| Product: |
Spider-Man / Spider-Man 2 (DVD) |
| Date: |
10/06/02 (404 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Superb comic book adaptation,, Visually engaging, Good musical score, Excellent dialogue,, Some good acting, Largely accurate to comic book version
Disadvantages: A few dodgy CGI bits
It would be difficult to describe the 'Spider-Man' movie as enthusiastically anticipated. The movie had been in the rumour mill for about as long as I've been watching movies - with more actors suggested for the lead role than I care to remember. In the vast majority of cases, these sorts of delays lead to spectacularly disappointing films, however, I was extremely impressed with Spider-Man.
The film is, to my mind, easily good enough to satisfy both the fanboy comic book crowd with its unusually good adherence to the original Spider-Man comic strip (not an easy trick to pull when you're basing a 00s movie on a 70s comic), and the comic-ignorant cinemagoer eager to see an action-packed movie.
STORY
The story is unsurprising, in many ways. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is a geeky high-school kid, who goes on a school trip to a scientific research facility owned by the nefarious Oscorp. Run by the father (Norman Osborn, played by Willem Dafoe) of one of Parker's schoolmates (Harry, played by James Franco), Oscorp has landed an exclusive deal with the military to produce a chemical to make soldiers super strong.
In the course of their research, Oscorp genetically engineer a super spider, incorporating genes from different species of spider. Over the course of the school trip, Parker is bitten by one of these spiders which has escaped from its cage, and takes on the super powers genetically engineered into the super spider. Will his newfound powers allow him to win over the beautiful M.J. (Kirsten Dunst), his fellow schoolmate and neighbour whom he has fancied ever since she moved to the area?
When Parker's uncle is killed by a carjacker, he decides to use his powers to fight crime. But is it always so easy to judge good from evil?
COMICS
The comic 'Spider-Man' is a character whose stories are primarily driven by introspection and emotion. Sure, there's a fight in every iss
ue of the comic book, but inevitably, there's also a substantial amount of dialogue and a lot of time is spent examining Parker's feelings.
Parker is a very tragic character, and many of the comic book's stories focus on the fact that he can never get close to anyone as Peter Parker, without revealing his secret identity. This sense of tragedy translates well to the big-screen, and the movie remains faithful to the importance of the character's emotional trauma, rather than focusing exclusively on the action - something that comic book adaptations have been all too eager to do in the past.
Without revealing what actually happens, the ending of the film, while possibly disappointing for many cinemagoers, is entirely in keeping with the character of Spider-Man in the comic book adventures - typifying how well the writers have respected the original stories.
One thing, which I hinted at earlier, which I was impressed by, was that the story has translated from comic book to big screen with surprising ease, given the social changes that have taken place over the last three decades. Mercifully, the writers have dispensed with the Seventies-isms, Daddi-O, but nonetheless, they've managed to retain something of the original characters' dialogue. At one point, M.J. calls Parker "Tiger" which is a nickname she uses in some of the early comic books.
Spider-Man's powers are inherited differently in the movie from in the comic book incarnation of the character. It's a fairly superficial difference - in the comic book, Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider, in the movie, Parker is bitten by a genetically-engineered spider. The most substantial difference this produces is that in the comic book, Parker makes his own web-shooting guns which he attaches to his wrists, whereas in the movie, Parker's webs shoot from glands that develop in his wrists.
I'm not going to be drawn into the who
le genetic-engineering debate. Suffice to say that this the movie story is just guff, even if the spider were genetically engineered, a bite wouldn't transfer the genes to Parker, and even if it did, they certainly wouldn't integrate themselves into his DNA. But, hell, this is the world of fantasy, I can suspend disbelief for a couple of hours. Let's just say that in about twenty years time, the idiocy of this means of gaining super powers will be as evident to its audience as the misuse of radioactivity in B-movies of the Sixties and Seventies. Essentially, genetic engineering has taken the "bogeyman" role of radioactivity as something the public fears, and doesn't really understand - and will firmly date the movie in years to come.
M.J., or Mary Jane to give her full name, is not Spider-Man's first love interest in the comic book. In fact, there are two characters who preceed her. There is a tip of the head to one of these when Parker first visits the offices of the Daily Bugle - Jameson's secretary. Nonetheless, the movie's depiction of Parker's relationship with M.J. is accurate to the comic book story, and neatly brings home the responsibility with which Parker has adopted his cowl of justice.
There are other little touches throughout the film which will satisfy Spider-Man comic book fans. For example, when Spidey chases the man who killed his uncle, he hangs down into a room upside-down - the posture and lighting of the image perfectly match one of the best-known drawings of the masked one. Similarly, when Parker presents Jameson with some photographs of himself (as Spider-Man) foiling various crimes, each of the photographs depicts a scene identical to a panel from the comic book.
As regards the film's main villain, the Green Goblin, the depiction of this character is largely consistent with the comic book villain. I haven't read the stories of the Green Goblin's creation, so I d
on't know how accurate the movie's depiction of this actually is. However, the villain's true identity, and the "multiple-personality" nature of his villainy, is accurate to the comic book. One thing that has altered, presumably to heighten the movie's tension, is that in the comic book, the Green Goblin doesn't have the super strength he seems to in the movie - he could never take Spidey on in a fight, for example. The film's ending is entirely consistent with the comic book... and sets us up nicely for a sequel.
Spidey fans will also probably be pleased to discover that, other than in Spider-Man's first fight, the film has dispensed with the witty quips that he normally spouts during fights. Much as it would be consistent to leave them in, they'd break up the action of a fight too much, and the film is stronger for their omission.
Oh, and be sure to look out for the brief cameo by Spider-Man creator Stan Lee!
THE MOVIE
My first observation about the movie is that the pacing is absolutely first-rate. This film was a full two-hours long, but didn't feel like it at all. I'm one of those people who can assess how well a film managed to hold my attention by thinking how many times I looked at my watch during the movie. In this case, I didn't look at my watch at all... which is virtually unheard of.
As mentioned above, the characters are largely identical to their comic book counterparts, but does this mean that they are actually believable and entertaining for a cinemagoing audience? I would generally give a resounding yes. There's some sickeningly homespun advice doled out to Parker by his well-meaning uncle (just after he parks his car on New York's Fifth Avenue - um... okay... I suppose you *could* do that), and M.J. lets fly with a few slightly embarrassing Seventiesisms, but for the most part, the dialogue is well delivered.
Newspaper editor Jameson
seems absurdly prejudiced against Spider-Man which, presumably due to time constraints, is never fully justified. In the comic book, the point is clearly made that Jameson is so driven by an urge for money that he can't understand or relate to anyone acting altruistically for no personal reward - therefore Spider-Man must have some nefarious reason for acting the way he does.
I also have to heap praise on Sam Raimi, who let me down so very badly with 'The Gift' a couple of years ago. Here, Raimi has really done superb work, producing a good style of presentation, and smoothly directing a first-rate action film. Also, with Raimi has come a small group of loyal hangers-on. Watch for Bruce "Ash" Campbell as the big-chinned ring announcer, Ted Raimi as Jameson's assistant at the Bugle, and (perhaps most entertainingly) Lucy "Xena" Lawless as a Punk Rock Girl!
Tobey Maguire is absolutely superb as Spider-Man, accurately conveying his surprise at discovering the extent of his new powers, and portraying the character's inner demons as he has to decide between his love and his self-imposed obligation to save lives. Similarly, Willem Dafoe is excellent as Norman Osborn and the Green Goblin, really enjoying the chance to ham up being a super villain in the scenes where his two personalities confront each other.
The only thing which I really found fault with was the computer graphics. Largely they were superb, and I had few of the problems with the scenes of Spider-Man swinging through the streets between the skyscrapers that other reviews have complained about online. However, there is one scene where Spider-Man bounces atop giant inflatables in Times Square, which seemed a little unrealistic - it's not a major deal, but it seemed pretty obvious to me.
Although the film was made before the events of September 11th, it manages to convey the sense of American solidarity that we've seen since the
n. Certainly, there's one line of dialogue towards the end of the film as Spider-Man faces up against the Green Goblin for the final confrontation, shouted by an observer on the 59th Street Bridge, to the effect of "You wrong one of us, you wrong us all", which seems to neatly summarise the American sense of patriotism.
CONCLUSION
For my money, this is the best comic book adaptation that I have seen to date. Admittedly, that's not exactly glowing praise, but this is still a supremely entertaining, well-paced, surprisingly well-scripted, entertaining movie. It's visually engaging, Danny Elfman's theme fits well with the appearance of the movie, and with only a few exceptions, the computer graphics work well.
The story is consistent enough with the original comic books to avoid annoying the frothing fanboy, and manages to produce enough entertainment to keep the average cinemagoer amused. All this and Kirsten Dunst's nipples pressed against wet clothing, what more could you ask for?
Summary:
|
Last comment:
 |
librelola - 27/10/05 I would never have even considered watching this, but you have made me wonder at the wisdom (or lack of it) of my decision! |
View all
29
comments
|
