Derivative Super Heroics

Rating: 4/10 (4 May 2002)

Before I start citing better super-hero movies (there are several), I would just like to say that while I found this film to be highly derivative of its counterparts (as well as of other genres), I must say that I was totally impressed that the entire audience applauded when the picture ended. Of course, this was an afternoon matinee on a Saturday so seven tenths of the audience was under the age of ten which means that most people there were not old enough to remember how good Batman was (let alone Superman).

On only his third attempt to sell out, and even following a Kevin Costner vehicle, Sam Raimi has finally hit his crowd pleaser. Hell, if Ron Howard can go from Grinch to Oscar in just two pictures then just about anything you can imagine should be possible.
I'm going to keep this simple. I didn't hate this movie. At times I found myself enjoying it, thinking that things could be much worse. In fact, for all of its shortcomings (which follow) I must confess that the filmmakers did a fine job of establishing a mood and aesthetic for this super-hero movie that is all-together much brighter than most other super-hero movies. But after the picture let out, I couldn't think of one thing that I really liked about the film.
So what's wrong? A lot of the acting was bad though. Raimi's charm as a character director seemed absent save for Bruce Campbell's wrestling emcee. To any Raimi fan, this would come as no surprise. Dunst, who was brilliant in Jordan's Interview with the Vampire, was flat and managed to salvage nothing of an already terrible (and empty-headed) female character, Mary Jane. (Rachel True's Mary Jane was superior in the 1998's pot comedy, Half-Baked.) Tobey McGuire, and Willem Defoe are capable of much, much more. I shouldn't need to cite references here. Semi-newcomer James Franco's performance was probably the least disappointing of the lot, though his character was likely the weakest.
(WARNING *** SOME MINOR SPOILING AHEAD ****)
Several narrative elements seem to be drawing on and owing their success to other better movies with similar ideas. For example, Peter Parkers metamorphosis process may remind some viewers of David Cronenberg's most commercial picture, The Fly. In another sequence, Franco comes home to the sound of his father screaming upstairs in their cavernous home; a moment reminiscent of Kubrick's film, The Shining, when Wendy hears Jack screaming in the main hall.
(NO MORE SPOILING)
Then there's Elfman's score. Boy howdy! It was probably the most derivative element of the entire film! It sounded pretty much like EVERY OTHER Danny Elfman score, except for the ones where he rips off John Williams, like Good Will Hunting.
Lastly, there was simply too much CG. Hollywood action movies seem to have degraded to an intellectual level that sinks beneath 3-D light shows and firework ceremonies. The cynics will feel that this has always been true...but I contend that the richness of characters, performance, and story lines in Superman and Batman will forever be far superior to the CG smoke and mirrors that make attractions like Spider-man earn $41 million dollars on their respective opening weekends.
Enough said on Spider-man. Decide for yourselves...and before you take issue with my point of view on this piece, watch Superman.