barely competent drama undermined by unfaithful adaptation

Rating: 6/10 (13 May 2002)

There are two ways to look at Spider-man. One is as a summer escapist movie about a teenager undergoing a startling transformation from nerd to superhero. The other is as the first motion picture based on the 40 year old comic book character. In the first sense, Spider-man is a modestly entertaining summer action pic. The characters are sympathetic and there is just enough story cohesion to make the film satisfying. I didn't feel cheated, but I wasn't anxious to step in line to see it again either. The dialogue could be mediocre at times, but no worse than some other films of this genre. There were some ridiculously melodramatic touches--like the two romantic leads having lived beside each other for 12 years and never having spoken a word to each other---but overall the film delivered what it promised. And that was all.
But as a longtime Spidey fan I could find some other faults with the film, changes to the accepted history, which in one case actually undermined the film as a coherent drama.
Sam Raimi demonstrated that he could visualize a comic book world like no one else with Darkman(1990), although that heavy-handed melodramatic film suffered from a cruel streak--as if mocking the trials and tribulations of the tortured main character. Echoes of Darkman are found throughout Spider-man. Nevertheless, I welcomed the selection of Raimi--until word spread that he had decided that an audience could not accept that a high school science nerd in an IMAGINARY, FICTITIOUS, LARGER THAN LIFE, COMIC BOOK-INSPIRED movie would be able to come up with mechanical webshooter devices--a trademark attribute of the comic book character and every television incarnation. Instead, they would be organic--existing as part of the mutation Peter Parker develops from the spider bite. Now, one could point out that developing super powers from a spider bite is also difficult to accept, as is the idea that a man from another planet who looks completely human could fly around in a red cape and shoot laser beams from his eyes. But alas, the decision was made. High schooler Peter Parker would have to demonstrate his scientific genius by... writing a term paper on nano-technology, and prove his creative genius by being a rather skilled fashion artist and costume designer! Some Hollywood apologists counter that we could not expect any screen time to the webshooter fabrication because of the length of the movie. Nonsense. A one minute-montage would have sufficed. No audience member would have walked out in protest. But the webshooter issue is actually minor in comparison to another change in the origin story. In the comics, Peter originally had no friends, and while he was interested in girls he did not have any particular crush. The decision was made to condense his social experiences so that his later friend Harry Osbourne would be introduced from the beginning(thus removing Parker's status as a loner) , and to establish that Mary Jane Watson was his destined love(an embellishment not established in the comics until 20 years later). This latter change undermines the story of Peter Parker, devoting far too much screen time to the personal problems of Mary Jane as well as Harry, and creating an awkward moment for the film's conclusion. In the comics, Peter was always concerned that some super-villain would discover his true identity and hurt his loved ones---but the manner in which this is conveyed in the film's final moments is problematic and left some members of the audience I viewed the film with wondering: (MINOR SPOILER) "Huh? After all that talk about how he loved her, he rebuffs her advances?"
One other change worthy of note: The character of Flash Thompson is reduced to a one dimensional bully--in the comics he tormented Peter Parker but was actually Spider-man's number one fan.
The cast was certainly competent, given the material they were working with. Maguire and Dunst were sufficient in their roles, although i would not say that neither of them embodied the spirit of comic book characters. Maguire's Peter Parker was sympathetic, but subdued, lacking the introspection and expressiveness of his comic book counterpart(and as stated above, wallowing too much on his relationship with Mary Jane). As Spider-man, he did not employ many wise cracks and taunts, another trademark of the comic book and cartoon persona. Dunst's Mary Jane was well played, but her interest in Peter Parker was obvious from the beginning--a very artificial love story.
With the exception of the final shot of Spider-man, the FX work relied too much on computer graphics that were not always convincing, and in some cases distant, detracting from an epic feel to the visuals. The biggest design problem would have to be the decision to hide Willem Dafoe's face under an expressionless helmet rather than make up prosthetics. It detracted from the performance in a couple of key scenes. And the music was truly sub-par. Recycling the tv cartoon theme from the 1960s would have contributed more energy (although they did find a way to incorporate it into the film at one brief point). Overall, Spider-man does not achieve the accomplishment of the original Superman, nor does it fall as flat as Batman.