Spiderman
Grade:
|
 |
Plot Summary:
Based on the popular comic book, Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider giving him super powers which he uses to fight crime, including the Green Goblin. Much ticket-buying follows...
Opinion:
Going into 2002, the makers of Spiderman were undoubtedly hoping for a hit--defined as earning perhaps $150-$200 million domestically, similar to the 'X-Men' comic adaptation from two years before. Perhaps they were even hoping "Spiderman" would approach the $250 million mark set by the original "Batman" in 1989--the top earning comic book movie at the time.. At the end of the year, though...things had gone quite a bit different than expected: Spiderman ended up with over
$400 million in the US alone, not only taking the crown for highest grossing comic book movie, but landing snugly at #5 on the list of
all-time box office kings, right behind "Titanic", "E.T.", and "Star Wars: Episodes 1 and 4".
It probably shouldn't, but the amount of money a movie earns (especially significantly large or small amounts) tends to color opinions of that movie, not only in Hollywood, but in the eyes of the average movie-goer. A certain backlash can arise against movies that you may not have hated when you saw it, but that earned more money than you think it
deserved. Words like 'overrated' get tossed around frequently whenever either box-office totals or lavish critical praise don't exactly match up with one's personal opinion. Sure, "Spiderman" is a decent movie, but was it really better than the first "Batman" ($251 million, 29th all-time) or the second "X-Men" ($215 million, 48th all-time), especially $150 million better?
So, yes, Spiderman is 'overrated' in my opinion--although that doesn't mean it's a
bad movie or even an average one. It is a good (not great) superhero flick that I would rank slightly below "X2" and "Batman" and no, it probably didn't 'deserve' to earn $400 million, but as they say in "Unforgiven"--"
Deserve's ain't got nothing to do with it..." And, after all, it's not like it's the filmmakers' fault the movie made more money than other similar films, is it?
Of course, Spiderman isn't one of the top 5 films of all time--but no one views box-office totals as a direct indicator of quality anyway. While "E.T." is pretty universally liked, "Titanic" certainly has its detractors, and "Star Wars: Episode 1"? Well...that's a whole other article in itself. (Episode 1 has probably had a higher quantity of negative comments written about it than any other movie has from people who
STILL went to see it three or four times in the theater...) More interesting to me, is that "Spiderman" doesn't seem to be on anyone's
personal Top 5 movie list either despite the box-office numbers. You don't hear massive volumes of praise from movie-goers over "Spiderman"--not like the "Titanic" lovers (read: teenage girls) or "Lord of the Rings" fans. It seems like most people liked it but no one really
loved it--but it just so happened that
everyone happened to go see it, which is all you need for a box-office smash.
("Gee, Baron, are you going to talk about the actual
movie at all, or waste time on the Spiderman 'phenomenon'"?) Well, okay then...let's discuss the movie apart from the amount of money it earned...
Spiderman's biggest asset--and the main reason for his popularity--is not that his powers are particularly brilliant or unique, but rather his normal identity Peter Parker is compelling and attractive to readers. Superman, for example, is a good, virtuous person, but he's hard to really identify with since he's more or less perfect--with no significant character flaws (the 'Nephi' of the superheroes, if you will...) On the opposite end of the spectrum, Batman is less than perfect--but he's sullen, isolated, and withdrawn (not to mention extremely rich...) and not easy to identify with either (nor terribly likeable even--there was a reason the Joker got more screen time in the first Batman movie). Peter Parker, on the other hand, has the best of both worlds: he's inherently a good person who tries to help other people the best he can, but he's also very human--insecure and socially clumsy at times. He's someone you
can identify with...and cheer for. The film is helped by director Sam Raimi's unconventional choice of the relatively obscure Tobey Maguire as Peter (quick, name any of Tobey's pre-Spiderman films...) Because of Peter's inherent likeability, the first half of "Spiderman" is the better half, because it's centered around Peter and his struggles in life, not his superhero alter-ego. In the second half, once the masks go on and the CGI takes over, the film isn't nearly as compelling. Not
bad, mind you, but not as significant on the human level.
Willem Dafoe does fine as the Green Goblin, although all things considered, the Green Goblin isn't all that interesting a villain. He doesn't really have any special abilities of his own except for a little bit of super strength--he relies more on advanced technology for his villainy.
Minor point, though. In the end, "Spiderman" provides basically what the audience is looking for--a good guy to cheer for in the fight against evil, some strong moral lessons, and an entertaining two hours.
Content Analysis: (PG-13, 0-3-4-1 on the Baron's scale)
"Spiderman" is pretty violent--in a 'stylized comic-book action' way. This isn't a kid's movie (although I know people who took their 5-year old children to see it...
egad!) On the plus side, though, we have a variety of good role models for character and virtue, from Peter's uncle and aunt, to Peter himself, who is an ordinary kid who does good things for other people because he
can.
In-depth Analysis:
The key sequence in "Spiderman"--taken directly from the comics--is when Peter's uncle is killed by a man Peter himself had a chance to stop, but didn't. The Spiderman theme "With great power comes great responsibility" directly echoes D&C 82:3 which reads
"For of him unto whom much is given, much is required". The parable of the talents in the New Testament teaches the same principle: those who have received a greater amount of gifts have the responsibility to use them. While Spiderman and his powers exist outside the bounds of reality (read: the plan of salvation), if we consider them as just another 'spiritual gift' then we can understand the driving force behind Peter's desire to do good--having the capability (or the opportunity) to do good but not doing it can be just as bad as doing evil.
In the Church, we talk a lot about sins of 'commission' and 'omission' and while the 'commission' kind seem to get more emphasis in modern society, the 'omission' ones can be just as bad. The parable of the good Samaritan, for example, shows the fallacy of assuming 'not doing bad things' equals 'doing good' as a couple of people--despite not being the ones who ambushed the traveller in the first place--have the opportunity to help him but don't. Peter's original failing which resulted in his uncle's death was one of 'omission' which is why he's compelled to help others whenever he can...and presents a good lesson to the audience as well.
Peter also denies himself the opportunity to be with Mary Jane--an honorable and selfless sacrifice, although all things considered, he (Peter) was already pretty well-known as being 'Spiderman's photographer' so there was already a pretty solid link to him anyway (as demonstrated in Spiderman 2). If I were him, I would have just taken the girl and not worried so much about what would happen in the future...
Random Notes and Comments:
(1) The one major departure from the comic book was the source of Spiderman's webs. In the movie, they are part of Peter's spider powers and come out of his body naturally, while in the original comics, Peter creates the web slingers using his background in chemistry. Sam Raimi, the director, made this decision deliberately to fix what he saw as the main "flaw" in the comics--namely, it's unrealistic for a high school chemistry whiz, no matter how brilliant, to be able to create a man-made adhesive that's many times better than anything the world had created up to that point. Not that 'realism' plays a large part in comic books, but since the bounds of reality were already exceeded by the spider powers in the first place, better off just to include the webs as part of Peter's new natural abilities rather than strain credulity even further (Peter Parker's main attraction, remember, is his 'normalness'...)
(2)...of course, if they were going to be REALLY realistic about it, the webs would have come out of Peter's butt, rather than his wrists...but then the sight of Spiderman slinging his way around the city wouldn't be very aesthetically pleasing to the eye, now would it?
(3) September 11th had a significant impact on the creation of the Spiderman movie. The original teaser trailer featured a helicopter getting caught in a web spun between the two towers of the World Trade Center. Although it's unclear whether that was ever intended to become part of the actual movie, instead of just a teaser, that trailer disappeared soon after the World Trade Center towers did anyway. The towers were also deleted from all other scenes in the movie (almost), but can still be seen in the reflection in Spiderman's mask in a couple of instances. 9/11, unfortunately, also led to the worst line in the entire movie:
(4) "Hey...you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!" Oh, my gosh...(*gag*) I couldn't believe I just heard that... I'm skeptical that that line and the sequence with the people who said it was in the script before 9/11. I have as much sympathy for the people of New York as the next guy, but this scene was really transparent and lame.
(5) In the comic book, the son of the original Green Goblin followed in his father's footsteps and became a Spidey villain (the Hobgoblin, I believe). Obviously, they are setting up the film series to follow this path as well. Shouldn't it be obvious, though, even without an autopsy that Norman Osborn died of metallic puncture wounds to the chest which doesn't really correspond with Spiderman 'killing' him. Harry might not be in a state of mind to think about this clearly, but no one else in this movie or the sequel mentions this either...
