SPIDER-MAN (Sam Raimi, 2002) R

Reviewed: May 4th, 2002

The Shape of Things

I'm coming at this review from the stance of someone who never read Spider-Man comics or watched any Spider-Man cartoons. Here's what it boils down to: go into Spider-Man with your expectations in check. Go in expecting a topnotch superhero movie -- nothing more -- and be pleased. Spider-Man is fast and highly enjoyable, but it doesn't take any risks. Many improvements should have been made.

A Lot Of What Is Right And Some Of What Is Wrong

The first half of Spider-Man is actually much stronger than the second (which amazed me since it inherently needs to be so expositional and there's not much action), my feelings a testament to the caliber of Tobey Maguire's superlative acting (which he gets to do the bulk of in the first half). There's such a soft conviction to Maguire's work here (well, always); he's got the Peter Parker, normal kid innocence down pat. There's also an openness to Maguire as if his face is often just a blank slate, ready to take in everyone else's emotions. His excellence lies in his ability to transcend the awkwardness and be simultaneously awkward, yet somehow comfortable. There's a few moments during the sequence which finds Parker confronting the petty thief who just killed his Uncle Ben -- so brief you might miss them -- where Maguire becomes ultra ferocious, his sentiment turning on a dime, his face gnarling and twisting grotesquely. It's an astonishing document of a normally gentle actor letting loose.

But the greatness of seeing Maguire angry made me realize that Spider-Man could have used more scenes in which Maguire is given the opportunity to channel this fierceness. I felt the Uncle Ben killer showdown was the most dramatic scene in the film, which is fairly disastrous news since it means that the Green Goblin as a villain fell flat. Willem Dafoe does the best he can with the material and occasionally his talent even takes the script to the next level (such as when he's verbally battling his two sides in the mirror; speaking of which, Raimi really cast the hell out of this thing with Kirsten Dunst sweet and very sexy, James Franco's carefully calibrated brooding and Law & Order's J.K. Simmons brilliant as the rapid-fire talking, cigar-chomping J. Jonah Jameson) but the Green Goblin's simply not very interesting as portrayed in this film. Rarely did the movie seem to be going anywhere interesting with the Goblin -- occasionally it would go a little darker and conflicted -- but inevitably it'd drop back off. The last half hour of Spider-Man -- entailing Green Goblin's final face/off with Spidey -- is the weakest portion of all.

The essential problem is that the first film in any superhero series -- particularly one based on so much existing material -- is obviously a very difficult entity viz. how much exposition it needs to juggle (i.e. the backstory, the protagonist's evolution to superhero) in addition to the love story and the versus-the-villain angle. That's at least three balls to be kept in the air, and only two hours (on average the running length of the studios' big blockbusters) to work with. Spider-Man manages its time as follows: Heavy emphasis on Parker's evolution; heavy emphasis on the love story; Spider-Man versus Green Goblin shafted.

The upside is that because the exposition and love story are what's concentrated on, they are so strong that a large percentage of the film really soars. And as I recently mentioned, if the love story at the heart of a film works, we're willing to overlook a lot. The downside is Raimi and screenwriter David Koepp didn't develop Dafoe properly because they were too busy developing Spider-Man. A more gradual evolution from tycoon to villain would have gone a long way towards Green Goblin improvement. Also expanding Dafoe and Maguire in their regular mode interactions (which what there was of, played quite effectively; I particularly liked the scene in which Maguire refuses Dafoe's job offer) would have gone a long way towards investing the audience in their eventual life-or-death combats. I also wasn't a fan of the way the film tried to inject humor and self-awareness into the Green Goblin. We should fear villains first and foremost, but the humor offset that fear. In one scene a group of average New Yorkers hurl fruit and other shit at the Goblin, talking about how us New Yorkers stick together. It's amusing but ultimately detrimental. If they can scare off the Goblin, of course Spider-Man can easily crush him.

Three Other Problems

(A) The cinematography is bland, low contrast and washed out, looking like a porno film from the 70s. Where are the rich, bold colors of the comic book world? Most of the scenes shot at night are alright, but very few frames of this film particularly impressed me. There's hardly any iconic shots that could be blown up and framed and put on a wall. Why wasn't New York properly turned into the stylized place it needs to be (hinted at in the Times Square parade sequence) for us to buy radioactive spiders and shooting webs and swinging from buildings and gliders and green goblins and on and on. The cinematographer is Don Burgess, Zemeckis's recent DP on What Lies Beneath and Cast Away, both beautiful films. So should I blame Raimi? But how could I? In previous films Raimi's created his own worlds on the mere catering budget of Spider-Man. Maybe the print I saw wasn't too hot and a pristine DVD of Spider-Man will change my opinion on this matter somewhat.

(B) The dialogue in Spider-Man is hit-or-miss, peaks and valleys. The script's credited to David Koepp whose career might be described in the same way. This guy's a total mystery to me as he swings wildly from strong, personal work that he also directs -- such as The Trigger Effect and Stir of Echoes -- to lame-o, big budget action films like Jurassic Park and The Lost World to almost-interesting trash like Snake Eyes to great action films like Mission Impossible to decent high-concept scripts like Panic Room to something like Spider-Man. Either Koepp's on some eternal quest to one day write the big studio franchise film that blows away all others and revolutionizes the industry or he's just a greedy bastard. Regardless, I think he has a pronounced current of mediocrity running through all of his work. A lot of Spider-Man is cleanly written. A lot of it flows well. But there are sporadic passages that are just lame and misconceived, such as the next to last scene where Kirsten Dunst's dialogue is so weak much of my audience was laughing at its poverty.

(C) Dare I say that Peter Parker in full Spider-Man garb should never have spoken? Somehow (I must assume because of all the ADR that was necessitated) whenever Spider-Man spoke Maguire's performance dipped in quality 93%. Very odd. Plus his speaking lent itself to the old why the hell doesn't Mary-Jane recognize that Spider-Man's voice is that of Peter Parker? Which brings up the issue of how much are we willing to look past in a comic book film? Personally -- and this is a tribute to the film as a whole -- I was willing to forgive a hell of a lot of holes and gaps in the script. The voice recognition issue is the only one that really irked me. For a comprehensive, spoiler-filled list of all the holes click here.

The CGI...

...is flawless. While critics like Ebert are wasting their entire review bashing the CGI -- usually getting their rocks off on their unbridled hatred for CGI as a steadfast rule -- I have nothing but praise. Spider-Man's CGI is unmatched for computer-generated, visceral thrill; people who are complaining the CGI doesn't look photorealistic are woefully missing the point. Only in the CGI swing scenes did I feel the movie achieved the comic book, hyper-stylized vibe I complained was (mostly) so dreadfully lacking. Remember: Comic books -- by their very nature -- do not look real.

Wrap-Up

What else did I really dig? The cool, sleek, Burton-mixed-with-Fight Club opening credits; the entire wrestling segment which is fun, funny, tough and exciting while paying distinct homage to its comic book roots; the hot, already famous upside-down kiss; all the simple scenes between MJ and Peter Parker, particularly their moonlit discussion in their respective backyards and the later conversation outside the Manhattan diner. I must praise Raimi and even Koepp for the simplicity they often allow. Raimi knows that simple dialogue scenes between great actors need to be left alone, and there are thankfully a fair amount of them in Spider-Man to balance out the action. They are shot cleanly and cut patiently, exactly as should be. I even liked the ending -- despite my Dunst dialogue complaints -- which ultimately slams the right cord. The best compliment I can pay Spider-Man is that despite the film's many flaws, I already can't wait for the sequel. This is a very solid start to what should be an enormously gratifying franchise.

UPDATED 5/12/02 - SECOND VIEWING NOTES

(1) It's a shame they never develop the idea of Spider-Man as vigilante/criminal outcast. If it's clear that in a two hour timeframe they can't do much with that story strand, then it probably shouldn't have been introduced in the first place. As is, it just feels left dangling and flat out silly at times, such as when Spider-Man rescues the baby from the building and the oaf cop responds: "You're under arrest!" but there's zero follow-up. If they had had another half hour to play with, I would have loved to see J. Jonah Jameson lead a yellow journalism campaign against Spidey.

(2) I responded to Dafoe's acting a lot more this time. All around great work by him.

(3) I felt the fight scenes played better second time out. I still believe Goblin and Spidey's conflict is not given nearly enough time or weight, but the fights work and are definitely exciting, however brief they may be. I noticed some great editing by Raimi this time around too.

(4) Raimi makes superior use of slow motion. Beginning with prior to the school hall fight where Peter first implements his Spidey senses in the context of a battle (and where Raimi uses XCU Fincheresque, CGI slow-mo) to the first fight between Spidey and Goblin where Goblin throws the ninja-star type thingamajigs and Spider-Man dodges them in slow motion straight through to the final Spider/Goblin face-off, Raimi's usage is judicious and adept. He always knows just the right frame rate to shoot the slow-mo at; not so slow it becomes jerky and melodramatic, but just slow enough that is looks surreal and appropriate.

(5) Kirsten Dunst overacts while struggling valiantly with Koepp's poorly written lines. Granted, a better actress would -- like Tobey -- probably have been able to overcome the material's weakness more often, but Dunst was excellent in last year's crazy/beautiful with a difficult role so I know she's talented. And as often as she overplays her cards, she also does some great, subtle work here. I also blame Raimi for not reigning her in more often. I'd imagine acting in a comic book film with a mediocre script makes it very hard to gauge how far to go on each take.

(6) The writing struck me as even weaker this time; there are too many lines of dialogue that land with a thud, particularly the opening and closing voice-overs.

Return home.