Spider-Man 3 (5 Stars)

Something funny happened today. I sat down to watch "Spider-Man 3". The film began. And then, in the first few seconds, while the Columbia logo was being displayed, a spider lowered itself between me and the television. It was hanging on its web from the ceiling. I was so fascinated that I paused the film to watch it. It hung in front of me for no more than 60 seconds. Then it pulled itself back up to the ceiling, and I haven't seen it since.

A lot of people say that they don't like "Spider-Man 3". I agree that it's not up to the quality of the first two films, but it's still very good. Look at my rating! But too much is happening. Why have Sandman and Venom in the same film? Sandman could have filled the whole film. And the telescoping of the black suit stories removes a lot. In the comics Peter Parker wore the black costume for four years, before it was passed on to Eddie Brock. This story could have been divided into two films. Or three. It looks like Sam Raimi was in a hurry to get the trilogy finished.

Look at the way Sandman lumbers around like a monster from Hammer Horror. And look at the screenshot of Venom in the title picture. This is what Venom should look like, not the comical sock puppet in the Tom Hardy films.

Sam Raimi was planning to use the Vulture as the villain in "Spider-Man 4" and Mysterio in "Spider-Man 5". He was even considering casting Bruce Campbell as Mysterio. But it never happened. I read reports of disagreements between Sam and Marvel Studios. I shan't repeat them here, because I'm not even sure they're true. Just speculation. Whatever happened, the three films he made will always stand up as masterpieces.

Success Rate:  + 1.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

Why doesn't Marvel make films like this any more? I hate it when my friends say that Marvel films are bad, because I can't argue with them. Most of the new Marvel films are average quality at best. Look at my ratings. I'm honest. There were a few good films at the beginning of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), but ever since "Avengers Endgame" the quality has been sliding. What's wrong? Too many films? Not enough care to find good writers? Or is it just incapable managers looking after Disney and Marvel Studios?

Sam Raimi was the perfect choice to direct the Spider-Man trilogy. If it had remained a trilogy. He already had plans for two more films, but the studio didn't agree. Then the Spider-Man franchise was rebooted with Andrew Garfield. I like to pretend that the "Amazing Spider-Man" films were never made. Shall I ever watch them again? Probably not. But I can watch the original trilogy (2002 to 2007) again and again.

As my regular readers must have realised, I was disappointed with this year's Fantasy Film Festival. Most of the films were average to poor. For this reason I've made a decision. Every time I watch a film that I rate less than four stars, I'll watch at least two five star films, preferably from my top 100. I need to stick with quality. In theory, I could watch my top 100 films one after another for years, never bothering to watch any new films. They're all films that are good enough to watch over and over again.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man (5 Stars)

This is the second film I presented tonight for the theme "Do you remember the days when Marvel films were good?" In my opinion, it's the best Marvel film ever. Many people claim that the second film, "Spider-Man 2", is better. I can see what they mean. The action scenes in the second film are better. I prefer the first film for its greater emotional depth. But I'll think it over again next time I watch "Spider-Man 2". Maybe I've placed it too low in my top 100 films list. 

After watching the film today I praised Sam Raimi for making the main villain corny. An example is the way Willem Dafoe holds a speech while looking at the vial in his hand which will transform him into the Green Goblin. Then he drinks it fast, dramatically, before smashing the empty vial on the floor. My German friends didn't understand the word corny, and I couldn't translate it. Google translates it as kitschig, but that's obviously wrong. Is it an English word that has no equivalent in German, the same as English has no word for gemütlich? Back home, it took me a long time to think it over, but eventually I came to klischeehaft as a translation for corny. It's not as common in German as corny in English, but it expresses the same meaning.

When writing about "Howard the Duck" I pointed out the beautiful actress Jorli McLain in a minor role. I'll do the same for "Spider-Man". There's an unnamed lab assistant in one of the first scenes. Her role is so minor that she isn't even listed in the credits. But I recognised her immediately. She's the beautiful South Korean actress Una Damon. She's never had a breakthrough. Throughout her career she's only had small roles in films and television series. That's a tragedy.

Here's one more photo of her. She's beautiful.

Success Rate:  + 3.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (4 Stars)

This is the 28th film in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). After watching it on Disney Plus 12 months ago, I've finally bought it on Blu-ray. I'm a collector, so I need a complete MCU collection.

I wrote badly about the film when I first saw it in the cinema. That was an emotional response. It deserves a four star rating, i.e. it's a good film, though far from perfect. Having said that, the best scene is at the beginning. It's wonderful to see Doctor Strange fighting Ditko-esque monsters in New York, even if he seems more like an action hero than a master of the mystic arts.

But picking the Scarlet Witch as the villain is just wrong. I could accept her moral ambiguity in the TV series "Wandavision", but I don't accept her willingness to kill Doctor Strange and anyone else who stands in her way.

I shan't write any more because I'm still emotionally drained by my PC breaking down. Apart from that, writing blog posts on my laptop isn't as comfortable. A 29-inch screen is better than a 17-inch screen. Size matters. I'll have to check if I can connect an external monitor to my laptop.

Today I ordered a new PC from the company Alternate, which specialises in gaming PCs. I could have saved money by buying one of their standard high quality PCs, but I decided to configure my own PC. It'll be delivered in four weeks, they said. I hope it will be faster. As far as I'm concerned, it's my Corona PC. I couldn't have afforded it in 2020, but due to the pandemic I rarely left the house and saved over 2000 Euros. That's my budget for the new PC. I've spent slightly less, but 2000 Euros was my upper limit.

Success Rate:  + 2.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (4 Stars)

Disney Wednesday #9

I know I said this in my last review, but I'll repeat myself: the Multiverse is nothing bad in itself. It's not something dangerous. In fact, the Multiverse doesn't even exist, except as a concept. There are countless alternate realities. In the standard Marvel comics reality, usually called Earth-616, there are super-powered beings. In our reality, Earth-1218, there are no superheroes. Does that make our reality in some way more dangerous? On the contrary, our reality is harmless in comparison to the so-called Marvel universe. Of the hundreds, thousands or even millions of alternate realities, most are harmless in themselves. The Multiverse is just a word to describe the assortment of realities.

Now let's say something about this film, the 28th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). After watching it today on Disney Plus I've given it a higher rating. Maybe my positive bias in favour of Sam Raimi has kicked in. Maybe I just slept well last night. Either way, I now view it more positively. In a way, it's normal. I'm disappointed with most Marvel films on first viewing and don't give them a fair rating until the second time round. My first reaction is to compare the films with the comics. They never come up to the level of the comics, although Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" came close. The only way to match the quality of the comics is to stick closely to the original stories. That's something the MCU screenwriters have never understood.

Doctor Strange comes to the aid of America Chavez, a young girl who has the power to open portals to other realities in the Multiverse. She's a singularity, i.e. only one of her exists, unlike normal people, of whom there's an alternate version in each reality. A demon has sent creatures to capture her and steal her power. Doctor Strange recognises the demonic power as witchcraft, so he goes to Wanda Maximoff aka the Scarlet Witch for aid. What he doesn't know is that it isn't a demon who's sent the creatures, it's Wanda herself. Wanda wants to travel to another reality where her children exist. (Those who've seen the television series "Wandavision" will understand this. I haven't reviewed it. Sorry). Wanda could just have asked nicely and said please to America, but instead of this she wants to steal America's powers for herself, even though this will result in America's death.

And so there's a battle across the Multiverse. We see different realities. It begins in the MCU reality, incorrectly called Earth-616, but most of the action takes place in Earth-838, a universe where Doctor Strange died battling Thanos. (I always considered Thanos to be a singularity as well, but let's not discuss it here).

The film uses a lot of CGI, but it's necessary. Magical worlds need good CGI, and it's well crafted. Look at the screenshot above. The beautiful Ditko-esque monster could never have been created without CGI.

My remarks in my last review about Doctor Strange looking more like an action hero than a Master of the Mystic Arts were unfair. He fights with magic. This is portrayed in the film to the best of Sam Raimi's abilities. In the battle scenes it's obvious that Doctor Strange is using magic, not just firing power blasts from his wrists.

What really annoys me in the film is the presence of Doctor Strange's ex-girlfriend Christine. There are characters in other films with ex-wives and ex-lovers, such as Ant-Man and Venom. They're always annoying. Did any character in the comics ever have his ex tagging along? I don't think so. Maybe they had ex-girlfriends, such as the Human Torch's ex-girlfriend Dorrie Evans, but she didn't stick around comic after comic. We just saw her briefly, then she was gone.

I'll watch the film again soon. It deserves a third chance. I doubt I'll ever upvote it to five stars, but it has its rightful place in the MCU.

And it stars Bruce Campbell. Hooray!

Success Rate:  + 2.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (3 Stars)

This is the biggest disappointment of the year for me. I went to the cinema today with sky-high expectations. I expected it to be the best film of the year. It's not. Not even close.

Why did I expect so much of the film? It's the return of Sam Raimi to the Marvel fold. He's the director who made the best Marvel films before he was sacked over creative differences. I thought he would give Doctor Strange a deeper mystical style in his second solo film, but this was proved wrong in his first battle. When Doctor Strange faced a Ditko-esque monster on the streets of New York he looked more like an action hero than a Master of the Mystic Arts (capitalisation deliberate).

"Doctor Strange 2" (as I prefer to call the film) furthers Wanda Maximoff's portrayal as a bad guy. I thought she would have been reformed after "Wandavision". (That was a brilliant TV series, Marvel's best so far. I'm disappointed with myself for not writing about it). It's possible that she reforms at the end of this film. All I can say is that I'm disappointed that she plays the Big Baddy in "Doctor Strange 2". It's not faithful to her character in the comics, and why is she so powerful? In the comics she was a novice witch, no match for Doctor Strange.

Does Sam Raimi even know what the multiverse is? Judging by the dialogue, he doesn't. It's spoken of as something evil and uncontrollable. Rubbish! The multiverse is just a word to describe the different parallel timelines/universes. In the comics they're usually created by time travel, when someone goes back in time and changes events. The differences between the universes are subtle, not drastic.

In the last paragraph I bundled together the words "universes" and "timelines". In the comics (from the mid 70's onwards) they're practically synonyms, two words intended to describe the same thing. In the MCU the parallel universes in "Doctor Strange 2" and the parallel timelines in "Loki" seem to be different things. Otherwise the Time Variance Authority could have dealt with the problems while Doctor Strange stayed at the wedding sipping champagne.

So many random things are thrown together, We see the Illuminati, admittedly an alternate version of the Illuminati in the parallel universe Earth-838. The introduction of the Illuminati in an Avengers story in 2005 was one of the sillier ideas of Marvel's post-canon age, but in the film they look even more ridiculous.

What's with the Darkhold? We already saw it in Marvel's "Agents of Shield" series. It briefly appeared in the final episode of "Wandavision", but it plays a major part in "Doctor Strange 2". Is it the same book? It has different characteristics to the book in "Agents of Shield". The continuity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is breaking down. Can't Kevin Feige, or whoever's responsible for the MCU, keep things better under control?

There's an unforgivable blunder. Sam Raimi should be ashamed of himself. It's claimed that the Doctor Strange in the film comes from Earth-616. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The main Marvel Universe in the films is Earth-199999. Earth-616 is the universe in the comics. They're very different to one another. Mysterio already called our universe Earth-616 in "Spider-Man: Far From Home", but he was a liar, so his mistake was deliberate.  Although, admittedly, they're becoming more alike. After films are released, stories are written in the comics that match the films. There's a major incursion of Earth-199999 into Earth-616.

Who is Charlize Theron supposed to be in the mid-credits sequence? The film itself doesn't name her, but in the credits she's listed as Clea. I hope her character isn't ruined by rewriting her in future films. She's Dormammu's niece, the daughter of his sister Umar. All true Marvel fans know that.

There's a silly post-credits scene in which Bruce Campbell speaks into the camera and tells the audience that the film's over. That made me smile. I know what it's about. Sam Raimi has said in interviews that he's opposed to post-credits scenes. Marvel probably insisted on a post-credits scene, so Sam made one as short as possible, not worth watching. Unless, of course, you're a Bruce Campbell fan.

When I walked out of the cinema my first inclination was to give the film a one star rating to signify my severe displeasure. I calmed down a bit on the train on the way home. Three stars is a fair rating. It's a reasonably well made film, even if it isn't Marvel.

The Marvel bubble has burst. When the MCU was launched in 2008 with "Iron Man" I was excited. I rushed into the cinema to see every film as soon as possible. I could hardly wait to buy them on Blu-ray. That's changed. The Marvel films don't excite me any more. "The Eternals" is the first MCU film that I refuse to buy on Blu-ray. It's not worth the money. There may come a time when I skip Marvel films in the cinema. That time isn't far off.

Spider-Man 3 (5 Stars)

The third film in the Spider-Man trilogy is strongly criticised by film critics and fans alike. Many call it awful. I don't understand it. I find it very good, even if it's not up to the quality of the first two films. I included it in my list of my top 100 films in 93rd place. In retrospect I think it should have been higher in the list.

"Spider-Man 3" has so much in its favour. It neatly brings the Harry Osborn storyline to a close. The Sandman is brought to the big screen as a villain we can sympathise with. The pathos of Peter Parker's on-off relationship with Mary Jane Watson tugs at our heartstrings. My only criticism of the film is that it's too short to do Venom justice. It should have lasted three hours to give bigger battles with Venom.

I'm glad I had enough time to watch the whole trilogy without interruption over the last three days. I haven't written much about the films. Do I need to? I'm not a professional writer. I'm not paid to write 2000 words a day. If I have something on my mind I'll write it, and if I don't I shan't force myself.

The singer Prince was notorious for his sexual activities. At every party he visited he picked up another woman. His songs were also very sexual. In an interview he was asked what he liked doing most: having sex or writing songs about sex. His initial reaction was to laugh and call it a silly question. Then he became pensive and said that he didn't know the answer. Both were important to him. In the same way, I can be asked whether I prefer watching films or writing about films. I prefer watching films, but after eleven years of writing my blog I find that writing about films is also very important to me. Sometimes I write a big post, and the writing takes up more time than I spent watching the film. I enjoy watching films. I enjoy writing about films. I can't separate the two.

Success Rate:  + 1.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

This is the second film in Sam Raimi's brilliant Spider-Man trilogy. As I've said in past reviews, one of the greatest strengths of these three films is the casting. Actors were chosen who looked like the characters in the comics. Alfred Molina looks so much like Doctor Octopus that it's difficult to imagine anyone else ever playing the role.

I recently read that when the first Spider-Man film was planned in the early 2000's Stan Lee requested permission to play J. Jonah Jameson. I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I admire Stan Lee so much that I'd love to see him in a large role rather than a brief cameo. On the other hand, J. K. Simmons played the part so perfectly that I wouldn't want to see anyone else. Supposedly Steve Ditko based his drawings of J. Jonah Jameson on Stan Lee. I shan't say anything else about it. Whichever decision I make, I'll regret it tomorrow.

Success Rate:  + 1.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man (5 Stars)

In preparation for the new Spider-Man film, "No Way Home", I've decided to re-watch the Sam Raimi trilogy. They're the best Spider-Man films so far, and difficult to live up to. I consider "Spider-Man" (2002) to be the best super-hero film ever made. It's the perfect mix of action, romance and tragedy.

Success Rate:  + 3.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man 3 (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #93

This is the third film in the original Spider-Man trilogy. It neatly ties up all the storylines from the first two films, as well as introducing new villains: Sandman and Venom. I use the names that they were given in the comics. In the film they're referred to as Flint Marko and Eddie Brock.

As in "Spider-Man 2", the opening credits contain a recap of the previous events. A subtle recap, just enough to nudge the viewer's memory, not enough to tell him everything. This time the recap is in the form of photos, not drawings.

The recap includes the Kiss (with a capital K) from the first film. Cold. Rainy. Passionate. And an awkward angle. I've never tried kissing like that. Are there any women who'd volunteer? I shan't hang upside down. I'm not Spider-Man. I'll just lie on a sofa and let you approach me from above for the kiss (with a small K).

The Spider-Man trilogy is the love story of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. That's strongly emphasised in the first film, but it's true of all three films. That's what makes Sam Raimi's films better than the subsequent Spider-Man films. People can relate to love stories, even if they aren't interested in super-heroes.

There are problems for the relationship in the form of a beautiful blonde called Gwen Stacy.

(This is actually in the wrong order. In the comics Gwen Stacy was Peter Parker's girlfriend before he dated Mary Jane).

Peter even kisses Gwen. Just a publicity stunt.

But Mary Jane is shocked. That was her special kiss.

It's even worse when Mary Jane has to see the kiss (with a small K again) on the front page of the newspapers.

It's all made worse by the arrival of an alien symbiote. It bonds to Spider-Man by taking the appearance of a black costume. I have to admit that it looks cool. It gives Spider-Man additional strength when he's wearing it. Unfortunately, it has an adverse effect on his personality. Peter Parker becomes more arrogant and self-centred. This drives away Mary Jane.

Peter's closest friends give him advice. Aunt May speaks words that are wiser than anything she ever said in the comics:

"I don't think it's for us to say whether a person deserves to live or die".

There's also a stranger that Peter meets in the street.

"You know, I guess one person can make a difference. Nuff said!"

One of the side effects of bonding with the symbiote is that Peter Parker becomes irresistible to women. They turn and look at him in the street. He also attracts his landlord's daughter, Ursula Ditkovitch.

Ursula is played by Mageina Tovah. She has a pretty face...

... but she really needs to put on weight. I wouldn't hug her because I'd be afraid I might crush her.

Is there a future for Mary Jane in Peter Parker's life? Can she survive in the shadow of Spidey the Mighty? I shan't give you an answer, but I think you can guess.

Success Rate:  + 1.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man 2 (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #23

I watched this film out of order in my Top 100 countdown. I know that I'm erratic, but in this case I had a good reason. Can you figure it out?

While watching "Spider-Man 2" today I tried to figure out why most fans like it more than the first film. Is it because there's more action? That's the only reason I can think of. In all other respects the first film is either equally good or better.

I like the way that the opening credits are scenes from the first film. It's a kind of summary of "Spider-Man", which was made two years earlier. It's not detailed enough to explain things to anyone who didn't see the first film, but the collection of photos is detailed enough to bring everyone else up to speed.

Peter Parker cradles his dying Uncle Ben in his arms.

Peter stands over Uncle Ben's grave.

The Kiss! This is one of the most iconic scenes in the first film, and there are references to it in the two other films in the trilogy. I praised Sam Raimi for sticking close to the original comics, but this kiss is something new that he's injected into the story. It's done so respectfully that I can't criticise him for the novel idea. It fits the film so well. The MTV Movie Awards have a prize for the Best Kiss. This category is sadly missing from the Academy Awards. Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst won the award in 2003. That's the least that they deserve. It wasn't just the Kiss of the Year, it's the Kiss of the Century.

But for all the passion, the Kiss wasn't enough to seal the relationship. Peter Parker walked away while Mary Jane looked on wistfully.

Now Peter can't get away from her. Wherever he goes, he sees her photo on the wall.

The villain of the second film is Otto Octavius, also known as Doctor Octopus. In the comics he's a purely evil character. "Spider-Man 2" portrays him as a complicated character who has noble motives, despite the crimes that he carries out to get what he wants. This makes for a more interesting film, I admit. In Stan Lee's early super-hero comics there was a sharp distinction between good and evil.

In the comics Aunt May disliked Spider-Man, but she praises his nobility as a hero in this film. That's unfortunate. It added to the poignancy of her relationship to her nephew that she thought Spider-Man was a villain. She even preferred Doctor Octopus to Spider-Man, as we see in Amazing Spider-Man #115.

And it almost comes as far as marriage in Amazing Spider-Man #131.

That's something that Sam Raimi let slip through his fingers. He couldn't have gone as far as a wedding in a two-hour film, but he could have spiced up the story with a budding romance between Aunt May and Doctor Octopus. Instead of this he shows Doctor Octopus already being married.

Despite all of this, it's still an excellent film. Maybe it should be a few places higher in my list, even if it's not as good as "Spider-Man".

Success Rate:  + 1.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de