Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

Director: Jon Watts

Cast: Tom Holland, Zendaya, and (wait for it… spoilers, but its way too late because the human eye has already looked at the end of the line) Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield

Have I Seen it Before: Feels both apt an strangely inappropriate to make a joke about Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018), so I’ll just leave it at that.

Did I Like It: This movie is already working at a disadvantage. A bunch of Spider-men in one movie has been done, and in an astonishingly brilliant way in the aforementioned Into the Spider-Verse. Tom Holland’s work in the role may have tragically peaked with his first, semi-solo outing, Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), which is a nearly-perfect teen comedy, and features Michael Keaton in a central role*. Chasing after what came before is a curse of any trilogy capper, but the question remains does this film persevere against that limitation.

Yes, mostly. It’s not a film that’s going to have a lot of success standing on its own, if for no other reason than someone would need at least two (and as many as eight) prior movies for every moment to land. That’s more of a design flaw in the Marvel movies as a whole, the further the ongoing story of the MCU goes.

The multiverse storyline isn’t as manically unhinged as its animated predecessor. They could have offered brief moments with Nicholas Hammond, or even Shinji Todō. They could have gone a little further and explored live-action Spider-Man that never came to pass. I’m talking James Cameron-directed Leonardo DiCaprio and another check in with Donald Glover. Hell, Keaton could have shown up and made sure we all know he’s still Batman… But all of that would have made the film so over-stuffed as to be inaccessible to anyone but me. And DC will have me covered on that other thing. That being said, even after all of the hype and denials, it was still a nice little moment to get our old Spider-men back, if even for a bit. The movie even manages to accomplish that great thing of later/legacy sequels: improving the entries which previously left a bad taste. I’m looking in your direction, Spider-Man 3 (2007) and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014). If nothing else, Andrew Garfield is vindicated… even if he’s spent the last several months pointedly lying to all of us.

Now that I think about it, I can only point to one verifiable, undeniable missed call in the film. In the film’s nearly-final scene, Peter’s landlord couldn’t have been played by Elya Baskin (or, Mr. Ditkovitch from the Tobey Maguire films)? The MCU-series put J.K. Simmons in the role of J. Jonah Jameson again. There’s no reason they couldn’t have gone for two.

*If you didn’t think that one would rank as my favorite, then you’re new here.

The Social Network (2010)

Director: David Fincher

Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Armie Hammer

Have I Seen It Before?: Sure.

Did I like it?: I’ve been taking a deep dive into the works of Aaron Sorkin recently. For some, that feels like a chore, but he’s always had a certain cadence and a certain type-a workaholic streak running through his work that appeals to me even in the more bewildering parts of Studio 60 of the Sunset Strip. For all of its flaws, I think I like The Newsroom, and really think a couple of extra seasons would have pissed all of the correct people off in all the right ways.

So, why did he make a movie about the invention of Facebook. What’s more, why would he make it focus not on the work of actually creating the site (that is largely act 1 material here), and instead focus on the myriad lawsuits brought about by the people that were almost involved. Sorkin is at his best when he is focusing on people—perhaps unrealistically—doing great work. And those lawsuits don’t end up with any kind of cathartic moment. How did the man who made his bones on A Few Good Men (1992) end up writing a movie that lives and dies in depositions?

Come to think of it, why would anyone want to make a movie about Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) and company? As I write this review, I come to the realization that I may not like the movie that much. It is slick and stylish, frequently amusing, but the core doesn’t quite work. Every character fails to get the things they truly wanted. The Winklevi (Hammer) get a quiet settlement and a sixth-place finish in the Olympics. Sean Parker (Timberlake) gets a one-way ticket to obscurity. Eduardo (Garfield) gets a little bit of money, but he’s a footnote in the history of the site but doesn’t get to be a player with it anymore. Even Zuckerberg, in true Michael Corleone or Charles Foster Kane fashion gets much of what he wanted but leaves a trail of injury in his wake. He is still waiting for the friend request from the girl that launched a thousand lines of code.

One might call that a tragedy, but what about it is tragic? Not one character meets their end. All of them are wealthy to the point where their great-grandchildren are unlikely to have to worry about money. Whatever injury they endure in the process of the film’s story will either be healed (or won’t) in the fullness of time. I can’t imagine the money won’t help them forget, or at least give them the opportunity to find and fund new avenues of misery. Much of this film, between Sorkin and Fincher’s work is pleasing, but none of it adds up. It makes one wish they had chosen some other subject.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Director: Marc Webb

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan

Have I Seen It Before?: Yeah… But it was in one of those perfunctory, watch-on-demand viewings long after the obituaries on this series had already been written. I think Tom Holland may have already been cast as Garfield’s replacement at this point.

Did I like it?: In my review of The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) I ended up landing on the significantly positive side of the film, extolling three virtues:

1)      Spider-Man (Garfield) is an active participant in his own origin story.

2)      The James Horner score absolutely slaps, and we aren’t going to get any more of those.

3)      I’m of a certain type who will be more impacted by encouraging words of decency from Jed Bartlet than I would be from Charly.

It’s sad that I have to report that this film continues none of what worked about its predecessor. Uncle Ben is mentioned, but he gets no flashbacks or voiceovers, whereas Captain Stacy and Peter’s parents do. It’s a weird omission, but the movie is already far too overstuffed with characters who have very little to do, why bring back Sheen?

On that note, Spider-Man as portrayed here has surprisingly little to do with the proceedings. He has no intention, other than being positive Danish in his level of indecision regarding his relationship with Gwen Stacy (Stone). Even the hero has little to do. It is as if the entire film is forged by the studio in their flailing attempts to keep the right for the character to revert back to Marvel. One wonders how there was such a shift from the first film, but there are Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, getting primary credit for the screenplay. It’s probably for the best—in so far as big-budget spectacle movies are concerned—Orci can’t seem to get work anymore, and Kurtzman is relegated to a Rick Berman-esque role over the Star Trek franchise*.

Then there’s the music. James Horner is nowhere to be found here, and the score in its place is… Well, it’s bad. It inspires no feeling but is augmented with enough pop pablum to really make you want to stay as far away from the soundtrack as possible.

Some movie series die young and it feels like something has been stolen from us, and while there can certainly be arguments for the needlessness of rebooting the series for the first time, it is pretty clear another reboot was needed from here.

Although, to be fair, and I didn’t mention this in my review of the last movie, it is interesting that Andrew Garfield is the only wall-crawler of film who actually sounds like he might be from Queens. If only actors like Jamie Foxx and Paul Giamatti didn’t feel so out of place in the film.

*Don’t get me wrong, I like the new Star Trek, but my good will is ultimately an exhaustible resource.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Director: Marc Webb

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary

Have I Seen It Before?: Yes. I eventually came around to it, but I didn’t see it in the theater. As my mind tends to wanders in these reviews this year, that statement tends to make me feel wistful, as its entirely possible I may never see another movie in the theaters again. Back then, though, I was put off by the disappearance of Sam Raimi, et. al. and struck by how it would have definitely been an also ran in the summer which brought us The Avengers (2012).

Did I like it?: A few things that can happen to a big tentpole movie like this that are unfair, but pretty lethal. A star that owned the central role and the creative team can leave the franchise. Think On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) or Batman Forever (1995). It can be especially unfortunate when the viewer can’t help but wonder what the franchise would have been like if the studio left it alone. One imagines what Sean Connery or Michael Keaton would have done with those films (in either order, really…) and so as this film projects you can’t help but think about what Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire would have done had they had the chance to rebound after the admittedly wobbly Spider-Man 3 (2007). The Lizard could even come to play, except played by Dylan Baker. Throw in a Mysterio courtesy of Bruce Campbell for good measure.

Does this film completely surpass those limitations? No, we are still subjected to another scene of a young Peter Parker looking with full Spielberg-face as a spider descends from mysterious cluster of scientific wonder, followed by an extended montage where our friend Parker slowly comes to the realization that something changes. Ben Parker will die too. Great power; great responsibility. That whole routine. It was truly refreshing when the MCU dispensed with all of that when it began its lease on the franchise with Captain America: Civil War (2016).

Still, there are things to recommend this film. For one, Martin Sheen is in it. Not to put down the late Cliff Robertson, but if a film wants to make me not want to disappoint someone, they could do a lot worse than Jed Bartlet. The film also sports a score by the late, great James Horner which—even if we weren’t going to be getting any more of those—is right at home with some of his best scores. It doesn’t have the same ring-in-your-head quality as Danny Elfman’s work in the prior series, but I’m not going to knock it.

Those elements are merely cosmetic. I can’t help but applaud the film for rolling with its inherent limitations and offering us a story where Peter Parker’s transformation into the friendly, neighborhood wall-crawler is tied to a very clear search for his identity, weaving in Parkers lost—and seldom mentioned—parents into the origin so that Parker is not simply a victim of his transformation being a million-to-one shot, but a byproduct of his search for that destiny.

Now if only the studio had kept their head on straight for the sequel…