Rakesh's movie talk
Spider-Man (2002)













Home | Movie Reviews | Movie talk | Film Personalities | Misc Articles | Contact Me | Tamil Time





Directed by Sam Raimi
Starring: Toby Maguire, Kristen Durnst and Willem Dafoe

spider-man.jpg
















Before going to my comments, here are the flaws in this movie. Not to get you discouraged, but I am writing this to cool myself down before getting excited and write in terms of superlative vocabularies for the movie.

  1. The bad guy, Goblin, is not that good. His mask looks like the insect helmets worn by many Japanese superheroes. He doesn't have enough motivation, except he kills people who pissed him off. Nothing wrong with Willem Dafoe's performance. He is as good as always, and here he tried his best in interpreting dual personality with brilliant result, only with no proper background to it.
  2. Over reliance of Computer-Graphic. It is very easy to point out which is real and which is not. The worse, even the fight sequence on the ground was done with a CG Spidey. Come-on man! Get some Hong Kong stuntmen to don the Spidey-suit and get on with it. This is the problem with most movies nowadays, they still can't match the CG prowess of Jurassic Park, made almost ten years ago.
  3. Mary Jane Watson is just another damsel in distress. In fact, here she is seen as someone who is not good in relationship at all. Why Peter Parker is going after her is beyond me.
  4. No particular theme music. My favourite composer, Danny Elfman, did a fantastic job with the overall score (reminiscent of Batman), but didn't provide with a familiar theme. Aerosmith was supposed to have done a title song, but it was nowhere in the movie. Hmmmm...
  5. It lacks a bit on originality. There are too many scenes remindful of earlier Superhero movies and the recent SFX extravaganza like Matrix.

 

Okay. What do I think of the movie? Apart from the above flaws, the movie is the best superhero caper I had seen on screen after the first two Batman. Go to Movie Review Query Engine and you will see that most critics think it is the best after Superman. Well, Superman stood test of time, especially with its special effect. So did the first two Batmans, but Spidey may not. Why? The poorly executed CGIs.

On top of all, I was impressed with Tobey Maguire's performance as Peter Parker. Certainly a character we can relate to. It may be stereotype (bullied in school and never gets the girl), but the way Maguire plays it, we are seeing something fresh. It reminded me of Christopher Reeves' portrayal of Clark Kent. Moving, funny and fascinating. Especially so, when Peter first discovers his powers. I felt like a kid, experiencing the delight of suddenly having a good vision, pent up muscles, and ability to climb walls. Not to mention, the web, which does not come from an external device, but from his body. Watch out for the scene where he tries to shoot the web. This kid is aware of other comic superheroes.

The movie is more reminiscent of the sixties TV cartoon serial than the comic book. Swinging from building to building, you get to see all the moves and pose Spidey strikes in both media. We get to see montages of our superhero saving the citizens' skin, including thrice of Mary Jane's. The fight between Spidey and Goblin is a bit on the lower scale, but they are so in order to give way for the film to develop the characters, which is necessary.

The movie ends with some things hanging  - an opening for sequel. As you might know already, Maguire and Durnst had already signed for sequel. Somehow, I have a feeling that it is going to be better. If and only if the filmmaker realises some of the flaws and repair it. Hell, a sequel can be a better remake (like the Escape movies).