Spider-Man
Grade: B
Cast: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe, James Franco, and Rosemary Harris
Director: Sam Raimi
Rated PG-13 for violence and Kirsten Dunst in a wet, see-through shirt

"Spider-Man," the record breaking comic-book-based blockbuster, is not your average superhero movie. Well, alright, it is your average superhero movie. It’s just a lot better.

Peter Parker (played with a quite wonderful social awkwardness by the fantastic Tobey Maguire) is the normal geek-next-door to Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), the girl he loves. Since the film is told from his point of view (complete with the obligatory, corny-in-hindsight-but-just-fine-under-the-circumstances voice-over narration), we automatically identify him and are cheerfully ready for the film to antagonize anyone who calls Peter a geek. There’s also the rich Norman Osborn (a very good Willem Dafoe), who couldn’t possibly end up being a bad guy, and his son Harry ("Freaks and Geeks"’ James Franco), Peter’s friend, who is quite evilly going out with MJ (I hesitate to call her this, because several times during the film I was thrown off when Michael Jordan didn’t appear).

Peter is then bitten by a genetically engineered spider, and forget any logic you were hoping to find here because the effect of his bite is an amazing transition into the realm of superhuman when he learns he can climb on walls, see without his glasses, has developed super-strength, is more magnetic to chicks such as Michael Jordan, and can easily battle his friend Norman in mid-air with a very tight costume (the conditions are such that I am guessing he has a wedgie most of the time, but am grateful that I do not know this for sure). This is about as layered as the plot gets, but simple as it sounds, "Spider-Man" is actually a really skillful action film that is more plot driven than we have come to expect from films like these, and the twists that I have not described are simply wonderful considering the expectations I had inevitably acquired from the trailers, plot synopsis, and annoying hype.

"Spider-Man" is directed by Sam Raimi, and the only film I’ve seen that he directed is 1998’s excellent guilt-and-trouble-as-a-snowball-rolling-down-a-hill film "A Simple Plan." Watch that movie, and you’ll never guess that it has the same director. This film is bigger, louder, and less subtle; it also doesn’t stay with you as the infinitely superior Simple Plan does. But that’s okay, because "Spider-Man" is designed mainly to please our eyes and intelligence-subtracted brains in this early summer season, and that is something it does almost perfectly. The excuse “it’s just a summer movie,” however, cannot be applied here; either you like it or you don’t, because "Spider-Man" is actually a good movie, unlike, say, "The Fast and the Furious," which is just as entertaining. The acting is good and not great, and often stolen by supporting players. Tobey Maguire is an excellent actor, and while he’s excellent here in his awkward high schooler scenes among others, certain moments hit a false note—I’m thinking specifically of when a certain character, not mentioning any names, dies. In short, I loved his performance, but if he ever wins an Oscar it won’t and shouldn’t be for this. Kirsten Dunst has been better in other films (notably "Dick," "The Virgin Suicides", and "Interview With the Vampire"), but she worked well enough as Michael Jordan to not summon my complaints but not much involve me either (outside the scene that was obvious consolation to those who are depressed that she has said ‘no’ to nudity). Perhaps the cast member who fits the genre best is Willem Dafoe, who does his best Jack Nicholson while he’s in his really corny costume and does regular, good Willem Dafoe stuff as he play a man with a multiple personality who knows it, can’t help it, but is not sympathetic to the audience because of it.

Above all, the film works because a person like me enjoys it. I have not read the comics, I haven’t seen the TV show since the days when I didn’t know my own phone number, and I am not a slave to the merchandise that’s been a part of society since the comics became popular. I do not know how fans of the comics are reacting to this—I assume positively, as it has almost unanimously good reviews, and www.imdb.com, a dwelling center for many net geeks (not to say everyone who reads “Spider-Man” is a geek; just some of them), currently has it at a rating of 8.3 out of 10. Whether they like it or not is important; they are so dedicated that their adoration could be because they love the source material, and their resentment could be because it strayed from the source material. All I know is that I walked out of "Spider-Man" pretty confident that it was the best comic book movie ever made (despite not having seen "Superman"), flawed but often poignant, thrilling, and genuinely well-made. The over-the-top nature of the action finale shows at the seams, especially when you look back on it afterwards, but is that such a bad thing? The film is just as rousing as it needs to be without being campy, and just as noble as it needs to be without being corny. I liked how they set it up so the next Green Goblin could be the original’s son; it had the nice feel of an ongoing story, and was as powerful as almost anything in "The Fellowship of the Ring." The last scene, when Peter rejects Michael Jordan’s proposal of a more-than-friends relationship, at first infuriated me, but I am now convinced that it makes sense as he is looking out for her safety, although I am also convinced his reaction would be different if she has asked him in the rain.


--Alex, June 2002