Okay, but far from Raimi's Best

Rating: Null/10 (20 February 2003)

I enjoyed SPIDER-MAN for what it is: a brainless cartoon. It held my attention, I liked the actors, had no problem with the Green Goblin outfit as some viewers did, and thought the special effects were neat. But that's just why this movie was somewhat disappointing for me: neat. It was neat. Not thrilling, not exciting, not suspenseful. Just neat.
Unlike SUPERMAN and BATMAN, character development takes a back seat. Tobey Maguire becomes Spider-Man because he got bit by a radioactive spider and Willem Dafoe becomes the Green Goblin because he's crazy. But I refused to let that bother me, as the movie is supposed to be fun, not thought provoking.
I didn't mind the hokey humor, because it captured the flavor of the comic book. I thought all the dialogue, pacing and romance had a very comic book feel to it, which is what the movie was striving for. So why did I not like it very much?
The sole reason lies in the special effects. I'm not the biggest fan of CGI in general, but if it's done well (as in the astonishing STARSHIP TROOPERS, or even ATTACK OF THE CLONES) it can be very effective. But the effects in SPIDER-MAN are so cartoonish and synthetic looking, it takes away from the fun for me, as opposed to adding to it.
The effects techinicians boast that almost all footage of Manhattan is computer generated, and that all the footage of Spider-Man leaping from building to building and swinging between them is computer generated. And therein lies the problem for me. It just isn't exciting. Because I'm all too aware that it's fake, and therefore cannot get lost in it. It looks cool, and is fun to watch, but I was never at the edge of my seat with excitement, as I was watching SUPERMAN or BATMAN. Their mixture of special effects and live action was balanced enough to constantly view the heroes as characters, even if they were filmed against a blue screen or shot with miniatures. But when Spider-Man is swinging around, while the "camera" swoops through the city, it always looks like a cartoon, and the thrill is gone for me.
After THE MATRIX and STARSHIP TROOPERS, CGI no longer appeals much to me. I've seen it done before, and better, and more imaginatively. Seeing animated figures doing acrobatics in midair just isn't "amazing" anymore. Watching SPIDER-MAN, I was reminded of an earlier Sam Raimi movie, DARKMAN. There is a scene in DARKMAN in which Liam Neeson (or at least his stunt double) is hanging from a cable underneath a helicoptor and soaring above the city. The moment was so thrilling it gave me chills to watch. Why? Because there was a real guy really hanging onto a real helicopter that was really flying a thousand feet over the city. You cannot beat realism when it comes to action in movies. Special effects usually don't cut it. I long for the days when movies like SHARKY'S MACHINE, BULLITT, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and HOOPER marvelled me with real-life, death defying stunt work. SPIDER-MAN and other CGI-heavy movies like it, are out to put yet another aspect of the industry out of business. If you can replace make-up effects, production design and stunt work with CGI effects, who the hell needs people?