great superhero flick, but...

Rating: 8/10 (27 November 2007)

One of the great misconceptions about the appeal of superheroes, and one that is constantly put forward even by well-meaning individuals connected with them (just watch the behind-the-scenes interviews on the Spider-Man DVD's)is that the audience is REALLY rooting for and relating to their alter-egos, the Clark Kents and the Bruce Waynes. Or in this case, Peter Parker. The logic behind this argument is that we can all identify with the poor schmucks who have trouble at work or school, or have all kinds of problems with the opposite sex, etc. Fair enough. But I dare anyone to make a movie about a Peter Parker who WASN'T Spider-Man. Just a nerdy kid who has trouble paying his rent and daydreams a lot in school. There's a film that would gross $300 million. Yeah, right. Nope, sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but the only reason film audiences give a damn about Peter Parker is because he IS Spider-Man. That is the appeal. We don't go to the movies to see ordinary people who are bored with their jobs and short on money; most of us live that every day. (To go off on a tangent- is anyone really surprised that all the films about the Iraq War bombed? Same thing. How many wives said to their husbands, "Honey, let's go see that new movie about the Iraq War?" Not too many, apparently.) No, and this should be a no-brainer: the appeal of a superhero movie is the superhero. That's what both the kids and adults go to see. Which brings up another dichotomy- the actors who play them are inevitably cast to be believable as the alter ego, not the superhero. (The only reason Michael Keaton was convincing as Batman was that when he put on that muscle-rippling bat-suit, he ceased being Michael Keaton.) Unfortunately, Tobey Maguire never stops being Tobey Maguire, even when he's Spider-Man. There is a scene late in the movie when Spider-Man is angry about Mary Jane being kidnapped; he rips off the chains that bind him and we are ready for a great roar of fury, but no, all that we hear is that whining, Mickey Mouse/Peter Parker voice pleading with Harry Osborn to help. And yet, this is something that is not immediately noticeable and Spider-Man 2 is certainly one of the best superhero films ever made, with enough great action scenes and wonderful special effects to make up for the dead spots. And was there ever a more fully realized super-villain than Alfred Molina's Dr. Octopus? Costumes, computer graphics, and model work are melded seamlessly with Molina's inspired performance to make a truly unforgettable screen character. It's fair to say that the presence of Doc Ock is what pushes Spider-Man 2 over the top into something much more than a comic book flick. J.K. Simmons is a joy to watch as always as the blustery J. Jonah Jameson. Kirsten Dunst remains a very fetching Mary Jane Watson, the quintessential girl-next-door who it's impossible not to fall in love with. But the director, Sam Raimi, loves to focus on down-on-his-luck Peter Parker and it frankly becomes depressing, almost morbidly so at times. Someone should tell him that a minute and a half of happiness at the end of the film doesn't make up for two hours of Peter Parker being yelled at, dumped by his girlfriend, hit on the head, and in general endlessly humiliated by everyone from his landlord to his supposed 'best friend.' It's actually a relief to see Dr. Octopus come along and taunt Spider-Man; at least Spider-Man fights back. Peter Parker is just a hopeless wimp. I know... maybe that's the point, but Raimi's approach is overkill to me. So a mixed bag, but between Molina's menacing portrayal and the slam-bang action sequences and effects, there's plenty to enjoy here.