Bill's Movie Reviews: Spider-Man

I certainly would hate to pick on a movie which is certain to be enjoyed by nearly everybody who sees it, so I’ll save what little there is for last. The movie was a breath of fresh air in the stale atmosphere of recent super hero projects, especially Batman (who seemingly went from the Dark Knight to the colorful Flaming Crusader under the helm of the flamboyant Joel Schulmacher.) The film overall was thrilling and entertaining. Die-hard comic book fans and even the creator of Spider-Man (Stan Lee) have enjoyed it, and that thrills me since someone finally honored the creator’s and fans’ idea of their hero.

The acting across the board and particularly both leads (Maguire and Defoe) was great. I really admired the way the writer and director set-up the characters and situations. Finally, someone SHOWED us a movie rather than explained everything in boring, lazy expository dialogue. Thank you for doing this especially in a "comic book" film.

Although I will admit that the visual effects were mostly stunning, and the end sequence with its incredible digital choreography were thrilling, fun, and spine tingling, the visual effects often looked like visual effects or CGI. Spider-Man and even the matte paintings of the Osbourne buildings looked a little "off." This could have easily been remedied had the film-makers followed along the lines of "Batman," the "Mask" or "Dick Tracy" where the entire city was a little stylized. It’s really no "biggie," but it was noticeable, especially since all the other shots/scenes were regular day-to-day New York views. (And why does every Super Hero hang out in New York---even if it’s called "Gothma" or "Metropolis?"—just a question.)

There’s only one important bone I have to pick with the movie. I could not understand why I left feeling a little empty, disappointed, and confused. It literally occurred more than a day later. The movie fates itself in that it opens as a retrospective from Peter Parker Telling us the story. That’s fine, but at the end…the writer and director and Spider-Man forgot what was said. Peter Parker (AKA Spider-Man) said that this story was about a girl (not about being a hero or fighting evil or anything at all like that.) In fact, this is why Stan Lee so much felt that they stuck to his vision of the character. The story was about getting the girl. Parker is a reluctant hero. But, at the end of this film, he gets the girl yet let’s her go. He gets on his white horse and announces that his life is fatefully out of his hands and he must do "other" (hero) things. Huh?! What??? She actually falls in love with Parker (even though she’s smitten with Spider-Man,) and he not only doesn’t admit his deep love for her, nor tell her he is both Parker and Spidey, but he actually says that friendship is all he has to give. Not only do I smell "tune in next year" writing, but now I’m unfulfilled in the story that they set up. Hey, if you’re going to get all "Film Noir" and voice-over the beginning of the film from the viewpoint of the end, see it through. I was teased and then un-satisfied. Isn’t it always about the girl (love) ultimately anyway? Do I really have to wait for Spider-Man II, III, IV, etc until Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so old that he too must be CGI?

A few quick comments: Is there a clause somewhere that dictates that Danny Elfman must do all super hero movies from here on out? He did a fine job, although I can’t remember any of it. I can clearly remember the themes from Batman and Superman. Is that okay? Maybe it’s better? You decide.

There is actually only one thing that REALLY bothers me about the Spider-Man franchise at the moment: The God-Awful way that AT&T and Carl’s Junior sadly tried to tie-in their products with Spider-Man. ("Spider-Man only takes off his mask for one thing…well, maybe two." …to eat a Carl’s Junior Burger.) Gag! (And Toby is supposedly a vegetarian!) The "On Star" Batman commercials at least had more of a clue.



		Spider-Man I certainly would hate to pick on a movie which is certain to be enjoyed by nearly everybody who sees it, so I’ll save what little there is for last. The movie was a breath of fresh air in the stale atmosphere of recent super hero projects, especially Batman (who seemingly went from the Dark Knight to the colorful Flaming Crusader under the helm of the flamboyant Joel Schulmacher.) The film overall was thrilling and entertaining. Die-hard comic book fans and even the creator of Spider-Man (Stan Lee) have enjoyed it, and that thrills me since someone finally honored the creator’s and fans’ idea of their hero. The acting across the board and particularly both leads (Maguire and Defoe) was great. I really admired the way the writer and director set-up the characters and situations. Finally, someone SHOWED us a movie rather than explained everything in boring, lazy expository dialogue. Thank you for doing this especially in a "comic book" film. Although I will admit that the visual effects were mostly stunning, and the end sequence with its incredible digital choreography were thrilling, fun, and spine tingling, the visual effects often looked like visual effects or CGI. Spider-Man and even the matte paintings of the Osbourne buildings looked a little "off." This could have easily been remedied had the film-makers followed along the lines of "Batman," the "Mask" or "Dick Tracy" where the entire city was a little stylized. It’s really no "biggie," but it was noticeable, especially since all the other shots/scenes were regular day-to-day New York views. (And why does every Super Hero hang out in New York---even if it’s called "Gothma" or "Metropolis?"—just a question.) There’s only one important bone I have to pick with the movie. I could not understand why I left feeling a little empty, disappointed, and confused. It literally occurred more than a day later. The movie fates itself in that it opens as a retrospective from Peter Parker Telling us the story. That’s fine, but at the end…the writer and director and Spider-Man forgot what was said. Peter Parker (AKA Spider-Man) said that this story was about a girl (not about being a hero or fighting evil or anything at all like that.) In fact, this is why Stan Lee so much felt that they stuck to his vision of the character. The story was about getting the girl. Parker is a reluctant hero. But, at the end of this film, he gets the girl yet let’s her go. He gets on his white horse and announces that his life is fatefully out of his hands and he must do "other" (hero) things. Huh?! What??? She actually falls in love with Parker (even though she’s smitten with Spider-Man,) and he not only doesn’t admit his deep love for her, nor tell her he is both Parker and Spidey, but he actually says that friendship is all he has to give. Not only do I smell "tune in next year" writing, but now I’m unfulfilled in the story that they set up. Hey, if you’re going to get all "Film Noir" and voice-over the beginning of the film from the viewpoint of the end, see it through. I was teased and then un-satisfied. Isn’t it always about the girl (love) ultimately anyway? Do I really have to wait for Spider-Man II, III, IV, etc until Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so old that he too must be CGI? A few quick comments: Is there a clause somewhere that dictates that Danny Elfman must do all super hero movies from here on out? He did a fine job, although I can’t remember any of it. I can clearly remember the themes from Batman and Superman. Is that okay? Maybe it’s better? You decide. There is actually only one thing that REALLY bothers me about the Spider-Man franchise at the moment: The God-Awful way that AT&T and Carl’s Junior sadly tried to tie-in their products with Spider-Man. ("Spider-Man only takes off his mask for one thing…well, maybe two." …to eat a Carl’s Junior Burger.) Gag! (And Toby is supposedly a vegetarian!) The "On Star" Batman commercials at least had more of a clue.