not up there with other comic book movies

Rating: Null/10 (15 June 2002)

Perhaps it isn't all `Spider-Man's fault that it was released 24 years after the original `Superman' or 13 years after the original `Batman' movies. But the fact is that those films beat this new film considerably to the punch, which probably explains why `Spider-Man,' for all its sophisticated special effects, feels decidedly Old Hat  especially compared to the infinitely more complex and sophisticated `X-Men' from a few years back, not to mention the brilliant `Darkman' from way back in 1990. That last comparison is particularly apt since' Spider-Man's director, Sam Raimi, virtually cut his teeth on that film. In `Darkman,' Raimi brought a seriousness of purpose and a uniqueness of vision to the project that helped to carry the comic book movie genre to new artistic heights. `Spider-Man,' though inoffensive, seems bland and benign in comparison, calculated to reach the widest audience possible (which apparently it has succeeded in doing, a fact that says less about the quality of the movie, perhaps, than about the undemanding tastes of modern moviegoers).
`Spider-Man' seems so by-the-book in its narrative, tone and purpose that it never soars much above the ordinary and never carries the audience to the kind of exciting, visionary world one would expect from a film of this type. The movie is blessed in one all-important respect though: its inspired decision to cast Tobey Maguire in the lead role of Peter Parker, a mild mannered nerd who becomes a super hero after he's bitten by a genetically altered spider. Maguire's winning and disarming performance is the film's one incontestable virtue. All else seems problematic, beginning with the storyline, which plays virtually by rote. One needn't list all the conventional elements, starting with the poor, picked-on geek who can't get the girl he loves to even acknowledge his existence, the loving, older guardians who support their boy in everything he does, the tortured super villain (in this case, the Green Goblin) who is both the hero's alter ego as well as his arch nemesis. All this is, of course, par for the course, but I guess the thing I object to the most is that the tone is simply too innocuous and sunny. The film can't generate any real suspense or excitement because the threats seem so halfhearted. By the same token, the film doesn't have much of a playful spirit either. The love scenes between Spider-Man and his truelove, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), work only because the actors themselves are so likable in the roles. Otherwise, the romantic element is as underwhelming and clichéd as virtually every other feature of the film. Probably the most unaccountable aspect of the plot is that, despite the fact that Spider-Man does only good for the citizens of Manhattan, we keep being told that the citizens are ambiguous in their attitudes towards him. Yet, we are given no reason to credit this possibility for even a split second. It is an arbitrary plot device thrown in to try and generate some desperately needed suspense in an admittedly pretty lackluster screenplay.
Which pretty much leaves us with the special effects. Though adequate at times, many of the shots of Spider-Man swooping along the streets of New York City, his web suspended from the tops of skyscrapers, seem strangely unconvincing. Perhaps since we feel no immediate involvement in the proceedings, the special effects sequences never manage to catch us up in the excitement of what they are showing us. One keeps hoping and expecting to be carried away by the film, but it simply never happens.
`Spider-Man' simply does not rate the box office revenue it has earned.