"Spider-Man"
Directed by Sam Raimi.
Written by David Koepp. Based on the comic book by Stan Lee
and others.
Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and Willem Dafoe.
Release Year: 2002
Review Date: 5/6/02
Folks--
Ladies and Gentlemen, the summer movie
season has begun!
As long-time Bellviewers know, originally
this column only reviewed movies released between Memorial Day and
Labor Day. Now, as a full-time operation, I still love summers best
because there really is something for everyone. Action, adventure,
romance, comedy, and the depressing drug-fueled drama film all show
up in one form or another during the summer. And, after the summer
of 2001—for my money, the worst set of movies released during the
summer since the summer event film idea began in the mid-70s,
highlighted by war-crime bad
“Moulin Rouge”—I was very excited for
this summer since I knew we had another
“Star Wars” film,
“Men in
Black 2”, and pretty much every major star except for Schwarzenegger
showing up in something this year: Gibson, Ford, Cruise, Hanks and
more are back.
But, the first film on the docket looks like
it will be the one that gives “Star Wars” the biggest run for box
office dollars: “Spider-Man.” Ever since James Cameron (the
director of the “Terminator” films) optioned this project after he
directed “Titanic” (when Nicolas Cage was set to star as Peter
Parker), it has been one of those projects that everyone wanted to
make. Finally, it is here, but with a team that is much less
heralded than before: no A-list stars, and a director that is
famous only if you have seen his collaborations with B-lister Bruce
Campbell, the star behind the “Evil Dead”/”Army of Darkness” films.
Would a group without any big names be able to pull a
mega-blockbuster off?
Yes, yes, yes! Save for the
“Lord of the
Rings” film from last year, it has been a few years since the hype
has been equaled by a quality production. But, almost everything
about “Spider-Man” is perfect. From the score by vet Danny Elfman,
to the casting of Tobey Maguire and Willem Dafoe, to the special
effects, to the pacing, to a romance that is cheesy, not
sappy-romantic-cheesy...this movie has the goods. I won’t even
bother with summarizing the story here, since many of you know it
and the rest of you saw this movie over the weekend.
So, what’s to love? First and foremost, I
found that the film makes for a near-perfect mix of hero time versus
peon time. The Peter Parker scenes are nicely done, but there are
plenty of scenes where Maguire as Spidey is flying all over town
with his new abilities, breaking up a robbery or fighting with the
Green Goblin. Not too many, though. And, when Spidey is onscreen,
he’s doing the things that we always wanted to see him do...flying
all over the city, kicking the ass of multiple bad guys, and LOTS of
shooting web out of those slingers on his wrists. This is the one
of the two areas where “Spider-Man” is better than my favorite comic
book translation, “Batman”...I always wanted them to include more
scenes of Batman driving into the Batcave, or using gadgets on his
utility belt. For Batman, it’s ALL about the gadgets, and even
though the movie is genius, you gotta throw more bones to the
hardcore fans that show up. I think in “Spider-Man” the hard-core
comic fan will not be disappointed.
The other area where “Spider-Man” is better
comes from my sister Cate. We were talking today, and it’s amazing
to get perspective sometimes from someone half your age. Many
people wonder why the filmmakers chose to make The Green Goblin
Spidey’s first rival in the movies, as opposed to the multitude of
other criminals (mostly, Venom is the one I have heard fans mention)
that could make for better onscreen battles. I think that picking
Goblin first makes great sense, mostly because I think that that is
the biggest failing of the “Batman” film franchise. By disposing of
The Joker in the first film, then long-time faves Catwoman and
Penguin in “Batman Returns”, we were left with a decreasing interest
in his other foes in the third and fourth films (Mr. Freeze? He has
a pitiful backstory. And, don’t even get me started on Two-Face,
whom the filmmakers cast as a black guy in the first “Batman” (Billy
Dee Williams) and then as a younger white guy (Tommy Lee Jones) in
the third film! Atrocious. With this film, “Spider-Man” sets us up
with better and better bad guys to fight in the next two or three
films, if it goes that far.
Dafoe is spectacular in this role as the bad
guy. Is there a stranger looking actor available to us? When I
first heard that Dafoe got this role, I thought that it was the
worst casting move of all time. After seeing this movie, I am
having steamed crow for dinner. Just watching his face, and those
messed-up teeth from behind the Goblin’s menacing mask, he IS
Goblin. Raimi scored a coup on this one. And, the support by JK
Simmons (as the Daily Bugle’s editor), James Franco and a cameo by
Cliff Robertson (Uncle Ben) is fantastic.
Maguire, though, might be the one that sees
the biggest upside to working in this production. Much like
Christopher Reeve back in the first couple of “Superman” films, he
plays stiff quite well, but turns around and plays an asskicker
comfortably when forced. When he breaks into a smile during
“Spider-Man” you get behind him, and he has a charisma here that you
never saw in his last major film, “Wonder Boys.” It’ll be fun to
see where he takes this character in what looks to be at least a
couple of sequels in the next five years. Kirsten Dunst is good in
this film as well, but one wonders how much her character will have
to do while Spidey fights other menaces in future movies. My guess
is that she will be Mrs. John McClane by the next film (Bonnie
Bedelia, the “Die Hard” trilogy; if you’ve seen the films, you know
what I mean!).
Overall, “Spider-Man” is a great
introduction to what looks to be a great summer of films.
Rating: $9.00 Show
Comments? Drop me a line at
justin@bellviewmovies.com.
Bellview Rating System:
"Opening Weekend": This is
the highest rating a movie can receive. Reserved for movies that
exhibit the highest level of acting, plot, character development,
setting...or Salma Hayek. Not necessarily in that order.
"$X.XX Show": This price
changes each year due to the inflation of movie prices; currently,
it is the $9.50 Show. While not technically perfect, this is a
movie that will still entertain you at a very high level.
"Undercover Brother" falls into this category; it's no "Casablanca",
but you'll have a great time watching. The $9.50 Show won't win any
Oscars, but you'll be quoting lines from the thing for ages (see
"Office Space").
"Matinee": An average movie
that merits no more than a $6.50 viewing at your local theater.
Seeing it for less than $9.50 will make you feel a lot better about
yourself. A movie like "Blue Crush" fits this category; you leave
the theater saying "That wasn't too bad...man, did you see that
Lakers game last night?"
"Rental": This rating
indicates a movie that you see in the previews and say to your
friend, "I'll be sure to miss that one." Mostly forgettable, you
couldn't lose too much by going to Hollywood Video and paying $3 to
watch it with your sig other, but you would only do that if the
video store was out of copies of "Ronin." If you can, see this
movie for free. This is what your TV Guide would give "one and a
half stars."
"Hard Vice": This rating is
the bottom of the barrel. A movie that only six other human beings
have witnessed, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. A Shannon
Tweed "thriller," it is so bad as to be funny during almost every
one of its 84 minutes, and includes the worst ending ever put into a
movie. Marginally worse than "Cabin Boy", "The Avengers" or
"Leonard, Part 6", this rating means that you should avoid this
movie at all costs, or no costs, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
(Warning: strong profanity will be used in all reviews of "Hard
Vice"-rated movies.)