Worldwide Webbed Wonder Reviews

The big-screen version of Spider-Man has finally arrived. For almost a decade, studios bickered over the rights while fans argued over the actors. Titanic director James Cameron wrote a script and seemed poised to helm the project, but the title went finally to Sam Raimi (Evil Dead, A Simple Plan). It apparently paid off: the movie grossed $114 million dollars in its first weekend, almost the entire cost of the film's production. The Webbed Wonder has torn asunder Harry Potter's box office record.

In a feat rarely achieved, a blockbuster action movie is also getting good reviews. Most critics found it high-spirited fun. The cast is extraordinary. Raimi couldn't have done better than Tobey Maguire as the awkward photographer Peter Parker, Kirsten Dunst as sweet and seductive Mary Jane, James Franco as Parker's friend Harry, and Willem Dafoe (who has played Jesus and various devils) as the Green Goblin. The cinematography is bright, vivid, and at times breathtaking. And scriptwriter David Koepp has the patience to develop characters we care about. Even in the battle scenes, Raimi never stoops to bullying the audience with chaos and explosions. He always keeps us grounded in action that reflects specific personalities and serious choices. Spider-Man is one of those rare adventure movies in which character, not violence, is the backbone of the film.

You probably know the film's story: On a class field trip, Peter Parker is bitten by a genetically enhanced spider, and after a fever, he wakes up with strange new powers. Maguire gives Parker just the right mix of exhilaration, bewilderment, and fear characteristic of boys who are becoming men. But Parker's powers are more than a coming-of-age metaphor. They raise questions about responsibility that resonate throughout the film.

All of this works wonderfully in the film's first hour. But then things turn into a routine showdown, and the flaws really start to show. Many critics complain that the digital animation propelling Spidey through action scenes is too obvious. Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) writes, "Not even during Spidey's first experimental outings do we feel that flesh and blood are contending with gravity … he's as convincing as Mighty Mouse." True. And there are other wrinkles. Obvious plot problems become distracting. (Parker fails to conceal his identity when he shows off his powers to classmates and an arena full of wrestling fans. So that bit about a "secret identity" is hard to believe.) Meanwhile, Danny Elfman's soundtrack is derivative and unremarkable. But the film succeeds in spite of it all. That first hour is an excellent example of how to enthrall audiences with strong character development and efficient storytelling.

Some religious press critics are thrilled with this first installment in what will likely be a long-running franchise. Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) declares that the movie "may be the most satisfying cinematic comic-book super-hero experience to date. Spider-Man has a swashbuckling flair and a style all its own." Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) raves, "This movie may actually live up to all of its hyphenated hype."

But Canadian Christianity critic Peter T. Chattaway muses, "I think there's a good film buried inside a pretty average film there." In comments at the Chiaroscuro Discussion Board, he writes, "The dialogue is too simplistic and expository. For the money they dumped on this film, I would have preferred [fewer] effects, and more attention paid to them." A critic for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops agrees about the effects and says that the film is "missing a compelling story line." But he adds, "Audiences may be willing to forgive the film these faults. Magnetic performances and an energetic pace fill in the narrative inconsistencies and lack of cohesion."

J. Robert Parks (Phantom Tollbooth) is frustrated by an overdose of overly sentimental "special moment" scenes between Parker and Mary Jane, Parker and Uncle Ben, Parker and Aunt May. "These outweigh the action sequences by several minutes and yet serve little purpose in either developing character or moving the story along. So yawns of boredom replace yelps of excitement. This puts me in the uncomfortable position of complaining about a blockbuster that actually tries to have some brains. I'm all for character development and interesting themes, but Spiderman doesn't pull it together."

Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter) is almost alone in his claim that the film "is brim full of the best special effects I can remember." But he complains, "It does misuse Jesus' name two times." Likewise, Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) and Paul Bicking (Preview) warn viewers about "graphic violence and impolite language."

Some Christian critics, however, cheer specifically because of the language. Ted Baehr (Movieguide) says the movie "is not only well-constructed, exciting and entertaining, but it is chock full of faith, much to our surprise." Likewise, Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight) celebrates "the role of prayer and faith" in the film. And Mike Furches (Hollywood Jesus) calls Spider-Man "the most spiritual of all super heroes." He adds, "What is even clearer is that his spirituality is rooted in Christianity."

This sounds like reason to celebrate. But where is the evidence that the film is, as Baehr and Furches claim, "full of faith" and "rooted in Christianity"? Their proof is that Spidey's Aunt May and Uncle Ben utter common God-oriented phrases—"Thank God," "Godspeed" and "God bless you." Furches draws special attention to Aunt May's recitation of the Lord's Prayer.

Holly McClure (Crosswalk), who also recommends the film, disagrees. "Although the story has a moral message and a hero who's a great role model, the few scenes of his aunt and uncle saying grace or the Lord's Prayer don't make it a 'spiritual' film. Even though the story takes place in the present day, I think the director was trying to hearken back to the culture and mentality of the '50s."

Indeed. If Harry Osborne says "Godspeed" it doesn't make him any more spiritual than if he wears a necklace with a crucifix. It is worth noting that exclamations of "Oh my God!" are equally common throughout Spider-Man. Regardless, the story's action—its play of choices and consequences—is where Spider-Man stands out. "With great power comes great responsibility," says Peter's Uncle Ben, and the story bears that out dramatically.

This theme is not unique to Spider-Man. My favorite movie about comic book heroes, M. Night Shayamalan's underrated Unbreakable, illustrated a hero's power/responsibility dilemma far more effectively. X-Men made more specific connections to Christian faith, highlighting the similarities between its troubled heroes and the persecuted early church. Superman takes the hero myth to such a level that he is sometimes interpreted as a Christ figure.

But there is one other hero that Spidey resembles more than any of these—a champion frequently attacked by Christian critics: Harry Potter. Compare the two. Both are orphans, raised by an aunt and uncle. Both develop magical powers—one through fairy tale magic, one through an accident of genetic experimentation. Parker and Potter struggle with the desire to misuse their gifts, but they face their challenges honorably. The villains they face are close acquaintances, each one hiding an "evil face." The boys become heroes, but instead of basking in the glory, they come to understand their duty. And both heroes are motivated by devotion to their loved ones. Are we really to believe that Spidey is spiritual because Aunt May says "God bless you," while Potter is satanic because he flies around on a hot-rod broom instead of a web? If Harry's whimsical tricks could lure children to the occult, perhaps Spider-Man will influence them to try genetic enhancements, jump off buildings, and carry out vigilante justice.

Spidey should be honored more for his morality than his spirituality. Stef Loy (Chiaroscuro) argues that Spidey is special because of his motivation: "Whereas Batman and Darkman operate out of a sense of revenge, Spider-Man operates out of a sense of guilt from the consequences of his own wrong actions. His motives are more pointed than any of the super heroes I've seen on the big screen so far, and it's nice to have a little bit of depth from our protagonist for a change"

Spider-Man "touches something very primal within us," says Jamee Kennedy (The Film Forum). "In this crazy, unpredictable, and evil-filled world we want to feel safe. We want power over evil and we want evil to be destroyed. Superheroes like Spider-Man allow us, for two hours, to believe that no matter what happens, there is someone out there to protect us. What's great about all this, besides the fun to be had, is that superheroes, can pave the way to understanding the true superhero of the universe."

The debate over which comic book movie is the most exciting, the most fun, and the most meaningful will go on for a long time. And there will be plenty of opportunity to return to the subject here, as Ang Lee's Hulk looms on the horizon, Bryan Singer's X-Men 2 is being prepared, and Spider-Man's cast and director have signed on for sequels.

Hot from the Oven

Moviegoers looking for a "sure thing" can celebrate the return of a classic. Milos Forman's grand, powerful biopic Amadeus-The Director's Cut is in selected theatres around the country, giving its longtime fans an extra 35 minutes of never-before-seen footage.

From Tom Hulce's unforgettable, giddy cackle to F. Murray Abraham's scornful scowl, Amadeus is as funny, dramatic, and dazzling as it was when it opened. It rewards multiple viewings—there's just so much to enjoy. Sensational performances by a first-rate cast. A witty, intelligent script. Decadent productions of great opera. A hit parade of Mozart's greatest work. And a story that raises profound spiritual questions. (Viewers should note, however, that the 35 extra minutes raises the originally PG movie to an R, mainly due to some nudity when Salieri blackmails Mozart's wife, Constanza. On the other hand, there's also much more of Salieri praying in the new version).

Most religious critics haven't written about the re-release. But Eric and Lisa Rice (Movieguide) say, "The movie clearly shows that one can make a god of talent, and that bitterness left unhealed can lead to sickness, both physical and mental. It also shows that wounds left by performance-oriented parents can often be the most painful." They describe it as "a masterpiece of filmmaking. The music, costumes, acting, and story make for a great movie."

Mainstream critics are celebrating. Michael Wilmington (Chicago Tribune) says the film "looks better than it did in 1984, and not just because of the added 20 minutes (mostly grace notes and atmospheric passages). It still soars, but now it seems richer, more expansive. Amadeus reminds us that movies can be lyrical as well as vulgar, ambitious as well as playful, brilliant as well as down and dirty—just like Amadeus himself." And William Arnold (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) is dazzled: "I caught a screening the morning after the Oscars, and it was humblingly clear that none of last year's nominees had even half its sweep or scope: the entire post-1990 cinema hasn't seemed to manage anything near its ambition, skill or intelligence."

Abraham deservedly won an Oscar for his work as Salieri, the second-rate composer who is consumed by envy as he watches Mozart's rise to fame. Salieri eventually dons a ghostly mask and attempts to haunt Mozart and drive him mad. Salieri's envy makes him a wrathful villain reminiscent of the devil in Paradise Lost—his war is as much against God as it is against Mozart. And yet, we can all relate to his anger. We've all been jealous. We've all desired success. How can a just and loving God give such formidable talent to foolish, irresponsible clowns like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

Amadeus does what great art should do. It offers us an unflinching vision of life in its beauty and ugliness, it glory and its seeming unfairness, and it asks us what sense we can make of it. Mozart's story vividly portrays how God deals with the proud and gives grace to the humble.

Foreign Fare

Watch for a low-profile film from France making its way around the country. Time Out recently won the grand prize at the Venice Film Festival, and it deserves the high honors. In my opinion, it's the most artful and rewarding movie so far this year.

Director Laurent Cantet's film is a haunting character study of Vincent, a man who has everyone (including his family) fooled. He has convinced them that he is a successful businessman making a career change. In fact, he claims to be taking a job with the U.N. But in reality, Vincent has been laid off, and he is spending his days driving around in the French countryside alone, watching people and taking naps in hotel parking lots.

While Vincent seems almost psychotic at times, the film's brilliant trick is to make us envy him. He seems to have discovered a freedom, a perpetual vacation. By living a lie, he is able to voyeuristically enjoy the city and the highway, without the stress of a job, without real deadlines or pressures. One early scene crystallizes the quality of his happiness—he drives along in his plush sedan, parallel to a crowded commuter train, chuckling with smug satisfaction as he observes the crowded masses on their way to tedious day-jobs. The car is his bubble, his security.

But one can only live in such denial for so long. As Vincent slowly learns the cost of his freedom, he is drawn dangerously close to the edge of madness. One moment, he's sneaking into an office building just to see how far he can go before he is stopped. The next, he finds himself entangled in crime. Actor Aurelien Recoing gives what will be remembered as one of the finest performances of the year, giving Vincent a variety of subtle twitches and false smiles that keep us on edge. Even when he's draws from previous employment experience to fabricate his identity, we're not sure if he every really worked anywhere at all. He's one of cinema's all-time great liars, and the story brings him to the inevitable consequences.

Some moviegoers may find it slow-going. Cantet takes his time, letting us become almost comfortable in Vincent's presence, then shocking us with the audacity of his lies and his willingness to deceive his loved ones. But the film is not just about one man's journey into denial. It is also about work, about the way that modernization drives us to tedious tasks and makes us feel unimportant. In this light, family, intimacy, humility, and honesty shine through as sources of life and purpose in a crowded world of lonely people.

J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) calls it thought-provoking, and says the film "forces the audience to contemplate the nature of the global economy and the role of work/vocation in its expansion. What is meaningful work? What are our responsibilities?" It also explores "why a man would resort to such an outlandish and ultimately fruitless lie."

Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat (Spirituality and Health) say, "Cantet draws out a bravura performance from Recoing. This involving French film vividly conveys the soul-shattering debilitations of unemployment and the spunk needed to survive while adrift in the universe."

Also from France, The Piano Teacher is stirring up critics everywhere. Michael Haneke's film tells the story of a middle-aged piano professor at the Vienna Music Conservatory whose bizarre and insatiable sexual appetites drive her to self-destruction. Her pornographic fantasies eventually have frightful consequences as she draws one of her students into a painful game of manipulation and abuse. Isabelle Huppert stars in what is being described as a gripping but deeply troubling story.

Carole McDonnell (Christian Spotlight) calls it "one of the best movies of the year." Then, she offers a caution, because some readers will reject films that reflect harsh realities like masochism, abuse, self-abuse, and pornography addiction: "Yet … because of its subject matter … I cannot recommend it to viewers of this site. It's a film about family, but it is not a family film. It shows the painful depravity of sin, but it does not point the way out. In fact, the characters are utterly lost."

Instead of seeing it as a film that exposes evil, Ted Baehr (Movieguide) says it is evil. "The Piano Teacher is an extremely misogynistic, pornographic movie with an anti-pornography moral. [It] is beautifully filmed, well-directed and well-acted. However … The Piano Teacher is vile. Don't let it play with your mind, heart, and eternal soul."

Mainstream critics, however, found it to be a well-crafted but distressing work. Roger Ebert says, "There is an old saying: Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it. The Piano Teacher has a more ominous lesson: Be especially careful with someone who has asked for you." The Piano Teacher won the Grand Prize, Best Actress, and Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival. But it also drove several in the audience to boo its festival screening. While audiences are certain to disagree over the film, it is clear that they will not forget it.

Side Dishes

Woody Allen tends to release a movie every year, and this year's model is called Hollywood Ending. Allen plays a neurotic (what a surprise!) film director who loses his sight just as he begins directing a film, causing havoc on and off the set, especially in his complicated love life. The much-much-younger women dallying with Allen this time are Téa Leoni (Jurassic Park 3) and Debra Messing (TV's Will and Grace).

The review from the USCCB says the film "starts off promisingly, and even ends on a pretty funny joke made at the expense of French movie audiences. But the central conceit of the film … wears thin all too soon. It turns the bulk of the movie into a flat, overlong jumble dotted with occasionally humorous moments." The reviewer adds, "Allen's penchant for casting himself in May-December romances in his films … becomes increasingly difficult to believe, especially when the grayer, wrinkled Allen is hooking up with women 30 years his junior."

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says the film offers "frivolous fun." And he adds, "There is a lesson buried within the slapstick. The Bible also speaks of blindness: spiritual blindness. This is an inability to see or understand spiritual truths and realities, even though the individual may be perfectly functional in all other aspects of life."

But Phil Boatwright isn't impressed. "You know the problem with this movie? Blindness just ain't funny! After a few pratfalls due to the sudden psychosomatic sightlessness, the film falls flat."

"Watching a young Allen wring his hands and go on and on about nothing used to be entertaining and funny," says Holly McClure (Crosswalk), "but now he just looks tired, annoyed and, quite honestly, a little confused. Allen has made some strong contributions as a filmmaker, but I was hoping for more from Hollywood Ending. Leaving the theater, I felt a little cheated."

Steven Isaac (Focus on the Family) writes, "Allen has shown himself to be unafraid of skewering Hollywood where it needs to be skewered. His critiques of Tinseltown are gratifyingly sharp and witty. It's a shame that overactive libidos and blasphemous uses of God's name spoil the show." Paul Bicking (Preview) echoes the complaint, adding that the movie "offers too many mis-guided messages about sexual relations."

A couple of films are currently playing that feature tough guys, criminal activity, and vengeful exploits.

Deuces Wild replays West Side Story without the singing and dancing. Leon and Bobby's brother died of a drug overdose, so their gang is on a mission to keep drugs off the streets. When a particularly nasty new gang comes to town, things are not settled peacefully.

Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter) writes, "For a film so full of attitude, it has very little to say. Nearly devoid of intelligence, wit, or life-lessons, Deuces Wild fails on every level. Clichéd, with poor dialogue, performances less convincing than from the gang members in West Side Story, mundane camera use, and direction that seems morally ambiguous."

The USCCB reviewer calls it "an unimaginative display of silly macho posturing" which "presents an overly familiar story without any fresh angles."

Steven Isaac (Focus on the Family) says, "While one must concede that the ultimate message here is anti-drug and anti-violence, the carnage leading up to that conclusion is so fluid, so macho, so compelling that it's hard to imagine it won't get under the skin of at least a few on-the-edge modern gangster wannabes."

Paul Bicking writes, "A torrent of obscenities, graphic sexual content, and brutal violence should prevent discerning viewers from joining the gangs of Deuces Wild."

Mainstream critics lined up to offer creative put-downs. "Deuces Wild is the worst thing to have happened to Brooklyn since the Ice Age severed it from the mainland," writes Jack Matthews (New York Daily News—no link available). "It not only promotes every stereotype and invokes every cliché of Brooklyn lore, it combines them all into an insulting composite, fuses that to the chrome-and-fins of the pointless Fifties, and then—weirdly—pretends it's Shakespeare."

The Salton Sea stars Val Kilmer as a musician who witnessed the murder of his wife. Disguised as a drug dealer who works his way into a dangerous, violent world in a quest for revenge. He eventually must face off with a psychotic villain, played by Vincent D'Onofrio.

Tom Snyder (Movieguide) calls it "a moody, often funny thriller, with another excellent performance by Val Kilmer." But the film's "excessive scenes of violence, drug abuse and revenge" earn it a poor rating there.

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says the movie "is a stylishly filmed excursion into a world of bottom-feeding dopers and dealers, of all-night binge parties and drug-related killings. Director J. D. Caruso … brings a strong visual flair to the proceedings. What [he] can't do is make either of Val Kilmer's two personas interesting or worth caring about. Right in the middle of the movie is a hole where there needed to be a central character, and drug abuse, decadence, murder, lies, and revenge are all thrown together in a story that ultimately doesn't seem interested in shedding moral light on such behavior."

Digest: Does Frailty prove that Hollywood is out to get Christians?

Some Christian critics have taken aim at the recent horror film Frailty for being anti-Christian. But in an article at Canadian Christianity, Peter T. Chattaway says the argument is presumptive.

Chattaway quotes Ed Vitagliano, director of research for the American Family Association, who wrote in a review at Agape Press that Frailty casts Christians in a negative light. Vitagliano declares that the movie proves Hollywood is "out to get" Christians." Vitagliano says, "We find this film—at least the description of it—to be a further indication of the fact that Hollywood, for the most part, has a vendetta against Christians, especially Christians who hold to the absolute truths of scripture."

Chattaway responds that there are several problems with this claim. "First, if Vitagliano is responding only to a 'description' of the film, then it sounds as though he is passing judgment on the film before he has even seen it. If that is the case, then he is speaking out of ignorance, and it is somewhat ironic when he complains later on that Hollywood always portrays Christians as 'loud-mouthed' and 'self-righteous.' Learning to think critically about films, and about art in general, is a necessary skill in this media-saturated age, and no one is helped when self-appointed culture warriors condemn obscure movies they've apparently never seen."

Next week: Early responses Star Wars, Episode 2: Attack of the Clones. Plus: Unfaithful.

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.