A Tale of Two Movies

The two biggest movies of the year have more in common than box-office records. They're both very competent if not stellar (pardon the pun) movies, remaining true enough to their roots to attract the faithful and innocent bystanders alike. Frankly, last year's two blockbuster movies ("Harry Potter" and "LOTR") were both better even though they diverged substantially from the books on which they were based. But "Spider-Man" and "Attack of the Clones" deliver the goods, even if they are campy and predictable. Both feature good performances by their protagonists as young men coming of age in a complicated world.



While "Spider-Man" is definitely too scary for young sensitive kids, teenage boys will get a kick out of Kirsten Dunst as "MJ" (Mary Jane Watson) in an impossibly short waitress uniform and a gratuitously wet blouse. (It just happens to start raining when she is about to get mugged.) The scene in which she partially unmasks Peter Parker is the most obscene you'll ever see in a family movie. Who cares if her hair looks like a wig and she can't act!? When your movie makes $150+ million per nipple, you're review-proof.



Like most decent movies, "Spider-Man" has a great villian. Willem Defoe's unadulterated grimace is even spookier than the Green Goblin's mask. Tobey Maguire is quite good in the title role and as Peter Parker; his performance is laced with teenage angst and comic grace (especially the scene as a would-be professional wrestler). J.K. Simmons steals the show as newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson. His scenes are worth the price of admission.



Speaking of admissions, I liked "Attack of the Clones" quite a bit, complete with lots of action and camp. Natalie Portman can't act any better than Kirsten Dunst, but she's absolutely striking on screen anyway. Padm� "Hillary" Amidala (Portman), no longer Queen but now a Senator, changes clothes faster than OJ Simpson trying to avoid a murder rap. Although it is truly comical to see her fashionable enembles change inexplicably, even while at a remote outpost, she looks so Ab Fab that no one's complaining. And unlike OJ's, her clothes definitely fit like a glove. Twenty years after Carrie Fischer's gold lame bikini first gave Ross Geller wet dreams, Portman redefines activewear in the movie's climactic battle. There's nothing like a grisly mutant monster to shred your costume into something more comely.



Like Maguire in "Spider-Man," Hayden Christensen handles the lead role admirably, ably portraying Anakin Skywalker's teen lust, impatience, anger, and angst. He even manages to cook up some on-screen chemistry with Padm� despite Portman's porcelain performance. It is a testament to Christensen's portayal that we believe he is in love and not just a hormonal phase. Despite his valiant struggle, Portman's backless dress is enough to lure any man to the Dark Side.



Speaking of obscene things you can do with a midget, my main complaint with the movie is that Yoda performs the same "mind over matter" trick too many times. Liam Neeson, playing a Jedi to be sacrified later, set a bad precedent by saying, "There's always a bigger fish," twice in "The Phantom Menace." I can forgive Lucas for thinking no one was paying attention the first time in that snoozer, but we've already seen Yoda levitate an X-Wing Fighter in the past/future. No one is impressed seeing the same thing three times in three minutes; even if it's a porn star you know it's just a cheap camera trick. The swashbuckling Yoda is a lot of fun, however, even if in a laughable sort of way. Ewan McGregor (as Obi-Wan Kenobi) is only slightly less annoying and irrelevant than Jar Jar Binks (voiced by Bill Gates).



I'd give both movies 3.5 stars out of five. Neither are on par with "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" which was truly phenomenal, but they're both fun escapist fare for the die-hard fan.

What is your favorite or least favorite thing about Spiderman and Attack of the Clones?