REVIEWS

"SPIDER-MAN"

I hated "fanboys." There was a time where I'd spend about fifty dollars a week on comic books, and every single comic book I bought, I read. I loved comic books, and I respected comic books, but the fanboys didn't care about them in the least. See, fanboys didn't care about the stories inside, they only cared about the artwork. But I don't think they cared about the artwork because of the beauty of the art. No, I think they looked at the artwork, figured the comic would go up in price because of the cool art, and then they'd "bag and board" it, and never open it again. They wanted to see the price go up, that's all. These people would buy every #1 issue, every Image comic (Image Comics had the best artists), and they would buy anything with a gimmick cover. Some covers would have foil embossing, some would have a special limited edition alternative version, some would be die-cut, some would glow in the dark, and so on. At one point, there was a comic book that had 13 different covers. Unbelievable. These idiots went outta their way to get all 13 covers (the issue was "Gen13" #1). In all fairness, there were some fanboys who DID respect the writing, so they don't count. For example, my good buddy AJ bought almost every Image comic, every gimmick cover, and all that, but he also read the good, respectable stuff like "Sandman" and "Strangers in Paradise" (the latter of which I got him into, I'm proud to say). Though it's different now, at the time, DC Comics had the best writers, and aside from Image Comics, the best artists were at Marvel Comics (which almost seemed to be where all the good artists would get their start until they went to Image). Marvel had great artists, but bad writing. Because of this, I hated Marvel Comics, and I hated Image Comics. The writing sucked!! DC Comics (especially their more mature "Vertigo" line) had the best writing, but Marvel and Image didn't seem to care about the quality of the writing, they seemed to care only about appealing to the evil fanboys.

At that point, the "Spider-Man" comics really, really sucked. When Todd McFarlane (who later went on to create "Spawn" at Image, which, by the way, was the only comic at Image that I had any respect for) was doing the art for "Spider-Man," the artwork was so revolutionary (and eventually ripped off by everyone else) that at least it had that. The writing was crap, but the art by Todd McFarlane really WAS spectacular. Then he left, and... wow. It wasn't pretty. It went from bad to worse, to much worse. At it's lowest point, the "Spider-Man" comics had some pathetic clone storyline that was unforgivably awful. Even Marvel Comics wants to forget that it ever happened. But ya know what? Despite my hatred of Marvel Comics (which I like a lot now, thanks to the current Editor there, Joe Quesada), and despite the crappy stories at the time, I always liked "Spider-Man." Sure, the comics sucked back then, but the character was really cool. I loved the concept of "Spider-Man," and I really liked the story of how he came to be. I can relate to it. Really, any comic book geek can. And it helps that I LOVED that popular cartoon from years ago. Oh, you know the song, right? Well, if you don't, here are the lyrics:

Spider-Man, Spider-Man
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size
Catches thieves, just like flies
Look out! Here comes the Spider-Man!

Is he strong? Listen, Bud!
He's got radioactive blood.
Can he swing from a thread?
Take a look overhead.
Hey there, there goes the Spider-Man!

In the chill of night,
At the scene of the crime
Like a streak of light
He arrives just in time

Spider-Man, Spider-Man
Friendly neighborhood Spider-Man
Wealth and fame, he's ignored
Action is his reward

To him, life is a great big bang-up
Wherever there's a hang-up
You'll find the Spider-Man!

So yeah, I've always liked the character of "Spider-Man," even back when the comic books were horrible. And I really wanted there to be a well-done "Spider-Man" movie. There was that shitty and short-lived TV-series from the 70s, the one with Nicholas Hammond, but I think we'd all like to forget that atrocity. No, I wanted a really cool, kickass, special effects-heavy movie that we comic book geeks could be proud of. Imagine how pumped I was when I found out that one of my favorite directors, James Cameron, was gonna direct it. Wow, I can't begin to tell you how excited I was. The man who directed "Aliens," "The Terminator," "Terminator 2," and "True Lies" was the PERFECT guy to make a "Spider-Man" movie! The problem was that the rights to the movie were in legal limbo. James Cameron decided to wait it out, and while waiting, he made a little movie you may have heard of called "Titanic." "Titanic" was a box office sensation, becoming the biggest, most successful movie of all-time (even "Star Wars: Episode One - The Phantom Menace," which was the most eagerly anticipated movie of all-time, didn't come close to matching the box office success of "Titanic"). After the box office reign of "Titanic," the courts figured everything out, and "Spider-Man" was no longer in legal limbo... but James Cameron suddenly had a change of heart. The movie that at one time he considered to be his baby was no longer something he was interested in. Ugh. I was really bummed about that, and pissed at James Cameron. The search was on for a new director.

Of all the names being tossed about, the one I was most excited about was David Fincher. At the time, he had directed "Seven," "The Game," and "Fight Club." In the hands of David Fincher, "Spider-Man" would be a lot darker, but the movie would definitely be awesome. He eventually turned it down. Again, I was bummed, but he made "Panic Room" since then, so at least he provided us with another really good movie. Finally, a director was announced. Sony Pictures decided that the director of "Spider-Man" would be Sam Raimi.

Hmmm... Sam Raimi. I wasn't sure how I felt about that. At the time, I only saw one movie directed by Sam Raimi, and that was "Darkman." I remember liking it a lot. It was cheesy, and the special effects were crappy, but he was very creative with the camera, which I liked. Also, I had seen a few minutes of one of the "Evil Dead" movies, though I don't remember which one, and I remember liking the camera moves there, too, so I knew that if nothing else, it would look cool. But at the time of the announcement, "A Simple Plan" had just come out, and it was a more mature Sam Raimi behind the camera. I hadn't seen the movie, but I read the reviews. Critics liked the movie, but gone were the wacky camera acrobatics that were so common in a movie directed by Sam Raimi. Would it be the old Sam Raimi directing "Spider-Man," or would it be the new, more mature one? Quite honestly, I wanted the old one.

Since then, I've seen almost every single movie Sam Raimi directed (the only one I missed was "Crimewave," which he disowned anyway... apparently, the studio was evil to him while making it, and also, they chopped it up severely). I saw "The Gift" when it was released theatrically, and I liked it. "The Gift" was the movie he finished just before signing on to direct "Spider-Man." Then I did some DVD renting. I saw "For Love of the Game" (though it was the mature Sam Raimi directing, critics bashed it... surprisingly, I enjoyed it), "A Simple Plan" (slow, but entertaining, and very well acted), "The Quick and the Dead" (a fast-paced western that's silly and fun), and all three movies in the "Evil Dead" trilogy, which I ended up buying the DVDs for. They include "The Evil Dead" (a brilliant no-budget horror film that marks the feature film debuts for director Sam Raimi and the very cool actor, Bruce Campbell... it's one of my favorite Sam Raimi films, and my favorite movie in the trilogy), "Evil Dead II" (incredibly insane comedy/horror film that shows why Bruce Campbell kicks so much ass... a great movie), and "Army of Darkness" (the third film in the "Evil Dead" trilogy... I prefer the proposed and rejected title of "The Medieval Dead"... pretty much a straight comedy, and it's another showcase for the great Bruce Campbell... make sure you see the Director's Cut... really good movie, though my least favorite of the three).

I saw the teaser and the trailers for "Spider-Man" (the teaser heavily featured the Twin Towers... after the tragedy of September 11th, it was pulled from theaters) somewhere in the middle of watching all the Sam Raimi movies, and from what I saw, it was clear that Sam Raimi directed "Spider-Man" with energy and pizzazz. I was really, really, really excited about seeing "Spider-Man"! And after seeing all of his movies, I knew that it was in the hands of probably the best man for the job. Besides, Sam Raimi is a comic book geek. This wasn't just another paycheck for him, he grew up on "Spider-Man." He respects the character. Screw James Cameron, Sony got the right director for this movie! I felt that way then, and I feel that way now having seen it.

I took the day off work and brought along my mom to the 11AM showing at the Regal Westfork movie theater in Miramar. She really wanted to see it, and I don't think she's ever seen a huge movie on opening day, so I decided to bring her with me. Despite having no clue about the "Spider-Man" comic books, she loved it. Hell, I think she even liked it more than I did. She was a lot more forgiving of the movie's flaws, and she really got a kick out of it. Me, I liked it a lot, but those flaws DID bug me. With movies based on comic books, there are things you just have to accept, but still... Who the hell built that costume? How is it that he could change into the "Spider-Man" costume so fast, he's not "The Flash." Actually, we're talking about Marvel Comics characters, so I should say "Quicksilver." And how is it that "The Green Goblin" is THAT strong? Towards the end, he does a feat of strength that's impossible, no matter how many performance enhancers he takes. But those nitpicky things aside, I really, really enjoyed this movie. I don't know if it's up there with the great superhero movies like "Superman" and "Batman Returns," but it's up there.

The cast does a remarkable job in this movie, especially Tobey Maguire as "Peter Parker" and "Spider-Man." He was in "Wonder Boys" with Michael Douglas and he starred in "The Cider House Rules," as well as the great movie, "Pleasantville." I think he's a good actor, he has a very low-key style that I like, but he always seems to play the same character. He's perfect in "Spider-Man," though. He goes through a wide range of emotions, and he does it all beautifully. When they were casting the role, I was thinking that Wes Bentley (the weirdo teenage neighbor in "American Beauty") would be perfect. He can do the dorkyness, and he could also have the intensity. However, after seeing the movie, I think that Sam Raimi was right in casting Tobey Maguire. Kirsten Dunst (star of "Bring It On" and "The Virgin Suicides"... it's hard to believe that she was the little girl in "Interview with the Vampire") plays "Mary Jane Watson," but if you read the comics, you'd know that she's more of a combination of "Mary Jane" and "Gwen Stacy." What happens to "Gwen Stacy" in issue #121 of "The Amazing Spider-Man" isn't a happy tale, and in issue #122, you see how "Spider-Man" deals with it. I don't wanna give away too much, but the end of this movie is very similar to issues #121 and #122. Those issues are kinda old, though. They were released the year I was born, 1973.

Willem Dafoe (the excellent actor who played "Jesus Christ" in the controversial Martin Scorsese masterpiece, "The Last Temptation of Christ"... he was also great as a fictionalized vampire version of German actor Max Schreck in the film "Shadow of the Vampire") plays "Norman Osborn" and "The Green Goblin." He did a good job, and I loved the "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" aspect of it, but the costume looks really, really stupid. It's horrible. His son, "Harry Osborn," is played by James Franco. I don't know anything about him except that he played "James Dean" in the TV-Movie of the same name. He's also in another movie opening this weekend, "Deuces Wild," but who's gonna see that? I thought his character was pretty dull, until the end. Those of you familiar with the comic books know where he's headed.

Other great performances include Cliff Robertson as "Uncle Ben," Rosemary Harris (who was in the movie Sam Raimi directed before this one, "The Gift") as "Aunt May," and J.K. Simmons as "J. Jonah Jameson." This is the third time J.K. Simmons is in a Sam Raimi movie. He was the baseball coach in "For Love of the Game," and he was the Sheriff in "The Gift."

There are a few cameos, one being the obligatory one by Stan Lee (the creator of many of the best Marvel Comics characters, including "Spider-Man"). The ones I like most are the ones by Lucy Lawless ("Xena" herself... "Xena" was a TV series that Sam Raimi helped produce, and Lucy Lawless is married to one of the other producers) and Bruce Campbell (the star of the "Evil Dead" movies). There's also a cameo by "the classic," the legendary yellow 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88 that Sam Raimi has put in almost all of his movies. It made it's first appearance in Raimi's first film, "The Evil Dead," so it's been around for a while.

Back when James Cameron was gonna direct "Spider-Man," he wrote a detailed treatment for the movie that was referred to as a "scriptment," and the people at Marvel liked it. Then he left the project. After Sam Raimi came aboard, he handed the writing chores to David Koepp (he helped write "Mission: Impossible" and "Jurassic Park," among others... he also wrote "Panic Room"). Some of the elements of the James Cameron scriptment were used, but from what I heard, David Koepp practically started from scratch. The only writer credited is David Koepp, so at least officially, he's the only writer. The script isn't perfect. A lot is left unexplained, and there's a lot crammed in there, but one thing I really appreciate is how true it is to the source material. A lot of what's in this movie, the actual storyline, is taken from the comic books. Very few movies based on superheroes can say that. Sure, the origin may be the same (though even THAT isn't always a guarantee), but this is probably the only movie based on a major comic book superhero where the story is taken right from the comic book. I hope that's what we get when "Batman: Year One" comes out (which, supposedly, is based directly on the very dark, gritty comic book mini-series of the same name written by the great Frank Miller). So yeah, the script is pretty good, but it could be better. Oh, and I must give the proper credit where it's due, the screenplay was based on the "Spider-Man" comic books created by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko.

Needless to say, there's gonna be a sequel. The director and the main stars signed for the sequel before this one was even released! I'm really looking forward to the sequel, but I have no clue what they'll do with the villains. "The Green Goblin" is a very complex villain (despite looking silly in the movie), but the other villains in the "Spider-Man" comics are simple, and they look very cheesy. I can't see how they'll work in a live-action movie. It's not like the villains in the "Batman" comics, most of whom are very complex. The MOST complex is "Two-Face," though you'd never know it by watching that horrible Joel Schumacher-directed piece of shit, "Batman Forever," where the character of "Two-Face" is reduced to just another cackling villain (for a great example of the complexities of "Two-Face," I recommend the graphic novel, "Batman: Arkham Asylum," which is written by Grant Morrison, and has amazing artwork by the great Dave McKean... but be careful, it's NOT a story for small kids).

Yeah, "Spider-Man" has it's flaws, not just in the story, but with the special effects. The computer animation is VERY obvious, and not convincing at all. The "Spider-Man" costume is awesome, but the costume for "The Green Goblin" is terrible. But regardless of the flaws, "Spider-Man" is a movie that really entertained me, and I think you should check it out, even if you don't like geeky comic book movies. My mom even liked it! Oh, and fanboys still suck.

Scale of 1-10: 8