A lot of fun. Definitely

Rating: 7/10 (23 June 2002)

It's with a mixed feeling of different expectations I sit down in the cinema to watch SPIDER-MAN. I had a hope to see a Great Superheroflick, in the same class as Tim Burton's masterpiece BATMAN (1989). Then I had this more realistic spidersense telling me that "you know, this'll probably be a lot of fun, but really nothing else". Well, my sense was more right than my hopes, but "a lot of fun" is kind of an understatement; It's REALLY a lot of fun watching SPIDER-MAN.
First off, there is two things that made me want to see this film;
1. As a kid Spidey was my idol, and Marvel my heaven. This resulted in me knowing state-of-the-art-geek-stuff for the rest of my life. Therefore when time came for "Spidey the movie", my ancient knowledge sparked to life, at least for a while, and for just a couple of hours I was all back to my 11-year-old-mania.
2. My favorite director, Sam Raimi isn't, but I have faith in the man and I trust him to make a fun flick. As a horrorfan his THE EVIL DEAD (1982) remains more or less as a gift. His directing is wild and crazy, unstoppable but therefore also guaranteed to float out of the frames. But I heard Raimi would be a bit more down-to-earth, in SPIDER-MAN. Well that sounded good.
Indeed, Raimi doesn't get all that carried away, even though the movie ooze from his fun directing manners. If you've seen DARKMAN (1990) or ARMY OF DARKNESS (1993) you'll see that SPIDER-MAN has the same crazed tempo. Of course BRUCE CAMPBELL does a semi-cameo, Raimi holds up his traditions. Yeah, about the actors, SPIDER-MAN's lineup gives us three stars in the leading roles, Tobey Maguire, Willem Dafoe and Kirsten Dunst. They are no real favs of mine, but it's a good combination: all three of them are just about as OK actors. Dafoe did his thing, Dunst was cute (as always), I think Maguire stood out making Peter Parker a truly sympathetic character. Of course, to make an a-lot-of-fun-actionadventure these days requires some heavy artilleries from the digital front. True, the digital effects are slick and perfect for the entertainment-meter. When Spidey swings around Manhattan, I can't do nothing else but kick off my shoes (I literary did this) and lean back and just enjoy the ride. 'Cause that is what you gotta do in a movie like this. Forget that it contains two love-declarations, one from Maguire and one from Dunst, that are absolutely ridiculous (and that the dialogues overall are no hotshots). Then you'll have a lot of fun. My rating is 7/10, a bit of a challanger to BATMAN RETURNS (1992) and proving that BATMAN (1989) still is the best.
Buy the way. There is a Spider-Man 2 and 3 coming up. Good idea. This movie was very true to the comicbook it was based on, but Spidey lacked his unresistable wits and some of the stuff that are basic to the Spidey-reader are not yet shown off in the movie. Hopefully we'll see more of this in the sequels. Even though I wonder... Sam Neill as DocOc? Bring in Eddie Brock!