it is not required. There's no degenerate pop culture references requiring a Wikipedia search to understand. No bottom of the barrel jokes because it doesn't have much in terms of humor. It's a short and simple romp about a fat Italian man in a red jump suit, and we are suppose to accept that that's Spider-Man. It's weird and....well yeah that's it really. It is a baffling experience, but that is what good old school YouTube is about. 

Italian Spider-Man

Italian Spider-Man is short and sweet. I don't really know how to rate it as an actual Spider-Man film as visualized by my question marks.  I guess it hit most of its marks correctly??? At the very least, I had a good time with this one. It's not like I can complain. It's free on YouTube, less than an hour to watch, and didn't make me kill myself like Amazing Spider-Man 2.  

Oh yeah... as for the Dragon's Challenge.....It ranks the same as the other 70s Spider-Man movies. Go figure.

There is nothing more to say. Onto the next one. 

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

I feel the best way to describe Webb's Amazing Spider-Man is to explain my history with this film. I have watched this film twice. The first time was when it first came out. I watched it as a Spider-Man fan and nothing more. And because of that, I quite liked Amazing Spider-Man. 

The second time was this year in preparation for this review. This time I watched it as not only a Spider-Man fan but as someone who enjoys movies as an artform. And because of that, I have grown less partial to this movie. 

All over the place is the phrase of the day when it comes to these movies, but it is this one that probably best defines that term. There is some good even great elements to this movie. You can see the ingredients of an amazing-no pun intended-Spider-Man story. However, it stumbles here and there. And next thing you know, it has wasted its potential. 

For example, I like the idea that this film takes strides to making the character more grounded and modern. I like Peter doesn't find Uncle Ben's killer. It's not executed well, which I will explain later, but the idea is there. I like that Peter doesn't immediately wear a costume and gets punished for it, so it establishes why he would want a disguise. The radioactive spider is locked in a secure facility instead of being out and about exposing "idk" a group of high school students out on a field trip. When Peter gets his powers, he suffers from a sensory overload and struggles to control his strength. I like that they establish that Peter wears contact lenses. It always bothered me that Peter can stop wearing glasses without addressing that he has contact lenses. Like you can't just immediately get contact lenses-ok I'm rambling. Let me digress. 

I like how genuinely intelligent Peter is. Sure, they use technical jargon a lot which is a pet peeve of mine. That said, they put in the effort to reinforce that Peter is a capable individual. I can believe this Peter Parker designing web shooters and a high quality latex suit. I can't say the same for some of the other Spider-Men. 

The unfortunate thing is that you have to find all of this in such a clutter of a film, and a large portion of my job reviewing this one is trying to organize it. 

This film is the equivalent of a distracted dog. There is just way too many ideas crammed into it, and it lacks the focus of better comic books films. 

You can see this first with how they handle the Uncle Ben plot. They spend quite a bit of time establishing his relationship with his aunt and uncle. But then, they quickly dispose of him, and the film really doesn't do much with a character that is typically central with Spider-Man. I suppose having this Peter Parker go out to exploit his powers doesn't make sense since they don't establish a motivation for Peter to do that, but the alternate solution is more lazily done. Here, we get the iconic speech from Ben which doesn't really work in context since Peter just accidently left Aunt May at work. Peter then goes to the convenience store and lets a criminal free. That criminal IMMEDIATELY runs into Ben and shoots him. We then get a voice mail from Ben later because the film realized that the initial speech didn't leave much of an impact. They should have just cut the first speech and left the voicemail instead. 

They go through the most important part of Spider-Man's origin story in less than ten minutes. Everything that works in this film feels so rushed, and they don't dwell on it like they should. For example, it's cool that he never finds Uncle Ben's killer, but they also don't punctuate how that's important to Peter's growth as a character. The closest we get to any of that is his first interaction with Captain Stacy who unintentionally points out Peter's delusion of heroism as revenge. It's a great interaction, and the film had a great opportunity for Peter to relish in that insight. It could have been a cool dramatic moment. But no, Peter then does his first act of true heroism in the scene right after. It feels borderline anticlimactic with how hurried they go through arguably the core of why Spider-Man is a hero. Instead, it feels like they did this stuff because they feel obligated to. 

Keep in mind, I am talking about this while excluding other story points that bog down the film even further. They add a conspiracy type mystery involving Peter's parents that goes nowhere and seems there to establish intrigue for the sequels. Golly, I can't wait to see those! 

The scenes with Dr. Connors and the Lizard feel very isolated and are only there because the film also realized we can't have a Spider-Man film without a baddie and a crazy third act showdown. 

I feel watching this film is like being granted a monkey's paw wish where I wished for an ideal Spider-Man. To me, I got an ideal Spider-Man, but they put it in a film with some of the messiest writing I've seen in a comic book film. If I was generous, I would describe this movie as a solid Spider-Man film but not a good film that you watch from beginning to end.

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone work really well as Peter and Gwen respectively, but I feel they work in spite of the movie. It's like Hayden Christenson and Ewen McGregor in the Star Wars prequels where their performances are great even though they are given a bad script. The same can be said for Martin Sheen, Denis Leary, and Rhys Ifans. Decent performances despite a lackluster script. 

The movie itself is frankly beyond underwhelming. The music is forgettable, and the overall look of the film is drab and gross. I can't stand looking at this film. It reminds me of every generic Hollywood film of that time. It hampers the fight scenes since it is muddled in dark lighting. It's a shame since there are some cool scenes like when Peter is on the subway or when he battles a bunch of cops. 

There is writing that is generally baffling that it made me double take. They do the cliché "smart person says something smart before the crowd reveals them" trope. There are random moments where Peter takes off his mask when it wouldn't be beneficial to do so. There is the obvious terrible ending where Captain Stacy warns Spider-Man to leave Gwen out of this. "Oh yeah Captain Stacy, thanks for the heads up. Hopefully, nothing will bad will happen to a character whose most iconic moment is dying a horrific death." Jesus, it would be like if before Obi-Wan died he told Luke "this Darth Vader is bad, but I wonder if he would make a good father figure." 

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

As a Spider-Man movie, the notes it tries to hit are sloppy but overall fairly competent. As a movie, it is very rough. It's obviously not the worst, but it is still very frustrating at times to watch especially when the good ideas presented in this film are squandered because it is too busy juggling other elements. 

Thankfully, this will be the last movie whose quality is less than average. From now on, we are simply going up from here. 

Spider-Man: Far From Home

I think out of all the Spider-Man movies, the one I feel I will have the most trouble conveying my thoughts about is this one. The first reason being, again, this is another sequel where I can't supply with context by talking about Spider-Man: Homecoming, a film that I will talk about later in the list. And what's the point of talking about Homecoming here when I am going to talk about it again later? 

The second reason is that Spider-Man: Far From Home doesn't feel so much like a film but more like an interim. It feels like jumping into a middle of a television show. Reviewing Far From Home wouldn't be unlike reviewing Ozymandias without explaining this Walter White fella. 

Unfortunately, Far From Home is simply that, a television episode. It doesn't stand on its own because all of it requires context from Avengers: Endgame and possibly all the other films involving Iron Man. It doesn't have a purpose because its only purpose is to set up the next Spider-Man film as well a few other threads that might be important later on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

All in all, excluding the talking points that might be better suited for Homecoming, Spider-Man: Far From Home is alright. It shares the middle spot of the list for a good reason. I can't say it is bad from a film perspective, but it isn't impressive. 

Mysterio may be the best visual representation for the quality of this film. Visually, Mysterio is as good as one may expect from a movie adaption of this iconic illusionist. The CGI in the second half of Far From Home is some of the best visuals in the MCU second to Dr. Strange. The twist is impressively revealed. Mysterio's motivations make sense. Jake Gyllenhaal is great as always. Structurally, he has all the ingredients for a great villain. But before any of that, you got to go through the doldrum of Mysterio pretending to be good. And it is not bad, but the first half feels somewhat plain.  

Spider-Man and Peter feel the same way. Really, the first half feels like a retread of the first movie as Spider-Man tries to live up to the expectations of being an Avenger while also trying to score some teenage romance. I don't mind it in of itself and there is one really effective scene that capitalizes on this arc. But again, it's plain and doesn't expand on the morals or the character like a sequel should. 

Spider-Man: Far From Home

This movie is very much a background one. I guess the only saving grace is its goal of setting up No Way Home. We will see how that works out. 
 

Spider-Man 3

When this movie came out, this was the biggest stinker in my eyes. The reviews on this movie at the time were mixed, and I leaned towards the negative. I don't know why considering I liked just about anything when I was younger. It was easier to impress me back then, but this movie manage to not do any of that. 

Fortunately for Spider-Man 3, this film would be revaluated over the years and develop sort of a cult following. And unlike say the Star Wars prequels, people saying this film was misunderstood is somewhat warranted this time. 

Being apart of the Raimi trilogy, it retains a lot of great elements that feel rather unique to the Spider-Man movies. The main one being that these movies have a lot of humanity. These movies feel very character-first whereas every other Spider-Man, even the good ones, focuses on some other element. 

This third movie picks up where the first two left off. And again, it will be hard to talk about these freaking movies out of order. Spider-Man continues the relationship between Peter and MJ that Raimi used as the emotional core of the trilogy. And in here, the relationship is at its most engaging mainly with how Mary Jane is characterized. I will talk about MJ when I inevitably get to Spider-Man 1 & 2. But as a preview, I will say that MJ in the first two movies aren't the greatest. In Spider-Man 3, she is given a lot more to do, and Kirstin Dunst nails it in this one. She has her own problems where if this one wasn't a Spider-Man movie, the movie could still work as a movie where Mary Jane is isolated by the rejections of the acting world and in her relationships. 

Every major relationship came to a head in this one. Peter and MJ, Peter and Harry Osborne, and even Peter and his relationship with Ben gets tested and reach a very satisfying resolution. It's hard to believe there was meant to be a fourth one after this. The third one has a sense of completion and closure to it. I suppose it would feel somewhat removed like Toy Story 4, but now I am going off topic. 

The villains are incredible. The fact that Sandman went from a C-tier Spider-Man villain to one of my favorites goes to show how effective this movie is with its villains. I love it. It felt like watching Scarecrow in Arkham Asylum where they took an seemingly uninteresting villain and elevated it to a higher level. I love Sandman in this from the performance to the extra sense of morality they added to his character. 

New Goblin is great if only for it being a culmination of Harry and Peter's relationship throughout the three films. The way it ebbs and flows throughout this movie is great and probably the most emotionally satisfying moment of this movie comes from the outcome of their relationship. 

Even Venom works somewhat. I think the overall parallels between him and Peter are overdone, but it does a good job highlighting Parker's own ego. I like how even the beginning we start to see Parker's ego and negativity get the better of him, and the symbiote merely exacerbated it.  

So with what I've said so far, this sounds like a perfect Spider-Man movie. Why then is this movie near the middle of the rankings? Well aside from the fact that the rest of movies I will talk later about are better, this movie has some significant sore spots. Things that border on being bafflingly bad. 

It starts off when the symbiote meteor conveniently lands near where Peter's at. And after that, we get more and more bizarre story decisions. 

The movie establishes Gwen Stacy. And if you thought Raimi finally got it right with female characters with MJ, then Gwen Stacy will correct that notion as she is incredibly passive and purely a device for the story. It's a shame because Bryce Dallas Howard is really good in this, but her character has the same problems MJ has in the other films. It's arguably worse in this movie because a lot of the Gwen scenes feel weirdly contrived. For how well written this film can be, there is some randomly half-assed scenes that feel out of place. When Gwen publicly thanks Spider-Man for saving her, the crowd randomly compels them to kiss, so that they can create a conflict between MJ and Peter. I don't know why Captain Stacy called Aunt May and Peter to tell them about Flint Marco since them knowing about Ben's true killer wouldn't help matters, but I guess the movie needs a way for Peter to learn about Flint Marco. The movie needed a way to compel Peter to take off the symbiote suit, so they just have him start an altercation in a restaurant where he accidently hits MJ. It's so bad. And don't worry, we'll come back to this restaurant scene for obvious reasons. 

Why is Eddie Brock such an utter shit? These films do a fairly good job at giving the antagonists a layer of humanity but Eddie Brock is ultimately unlikeable from the start. He acts elitist towards Parker on his photography skills. He is a scumbag towards women. He fakes a photo and gets rightfully fired for it. And boy, you know you effed up when you actually get fired by Jameson and the scene isn't comedic. 

The movie isn't so much all over the place but bloated. All the elements do complement the core strengths of the movie, but this movie could have benefited with these certain things spending more time in the oven. The symbiote and Venom could have been its own movie. Two movies if you are willing to get into the fancy details. It would allow Gwen Stacy to have more of a character and the movie could have had an opportunity to explore MJ and Peter's relationship that didn't involve Peter kissing another girl or playing the piano arrogantly. 

I guess now is a good time to address the elephant in the room. The weird stuff in this film that has become a legacy in meme culture doesn't work. As funny as it might be since we now have seen Toby Maguire beat up Thanos or Steve Harvey or whatever, this stuff completely takes me out of the movie. It goes way too far in the weird stuff whereas the earlier films employed some level of restraint, and I feel it is only beloved because most Spider-Man films since have played it far safer than this one. Maybe the weirder stuff would have worked if we spent more time with Peter in the symbiote suit. Instead, we get what feels like an entire trilogy arc crammed into one movie. 

Spider-Man 3

Spider-Man 3 is certainly the weakest of the Raimi trilogy. However, that is not an indictment like it is for other movies that end in three. The strengths of the Raimi Spider-Man are still prevalent in this one. It's got a lot of heart, and the extra ideas don't keep that heart from shining. 

Spider-Man (2002) 

Spider-Man (2002) is not only special when it comes to superheroes. For me, this film is special in general. There were very few films I really gravitated to as a kid, but I loved this first film. It's what got me into Spider-Man. I practically burned out that Green Goblin second disc that comes with the Spider-Man DVD for how much I watched it. There was something about this film that captured my imagination. 

I say this to establish that I have a particular bias for this one. Something like the opening credits with the incredible Danny Elfman score might not be that impressive to some. It may even be overlong including childhood me. Yet when I watch that opening, it just fills me with nostalgia. No opening credits sequence gets me more pumped for what's to follow than the first Spider-Man. 

I think the true strength is how great most of the acting is even for modern standards. Tobey Maguire is excellent, and I love his portrayal of Peter. Usually, Peter is shown as dopey but all around sociable and likable. But here, Maguire gives a genuine awkwardness to Peter. His unintentional creepy stares and stilted dialogue shows he doesn't have all of his social skills together. I personally find it relatable as I have definitely remember myself doing those socially stilted things Peter does in this film. I also love how they work that into his character arc. His problem throughout the film is how he has trouble opening up. But as he becomes stronger, his ability to be vulnerable also becomes stronger. The hospital scene really takes this home as his relationship with MJ grows not from being Spider-Man but being able to convey how MJ means to Peter.   

While I hate superhero origin stories being told again and again, I'm honestly fine with Sam Raimi presenting it as it feels baked in with the coming of age aspects of Peter. All the stuff with the origin from the first villain to his powers reinforces Peter's character. It is not perfect, but it's effective. 

The origin stuff is also fun to watch. The science field trip is a creative way of introducing Spider-Man's powers. I know a lot of Spider-Man fans don't care for the web slinging being embedded. It misses an opportunity for the movie to show Peter's intelligence. However, I understand that not being the focus, and it leaves to some nice situational comedy. 

The rest of the origin stuff is about as good as you might expect. Uncle Ben is literally perfect. You can debate on who is the better Spider-Man, but you can't do the same for Ben. Cliff Robertson will forever be the definitive Uncle Ben. He doesn't feel so obligatory like in the Webb version. Ben is a central element for Peter's character growth. Peter starts inherently selfish and near-sighted, but Ben's tragedy realigns him. That is until he faces Green Goblin who tests Peter's newfound morality. It's also a great symbol that Norman Osborne tries to be a father figure to Peter much like Ben was. 

The first Spider-Man does a great job at exemplifying the responsibility theme significant with the character. It's great that the movie ends not with Peter getting the girl at the end but having to turn down the girl of his dreams because he knows it is probably the right thing to do. It's a nice subversion and gives the ending a nice bitter sweetness. 

God, I could continue gushing about this film. Willem Dafoe is also great as both Osborne and Green Goblin. I don't have much to say on the Goblin other than he is grown to be more sympathetic in my eyes in the late stage capitalist world we live in. It's also telling of the movie's pacing when he doesn't really show until an hour in, and you don't really notice. The first half is paced really well. 

I'm not a fan of James Franco, but he is admittedly solid as Harry. I like how his insecurity throughout the film builds more and more. First he gets unfavorably compared to Peter by his own father. Then he loses MJ to Peter. And then, he literally loses his father to Spider-Man. He gets a bad deal in this one. 

Now that I have properly gushed over this movie, I can put my nostalgia aside and objectively look at everything else as it unfortunately isn't perfect. 

My problems start with Mary Jane. Her performance by Kirstin Dunst isn't bad. At worst, you can argue that she was miscasted. The problem is that she doesn't have much going for her as a character. She suffers from Sam Raimi syndrome which is an ailment where a female character will have little agency and depth of their own and are relegated to being devices to serve the plot or growth of the main character. They try to flesh her out by having an abusive father and her being financially self-conscious around Harry, but it doesn't really go anywhere. 

It's not the most dated aspect of this film. I know some will also throw in the homophobic insult Peter uses towards Randy Savage. But hey, it's the 2000s. It's a different time. Plus, how else are you are going to provoke a wrestler with issues with toxic masculinity? 

No, the part that aged the worst are the special effects. There is some rough stuff from obvious CGI to cartoon skeletons. It's not as bad as other films at the time. And for Spider-Man films, it is a massive improvement over whatever the hell the 1970s movies were doing. However, a few effects here and there really took me out of the movie. 

Finally, I want to end by talking about how this movie is comparatively plain compared to the other Raimi movies. Sure, there is some unique elements to appreciate. I like how horrifying some of the imagery is especially with the Green Goblin. And in an age of Joss Whedon humor plaguing superhero films, I like how dry the humor is. The Bruce Campbell character, for example, could have been far worse if they put him in the MCU. However, there is nothing much to the style other than that. Plus, not every creative decision worked well. The final scene where Spider-Man is saved by prideful New Yorkers was too corny for me. In fact while we are on the subject, the last thirty or forty minutes didn't really do much for me. I think there is less progression going on in the second half, so the pacing takes a hit. 

But I digress, and oh God. I have already spent way too much on this one. I better wrap this up. 

    

Spider-Man (2002)

This one will always hold a special place in my heart. And while it can compete with the best of the superhero movies, it doesn't quite do it as well as it used to. Still, there is still some great stuff in this movie, and I would still recommend it if you are a fan of superhero films. 

 

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Similar to Amazing Spider-Man 1, I feel context is important in setting up my thoughts of this review. Yes, this is third live action iteration of Spider-Man. The fourth iteration if you are including the made for TV Spider-Man. 

However, this Spider-Man was also following Amazing Spider-Man 2. And if you were a Spider-Man fan around this time, at this point even a semi-competent Spider-Man film would be hailed by the masses. What would result is not only a semi-competent Spider-Man but a great Spider-Man...sort of. 

The strength of this particular Spider-Man is that this film is extremely well made. This film takes advantage of the decades of Spider-Man experimentation in the cinematic space. This film looks good. Cinematography is dynamic and full of color. I particularly love the night time sequences especially after seeing the drab dull night time in the Webb version. From a writing standpoint, this film is quite clever. The idea of a teen comedy set in a Marvel Cinematic Universe is something I never thought I wanted, and I can't help but love its uniqueness. 

Unfortunately, its uniqueness is also what sets this movie back. 

It's important to note that the Spider-Man in Homecoming is not exactly the Spider-Man we are used to. This is not the typical Peter Parker Spider-Man, this is the MCU Spider-Man, and he operates a bit differently. 

For once, Ben Parker isn't the emotional center. For once, Spider-Man isn't challenged by financial strain. For once, MJ isn't a red headed sultry goddess but an emo Zendaya. There isn't Harry Osborne but a fat guy named Ned. Aunt May is making me feel things that isn't ruminative melancholy if you know what I mean. There is a lot going on that is different. 

In a way, it is an alternate reality of Spider-Man where he grew up in a world that revolves around the Marvel universe instead the other way around where Spider-Man for some reason felt like the center of the universe. I suppose it grounds Spider-Man as a character, but it also feels less...special. 

I don't know. Part of the fun was how this random dorky teenager could also be this awesome superhero. And all the other changes to Spider-Man, while some understandable, also detract to what makes Spider-Man great. It's understandable Uncle Ben has less of a role since Spider-Man's origin has reasonably been done to death. However, I miss how much Uncle Ben played into Spider-Man's morals. I miss how Peter's relationship with Harry highlighted their class difference. I MISS WHEN MJ WOULD MAKE ME HORNY AND NOT AUNT MAY! 

All of this to say that these changes aren't deal breaker. After all, Homecoming wouldn't be so high on this list if I didn't have some love for it. Michael Keaton as the Vulture is an inspired choice. Sure, there is an uneasy layer seen in the Iron Man movies where working class people are treated as villains whereas the indifferent billionaire is treated as the hero, but I don't care. The Vulture had an intimidating presence, and the scene with Peter in the car may be one of the best villain scenes I've seen in a long time. 

Tom Holland as Peter Parker is also really great. In fact, most of the cast is great. I cannot reiterate enough that as a standalone movie it is extremely enjoyable. It's incredibly funny and the characters are full of charm. 

However, it is important to note that the MCU didn't so much save Spider-Man but changed it. It changed the dynamics, it changed the morals, and it changed the heart. It's a great movie but not necessarily the best Spider-Man movie. 

Spider-Man: Homecoming

This movie is the inverse of Amazing Spider-Man. This movie is really well made with charming dialogue, visuals, and plot progression. As a Spider-Man movie, it leaves a lot to be desired. It's a very funny movie, but it lacks the moral weight that is extremely commonplace for Spider-Man. It lacks the teeth of the Raimi films or the grounded nature of the Webb version. It's its own thing which is extremely fun but not the most satisfying Spider-Man film in the long run. 

Spider-Man 2 

Ahhh, the days when a sequel just had a two at the end. Remember the days where a movie had a two at the end, and it was actually a sign that the movie was going to be better? 

I don't have much to say on this one since it's really everything the first movie was but better. It's Spider-Man 1 with better pacing, better action sequences, better CGI, scarier imagery that gave kid version of me nightmares. It's a very polished sequel and seeks to up everything the first one set out to do. 

I mentioned in Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 3 how Raimi's unique ideas didn't work for me for entirely different reasons. In the first movie, it was a little underwhelming. In the third movie, it went completely in the other direction where the uniqueness went too far and felt like Raimi stopped caring. Spider-Man 2 has probably the best mix of weirdness and restraint out of the Raimi trilogy. It's definitely weird. I mean good God, there is an Evil Dead style horror scene in this movie. However, the unique stuff is applied with more tact, and I feel they add more to the movie than just standing there looking quirky. 

The raindrops sequence comes to mind. It's silly as a overly happy song plays while Peter's life more or less improves after quitting his role as Spider-Man. However, it works because it is punctuated by police sirens that Peter is hopeless to help with. Later, he comes across a mugging. And again, he has to ignore it. A perfect contrast to a silly montage. 

There is also more corny vignettes with New Yorkers. However, it's more welcomed since it sets up the climax of the train action scene. The scene feels more earned than when the New Yorkers saved Spider-Man in the first movie. 

Of course, I should give special mention to Alfred Molina whose wonderful as Dr. Octopus. I love Molina's little flourishes to the character. His sassy head shake when he says butter fingers or when smiles at MJ before kidnapping her. I can't say it's better than Green Goblin as that character complements the plot of the story more. Here, Dr. Octopus feels comparatively isolated as he mostly does his own thing with only a few scenes where he interacts with Spider-Man similar to how Lizard was in the Webb version. 

However, unlike Amazing Spider-Man, Dr. Octopus is still a really engaging character despite how simple his role is in the context of the story. And unlike Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2 keeps focused on what's important rather than shifting gears because the film accidently threw in too many ideas. 

Spider-Man 2 is surprisingly heavy for a superhero film. It expands on the morality from the first movie, and some of my favorite Spider-Man scenes in any adaptation come from these moments. The scene where Peter tells Aunt May about how he inadvertently caused the death of Uncle Ben is my favorite. That line, "Uncle Ben was killed that night...for being the only one who did the right thing," shakes me to this day. 

The movie is not perfect, but it closer to perfection than the last one. I'm still not a fan of MJ in this one for the reasons similar as to the first movie, yet she has a few more touches that make her more fleshed out and interesting. One touch that I never caught until my most recent viewing was when MJ was kissing her fiancé. I never realized she was kissing him in such a way in order to relive her kissing scene with Spider-Man out in the rain. It's a very subtle touch, but it is perfect. I also like her rejection of Peter when he tries to recite poetry. I used to hate that scene when I was younger because the whole poem thing was cringe. But now, I've grown to understand the whole point of that bit was to reinforce that Peter is trying to find an easy way to win over Mary Jane without opening up about his identity. At least, that is how I interpreted that scene. 

Overall, MJ wouldn't really become a satisfying character until Spider-Man 3. That said, she at least gets to make decisions in this one even it is at the expense of poor John Jameson. Man, imagine being a successful astronaut and your girl ditches you for a broke photographer. Bruh...

Spider-Man 2

This may not be the best Spider-Man movie now, but it's still the best in terms of sentimentality and hitting those emotional notes. It's why it will hold one over every other Spider-Man including the next one on this list. And judging by my last sentence, it is probably no secret what number one is if it wasn't already obvious enough. 

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

How do you beat a film that basically earned an A+? Well, you make a film that earns an A++. 

Spider-Man 2 is great but Into the Spider-Verse is perfect. In that, there is nothing wrong with it and everything in it is gloriously right. It's perfect in the same way Citizen Kane is perfect or Iron Giant, or Prisoner of Azkaban, or a glass of iced water on a hot day. 

Let's start by throwing out more superlatives: It's obviously the best Spider-Man movie. It's my favorite comic book film of all time. It's my favorite animated film of the 2010s. Hell, put an episode number on this, and it could probably top Spectacular Spider as my favorite Spider-Man TV show. It's that great. 

The only thing strange about this film is that Sony's name is attached to it. I cannot believe that Sony would be attached to any movie that's this excellent. 

This movie is magic. You know how filmmakers trying to evoke nostalgia for the purposes of fan service? Well, Spider-Verse is the rare kind of nostalgia where the fan service is presented in a way where you will love what you are given regardless if you are familiar with the material. I was reminded of childhood me watching Spider-Man 1 and how it compelled me to absorb as much information on Spider-Man as possible. I imagine if childhood me had access to this movie, he would have done the exact same thing. The passion in this movie just inspires seeking out source material better than any nostalgia-bait story out there. 

Yes, this movie is not innovative story wise. You got a hero trying to live up to his mentor. You got a villain who is doing a cataclysmic scheme for sentimental motivations. It's a commonly seen narrative. 

That said, like a great pop song, its strengths are taking that simplicity and structure and executing it extremely well. The dialogue is cleverly written, and any moment that might teeter towards cliché are saved by the animation and sound track. This movie is a visual and auditory feast. 

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

I do not envy No Way Home's position. A film that also seeks to evoke the older Spider-Man films is going to have to follow one of the best love letters to comic books ever. If I could give this film six stars, I would. A triumph in every sense of the word. The only reason I am not concerned for the quality of No Way Home is because I know that Into the Spider-Verse 2 can more than make up for it if that happens.