SPIDER-MAN

Well, it’s been hyped and hyped and then just to make sure, a little more hype has been thrown in that little machine known as the Hollywood film release: Another year and another comic comes to celluloid and by the looks of things this one here’s for the staying. While it was Batman in the late 80s and 90s, the man with webs he can ping out of his wrists and wall crawling abilities may well be the hero for the 2000s.

In some ways this is really two films, one building up the character of Peter Parker (is there a general predilection amongst superhero creators for alliteration: Clark Kent?) a.k.a. Spider-man and the other getting down to the beating of those evil people, with lots of leaping about, dangling from drainpipes and building swinging. Before the film I wasn’t entirely convinced by the casting of Tobey Maguire as our main do- gooder, partly because he’s been in some solid dramas where character acting is of the essence, or to put it another way, films where the scripts are more important than effects. But in a true ‘reviewer sees the light’ moment I was proved wrong. The fact that he is such a good actor makes him all the more believable, which isn’t something I expect from blockbusters. Consequently there weren’t nearly as many ‘stop talking and get on with the kicking’ feelings as I was prepared for. The only moments these feelings did creep to the surface they were a result of the sometimes beyond cringe- worthy script. Screenwriters still seem to have problems addressing the many aspects of relationships in a relatively quick fire way (so the kicking can be resumed) without making you sink so low in your seat you have actually slipped in to the row in front.

The film does take its character building quite seriously with our hero, but there seems to be a rule that baddies should never be sympathised with that greatly. Willem Dafoe is a deft baddie, as he always is, complete with schizophrenic mirror scenes, which have to be seen. I’m not entirely sure if they were meant to be the funniest in the film, but great they are. Baddies often seen to have the best costumes and much more advanced gadgets (not that I’m influenced by appearances) and the Green Goblin is a visual joy: a green muscle outfit with aerodynamic head gear and a missile shooting glider, which put down our Spidy’s mere web building abilities a rung or two. There were even moments when I wondered if Spider would triumph with all his limbs intact, but then, being a hardened cynic, I realised that the film producers are probably not yet ready for an armless superhero to appear in the sequels.

Blockbusters still have a few advancements to make in terms of their ‘real-life’ characters, such as how Kirsten Dunst’s boyfriend can possibly have enough money to finance a flash new car that he parades to Ms Dunst’s glee (though being the Spider’s love interest she can’t really be that impressed by material goods. Obviously.) when he appears not to have a trust fund and only be 17? But small matter - films like this one should not be viewed for their continuity and accuracy.

So, in terms of fights, effects and all things gadgety, don’t expect ‘The Matrix’ with a superhero, though, as with so many action films made afterwards, there are many nods to the technology it used. Do expect a great deal of humour and sheer joy - a superhero who has fun after waking up one morning with plentiful pecs and the ability to climb walls and jump rooftops. And so he should. Being Hollywood the morals are re-iterated a touch too frequently, but if you can live with that and a few soppy moments (but would it be the same without them?) you should leave smiling. Maybe I’m not that hardened a cynic after all.

Liz Buckle 06.06.02