Spider-Man 3 - "So Good."

The Sam Raimi series is getting closer to the end on Blank Check, which means they covered Spider-Man 3 recently. This notoriously “bad” movie has been re-evaluated over the years, and rightfully so. 

This movie should never be considered a masterpiece or even the best or second-best in the trilogy. But I do think it holds up better once your expectations are altered a bit. Raimi, for whatever reason, was attempting to make a kind of musical comedy with this entry. I can’t get behind some of the musical elements (dancing to “The Twist” while making omelets will never make a bit of fucking sense), but other moments that have been ripped apart were never meant to be taken seriously. 

Of course, I’m referencing the “emo Peter Parker” sequence. It’s very clear that the film is presenting this as a comedic moment and doesn’t seriously consider Parker to be “dark” or “cool” or whatever he thinks he’s being. It’s making fun of the fact that this is the best Peter Parker can do when it comes to being evil: pointing at uncomfortable women, demanding milk and cookies, and dancing like a horny cartoon character. 

Viewing the film as more of a comedy doesn’t make this sequence great, but it does make it a bit more bearable. Honestly, it’s still hard to watch. Rewatching this film recently, I came across another character’s arc that I found much funnier: head injury Harry.

Early in the film, Harry (who I will also interchangeably refer to as Franco) almost dies during a fight with Spider-Man. He survives, but is left with the most convenient amnesia of all time: he’s still Harry, but he’s selectively forgotten that Peter is Spider-Man. So he also no longer blames Peter for his father’s death. For some reason, this turns Harry into a grinning moron, and I love it.

Franco is hilarious in this. His line delivery of “best friends” and his face in general amused me to no end. It’s just so fucking stupid you have to laugh about it. Franco was a murderous asshole, but a knock in the head turned him into a goofy bastard walking around eating cotton candy like a dildo. Yes, Franco was a nice enough guy before he believed Spider-Man killed his dad, but he wasn’t a fucking a mental patient. 

I’ll add my favorite moments of head injury Harry in the Random Thoughts section, but before I want to move on I have to comment on how he turns on a dime when he rediscovers that Peter is Spider-Man. He goes from comically goofy to comic-book villain in a single scene. And Franco is just as funny being over-the-top evil as he is playing too nice. My favorite moment has to be the delivery of the line “So good” when asked how he likes the pie right after he destroys Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship. He is clearly taking pleasure from eating that revenge pie in the scene, and it’s hilarious.

Embracing the ridiculousness of Spider-Man 3 can only get you so far, though. This is still a far too busy movie, but watching it in the current MCU era actually benefits it in that regard. This is still a busy movie with way too much going on (“evil” Peter Parker, Venom, Sandman, head injury Harry, Eddie Brock stealing the photographer job from Peter, MJ’s career problems, relationship problems, evil Harry, etc.). There’s a lot of shit going on here, but at least it’s all contained within one movie.

No matter how busy this trilogy gets, each film works on its own. You can watch any film in the trilogy cold and still understand almost every bit of it. But if I were to just watch Raimi’s newest movie, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, without watching the bulk of the MCU, I would be distractingly confused by everything. 

As a fan of the MCU (I’m actually digging it more now than ever before after getting over a case of Marvel fatigue), I can handle the homework required to properly enjoy the current movies. But watching the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy reminded me of how nice it was to be able to watch a comic book movie without considering the events of twenty other movies. 

That doesn’t make Spider-Man 3 less busy. But it does mean that I didn’t need to watch a six-episode limited series about Sandman beforehand. And I didn’t need to see a spinoff series just about The Daily Planet to understand what’s going on with Eddie Brock. And I didn’t need to watch an origin film about the Venom goo. All this shit could just be introduced out of the blue, and it worked. It doesn’t necessarily work well (that’s a really convenient middle of the night experiment Sandman falls into, and it’s crazy convenient of that space goo to fall to earth right by Peter of all places on the planet), but it works.

Spider-Man 3 is still worse than most of the MCU films, but being able to watch it cold is nice. It still kind of sucks. But you don’t need to do any homework. And if you embrace the goofiness, it ends up being the funniest movie in the trilogy. It’s also the worst, but it isn’t the trainwreck many people claim it to be. 

Random Thoughts 

Spitwads in a college class? That should have been the first red flag that parts of this film would be woefully out of touch.

Concussion Harry is great. It's like, "Hey, I had all the asshole knocked out of me. And I'm also so fucking stupid and happy now that giving me an old basketball brings me immense joy."

Seriously, he went from funding fringe scientists trying to create new sources of energy to being legit excited about getting Peter Parker's shitty old basketball.

Then he shows up eating cotton candy and grinning like a dildo at the Spidey parade. It's hilarious. I seriously wish they hadn't introduced any new villains in this and just made the whole movie about Harry rediscovering his hatred for Spider-Man. That way, we would get at least two more scenes of blissful idiot Harry, and I'll take that any day over a sand monster or space goo.

The comical amount of sand that comes out of Spider-Man's boot is a nice touch.

"You'll get your rent when you've fixed this damn door!" 

They look at him like he just killed a puppy in front of them after this line. The dude has been hounding him for rent for YEARS at this point. Even without alien goo, Parker was bound to snap at him eventually.

The woman acting equal parts frightened and sickened by Tobey Maguire weren't actresses. That was their natural reaction to him.

Franco's line reading of "So good" when asked about the revenge pie he's eating might be my favorite moment in the trilogy.

I love the prolonged look of disgust J. K. Simmons gives Maguire as he sits in Jameson's chair.

I forgot that Eddie Brock goes to church to ask God to kill Peter Parker. This movie is so fucking stupid/great at times.

I can think of plenty of other TV stars I would rather see as Venom instead of Topher Grace, like Alf or Balky from Perfect Strangers.

The news guy says Mary Jane recently had a "brief stint" on Broadway. Ouch.

Hey, Houseman, maybe you could have told Franco about how his dad died a movie ago. 

This is the first time I noticed Flash Thompson at Harry's funeral.

An English Teacher Reviews "The Great Gatsby"

Directed by Baz Luhrmann, written by Luhrmann & Craig Pearce, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher, and Jason Clarke - Rated PG-13

Preface: This review is mainly for people who have also read the novel.  I didn’t focus much on how the film will be perceived by non-readers simply because I cannot imagine what their experience might be like.  That said, I get the impression that if you liked Baz Luhrmann’s other films, like Romeo + Juliet or Moulin Rouge, then you will like The Great Gatsby.

 

I represent a dark side of America, too, friendo.

 

 

The Great Gatsby has been the bane of high school students for years.  The story, set in the 1920s, is filled with symbolism and disillusionment, two things most teenagers aren’t very concerned with.  As an English teacher, I looked forward to the challenge the book presented as a teaching device, but I was disappointed that there was not an interesting adaptation to show my students after reading.  For better or worse, English teachers all over now have the adaptation they need to show students to get a response. 

 

I am not a “movie teacher.”  By that, I mean that movie days in my class are few and far between.  I may be the “movie guy” to my friends and colleagues, but when it comes to literature, there is no replacement for honestly reading the material.  Faithful adaptations are anathema to my classes.  The only reason to show a class a movie is to aid in their understanding of the source material and, more importantly, get them to think about it in new, interesting ways.  I always require students to write an essay after watching an adaptation.  What can you write about a faithful adaptation?  “I liked watching more than reading”?  “The lighting was good”?  A plain film serves no purpose.  I prefer the crazier adaptations because they keep students interested and opinionated.  When I first read that writer/director Baz Luhrmann (Romeo + Juliet) was making The Great Gatsby, I knew this version would be worth watching.

I was able to take my junior class to see The Great Gatsby on opening day (special thanks to Tell City Cinemas for setting up the individual screening for my class).  We had recently finished reading the novel, and I was hoping this adaptation would be interesting enough to get a response from them.  That definitely proved to be the case.  This version of Gatsby is not only interesting, but, more importantly, it’s entertaining.

 

The same qualities I find interesting and entertaining may leave some people baffled, however.  The most obvious element up for debate is the use of music in the film.  The soundtrack is largely made up of current rap and pop artists, yet the film is still firmly set in the 1920s.  I think the music matches up perfectly with the tone of the film.  The music was an odd fit at first, but by the end it seemed natural to me.  Others may disagree with me.  Some people will simply not be able to get past the fact that music from the 2010s is playing while 1920s characters dance.  It can be jarring, but if you’re willing to go with it, I think it is one of the film’s strongest points.

 

Equally important is the casting of the film.  The role of Gatsby is important in that it requires an actor who can express elegance, charisma, and boundless hope.  That pretty much describes Leonardo DiCaprio to a T, so obviously he was perfectly cast in this.  It isn’t exactly a stretch of a role for the eternally young actor, but that doesn’t make it any less impressive.  On the more surprising side, Tobey Maguire made for a very effective Nick Carraway.  Maguire’s constant stare of boyish wonder usually annoys me, but it’s the perfect visage for the character of Carraway.  It is especially effective once Nick becomes sickened by those around him and that boyish stare turns into a dead glare.  Carey Mulligan makes it easy to feel sympathy for Daisy.  Joel Edgerton brings perfect physicality to the role of Tom.  Jason Clarke is effective as Wilson in a few short scenes.  And Isla Fisher is decent as Myrtle, but that character felt a little shortchanged in this adaptation.

 

Shortchanged characters aside, Gatsby is a surprisingly faithful adaptation.  Of course there are a few changes here and there, such as the absence of Gatsby’s father and the inclusion of a framing device for the story, but the overall theme of the novel is intact, which is the most important aspect to me.  The theme regarding the death of the American dream is still relevant today (and always will be) which is why the novel is still taught to students across the country.  The film does a good job conveying that theme and an even better job at explaining the symbolism of the novel.  Anyone who’s read the novel probably remembers the green light and the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg, and if you don’t remember them, the film will make sure that you do by the end of the 140+ minute running time.  I’m glad both elements received so much attention in the film, though I think some of it was a bit too blatant (Wilson pointing at the eyes and screaming that they are the “eyes of God” comes to mind). 

 

The music, acting, and novel elements are all excellent fodder for a student to write a response, but there’s still the matter of style.  Luhrmann has established himself as an interesting director many times over, but Romeo + Juliet is the best comparison to be made here.  That film featured frenetic elements and borderline cartoonish qualities.  Gatsby takes place in a more realistic world than that film, but it is still frantic.  The driving scenes are insane, the editing is rapid-fire, and the party scenes are pure chaos. 

 


The partying is the main selling point for Gatsby, both as a film and a novel.  I certainly focused on it heavily while teaching it.  The point is not to glorify it, though.  The parties or drinking episodes in the novel are not treated as good times meant to be emulated by others.  Instead, we see the parties through Nick’s eyes, and he has come to the conclusion that these events are not happy moments, but are actually the shallow proceedings of a morally bankrupt group.  It’s easy to get that point when you’re reading about the parties; it’s a bit more difficult to pick up on that message when the parties are visually presented with lavish dance numbers and whatnot, all presented in 3D, no less.  (For the record, I have not seen the film in 3D, but I can hardly imagine that it changes the experience much one way or the other.)  Still, the film does not glorify the lifestyle of the characters.  Others may disagree because the parties take the center stage, but as I watched those scenes, I didn’t think, “Oh, how cool.”  My thoughts drifted more towards, “When will these parties end?”   



The Great Gatsby is essentially about the end of the party.  The novel and the film convey that message to the reader/viewer.  Is it possible that viewers will miss that point?  Of course, but they’ll stay awake through the proceedings.  The biggest hurdle any teacher faces while teaching Gatsby is the boredom complaint.  While I find the themes of the novel fascinating, I definitely encountered a student or two that “just didn’t get it” or “couldn’t get into it.”  As the kids filed out of the movie theater, even the ones who didn’t exactly love the movie told me they were surprised by how interested it kept them.  If that’s not a sign of a successful adaptation of a novel force fed to a teenager, I don’t know what is.





Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)




"I'm so tired of partying.  So very tired."

Yes, that is Slurms McKenzie from Futurama to the right.  I couldn't resist including it.

The framing device bothered me a little bit because it turned Carraway into an alcoholic.  Maybe I'm just too trusting of Carraway as a narrator, but I never got the impression that he was drinking himself into an institution throughout the novel.  In fact, I always pictured him as the sober guy at the party, casting judgment on everyone.  I think the novel backs me up on this since the one scene in which he admits being drunk (at Myrtle's apartment) is a haze of random events (staged wonderfully in the movie, by the way), while the rest of the parties are reported on in quite a sober manner.  Having him constantly drink throws doubt on the entire proceeding.  I know there's a question of his bias as a narrator anyway, but the alcohol makes him seem much more like an unreliable narrator. 

That said, I still accept the framing device since it gives a reason for the words to appear onscreen.  The teacher/dork in me enjoyed seeing some of Fitzgerald's greatest lines recreated that way.

I was okay with Gatsby's dad not showing up at the end.  It seems almost better that he's absent so he seems that much more alone in death. 

I was not okay with the absence of Daisy and Tom's daughter.  I know she finally shows up in the end, but I think it would have been very effective had she appeared in the other scenes she was supposed to be in, especially the one with Gatsby.  In the novel, Gatsby reacts strangely to the child, appearing to not have believed she existed until that moment.  It is effective because it is part of the crumbling dream he has.  Here is physical proof that Daisy and Tom have something together.  It is obviously not part of his grand fantasy.  I can live without the scene, but I think the film would have been better with it, and it would only have taken up thirty seconds or so of the running time.

Gatsby doesn't freak out and almost punch Tom in the novel, but I enjoyed that change.  In the novel, Gatsby suffers a quiet defeat.  That's fine, and it shows how dreams can, and often do, die silent deaths.  But that scene in the hotel room was building with such tension that a quiet ending would have been a let down.  Everyone is sweating and uncomfortable, there's a topic brought up that would normally be kept quiet, there's an ice pick... That scene needed some yelling to finish it up.  And who better to yell out in fury than DiCaprio?

I was definitely not okay with Gatsby being a scrapbooker.  In the novel, he mentions that he has some "clippings" of Daisy, but it doesn't say he busts out a full scrapbook that has been carefully put together.  I know Gatsby had some time to kill in that five years leading up to the reunion, but I simply can't imagine him sitting home with his Elmer's rubber cement, pasting newspaper articles onto construction paper.  Sure, maybe he had a servant do it, but I don't buy that.  And it's equally ridiculous to imagine him handing newspaper clippings to a maid, demanding that a scrapbook be made.  Am I blowing this out of proportion?  Absolutely.  But sometimes small details like that really bother me.