Subject: Review: Spider-Man (2002)

From: Mark R. Leeper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:34:13 -0000

SPIDER-MAN
               (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)

    CAPSULE: Sam Raimi does a comic superhero story that is 
    more character driven than fight driven.  Toby McGuire 
    plays Peter Parker, the boy bitten by a spider and finds 
    himself with special spider powers.  The film is fairly 
    faithful to the comic book and at the same time is 
    fast-moving and fun.  Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to 
    +4)  Following the review is a non-spoiler discussion of 
    Spider-Man's capabilities.

I have not read a lot of comic books since I was in Junior High.  
At that time Spider-Man was still a new comic, but I read several 
issues and have read a few since.  To be honest it was neither 
sufficiently weird, nor sufficiently science-fictional to hold my 
interest at that time.  I did like that the characters portrayed 
were a little better developed than the DC superheroes.  I have, 
however, read enough Spider-Man and X-Men comic books to know that 
the new film SPIDER-MAN seems closer to the original comic books 
than the recent X-MEN did.  But that is not the only reason I 
think this is the better of the two films.  For my taste the 
characters of X-MEN did not seem as well-developed and to a much 
greater extent that film was fight-driven and while SPIDER-MAN is 
more character-driven.  Peter Parker is something of a cliche, 
much like the title character of CARRIE, but at least we get a 
better idea of who he is than we did with the characters of most 
comic book based films.

Peter Parker (played by Tobey Maguire) is his school's science 
nebbish.  He can tell you anything about science, but he cannot 
work up the courage to talk to his attractive next-door-neighbor 
and classmate, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst).  An orphan, he is 
lives a frustrating life in a minor key in a lower-middle class 
neighborhood of New York.  Then Peter is bitten by a spider that 
was altered by DNA research.  (Originally in the comic it was 
altered by atomic radiation, but writer Stan Lee seems to use 
whatever science that is current, mysterious, and topical.)  
Parker is very sick for a few hours, but when he recovers he gets 
considerably better than just well.  He finds he has the power to 
shoot webs from his wrists.  (Why would he develop this at his 
wrists?  I suppose it would be a very different film if he had 
inherited spinnerets in the same anatomical location where a 
spider has them.)

Now, after hundreds of years when presumably nobody in New York 
City had super-powers, the same day that Peter Parker becomes 
spiderized by sheer coincidence someone else gets super-powers 
also.  (What are the chances?)  It is Norman Osborn (Willem 
Dafoe), the father of Peter's best friend (another twist of fate!) 
who becomes a super-powered schizophrenic.  Osborn is much like 
Jekyll and Hyde, but instead of Hyde he turns into lurid Green 
Goblin.  Actually, his most amazing power seems to be to keep his 
balance on a sort of high-speed anti-gravity speeder.  But while 
the film does have fight scenes between him and Spider-Man, they 
do not drag on as they do in some films like the current BLADE II.  
Instead, the film focuses on how Parker's relationships change as 
he discovers his powers.  Parker interacts with Ms. Watson as well 
as his aging aunt and uncle.  The latter is played by the 
venerable Cliff Robertson.  (That is an interesting casting 
choice.  Robertson's signature role was Charly Gordon who also 
finds his relationships changing when he is altered by a 
scientific experiment.)

Actually, the special effects of SPIDER-MAN may be of a lower 
average quality than most other blockbuster fantasy films of late.  
In spite of this being one film where wirework might work well, 
too often the filmmakers rely on digital effects that do not 
convince the eye.  The images create look three-dimensional but 
frequently will accelerate in ways that look more like cartoon 
figures.

Also, the fact is that while SPIDER-MAN may have a nifty suit, the 
whole concept does not work well for a movie superhero.  Spider-
Man's powers are that he is strong and fast, he throws sticky 
webs, and he sticks to things.  His sort of rescue is generally 
limited to throwing a web to stop someone from falling.  But to 
make a sequence long enough to be interesting on film the person 
has to fall from a very great height.  People fall from very high 
up indeed in SPIDER-MAN.  I will discuss more limitations of the 
Spider-Man character after the review.  And in addition to 
conceptual limitations, he has another restriction imposed by the 
writers.  As my wife has observed in films, apparently superheroes 
are frequently not allowed to kill their opponents directly any 
more, even in fights to the death.  Notice that SPIDER-MAN does 
not kill his opponents.  Instead he frazzles them to the point 
that they make some stupid blunder and conveniently kill 
themselves.  We see this happen at least twice in this film.  The 
writers apparently do not want to risk losing audience sympathy.  
In fact, these "frazzle-to-death killings" seem to have become 
standard in many action films.

Tobey Maguire simply does not look like the Peter Parker of the 
comic books, but he does a reasonably convincing job.  I am a 
little reluctant to see him in a mass market film since he has 
been very good in some arthouse films and now he may not return to 
that sort of film.  Dunst does fine as the attractive friend of 
Parker.  But having recently seen her in THE CAT'S MEOW as an 
actress who hides her intelligence behind a veneer of perky 
childishness, I think she is wasted in this simple role.  
J. K. Simmons is terrific as Parker's nasty boss J. Jonah Jameson.  
Sam Raimi known for THE EVIL DEAD and DARK MAN directs.

SPIDER-MAN was more fun than I was expecting.  I'd give it a 7 on 
the 0 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.

As long as we are on the subject, there are some things I have 
never known about Spider-Man.  The first observation I would have 
is that there are marked similarities between Spider-Man and the 
introverted villain in the episode "Spider Boy" of the radio 
series "The Shadow" (November 11, 1945)  I would be curious how 
much Stan Lee knew of that episode.

In the comic book Spider-Man looks really dramatic swinging among 
tall buildings, but I have never established how Spider-Man is 
able to travel very well with his web-swing approach.  Necessary 
(but not sufficient) would be to have buildings at least thirty 
feet higher than his plane of travel.  Actually, depending on the 
distance between suspension points, it would probably have to be 
much higher than that.  Even in Manhattan he would be extremely 
limited in where this means of locomotion could take him.  He has 
to alternate suspension points first on one side of his line of 
travel, then the other or he would end up flattening himself in 
the plane of the face of the building.  He probably would find 
that it is very difficult to find a sequence of buildings he could 
use without finding one recessed too far from his line of travel.  
Web-swinging would of necessity be a very limited means of travel.  
My guess is that a real Spider-Man would simply walk most places 
he went.  That is a lot less spectacular.

Spider-Man's wall climbs would also be impossible.  I am not an 
expert on spiders, but I think that even tarantulas have problems 
climbing a vertical surface because they are just too heavy.  
Parker is A LOT heavier than a tarantula.  The film suggested that 
Parker grows hooks on his hands, but even with fishhook gloves one 
could never get enough purchase to support a human's weight.

Not only would ha probably not be able to get to where the crime 
is, it is not at all clear how he knows where the crime is.  
Apparently Parker usually just happens on crimes being committed.  
Most of the crimes he seems to stop are in broad daylight and not 
in high-crime parts of the city.  If it were so easy to find 
crime, police would probably be better at doing their job and 
stopping it.  It seems to me that the comic book refers to so-
called "spider sense."  My question is what "spider sense?"  Most 
spiders have a hard time knowing what is going on one or two leg-
spans from their body.  Web spiders can sense movement further 
away, but that is really because it causes web vibrations under 
their bodies.  Some hunting spiders, very distant relatives of the 
spider in the film, have considerably better eyesight, but nothing 
to match the eyesight of a mammal.  If Peter Parker inherited 
spider senses about all he would need is a tin cup.

All this is not to say that spiders cannot do some pretty 
impressive things--most of which have probably never been used in 
the Spider-Man comic.  Spiderlings use strands of silk to catch 
the wind and get carried into the air.  Live spiders have been 
found floating in this way in the upper levels of the stratosphere 
and come down miles out to sea.  Most of the impressive things 
Spider-Man can do he does not get from his spider inheritance.  
Oh, and at this stage of his maturity he seems to be looking for a 
mate.  Male spiders do this also, of course, but many do not 
survive the mating ritual.  I hope his human side helps him to 
make a better choice.

                                        Mark R. Leeper
                                        [email-masked]
                                        Copyright 2002 Mark R. Leeper

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 31766
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 311643
X-RT-TitleID: 1112310
X-RT-AuthorID: 1309
X-RT-RatingText: 7/10