-- continued from previous post -- X Marks the Spot
For comic book-based movies, much of the terrain changed with Marvel's first cinema success, X-Men. Through years of cartoons, videogames and toys, the X-Men had reached an audience at that point unmatched by any other Marvel character or characters. A generation of kids, most of whom had never read comics, had grown up with the X-Men. Reviewers were neither particularly mean or kind to the film, but the PR machines and entertainment news magazines loved it. Not to dismiss the Hulk TV series out of hand, but this feature put the relatively younger Marvel characters on a footing they'd never truly enjoyed with their 60-year-old DC counterparts such as Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, iconic characters who had long ago entered the vernacular of popular culture well beyond their comic book roots. The results were big. Whether it was the all-star cast, the special effects, the story or the characters, X-Men clicked with audiences to the tune of $157,299,718 at the U.S. box office, not including the rest of the worldwide take. (source: Box Office Mojo) And of course that's prior to the two separate DVD releases.
Despite the seemingly non-stop hype and the financial success, the critics were by and large even handed with the film.
Michael Medved seemed to grudgingly give the movie three out of four stars. "Special effects entertain without dazzling or distracting, and the plot hangs together more effectively than you'd expect from this sort of fare - based, of course, on a series of popular comic books," he wrote.
The noted critic Roger Ebert wasn't particularly kind, though he did give the movie two-and-a-half stars in his Chicago Sun Times review. "Since the Marvel Comics empire hopes X-Men is the first entry in a franchise, it's understandable that the setups would play an important role in the first film. If only there were more to the payoff. The events that end the movie are sort of anticlimactic, and the special effects, while energetic, are not as persuasive as they might be (at one point an airplane clearly looks like a model, bouncing as it lands on water)," he wrote.
Entertainment Weekly's Gleiberman, who was one of those who really hated Daredevil, wasn't any kinder to X-Men. "When X-Men isn't assaulting you with gizmos, it's a depersonalized, rather earthbound piece of hackwork," he wrote. And he's no doubt eagerly looking forward to the sequel, X-2, which debuts May 2.
Spider-Man
None of what went before prepared anyone for the box office bonanza that was Spider-Man.
"The movie mostly delivers on its promise of bringing Spider-Man to life," wrote Calvin Trager on the Box Office Prophets website. And oh, what a life!
Think about how people responded to Spider-Man: First ever to $100 Million on Opening Weekend, Fastest ever to $100 Million - 3 Days, Fastest ever to $200 Million - 9 Days, Fastest ever to $300 Million - 22 Days, Biggest Single Box Office Day - $43,622,264, Second Biggest Box Office Day - $39,406,872 (source: Box Office Mojo).
But what was the reason for the success? Industry professionals talk about building on the momentum of X-Men, but it's impossible to tell how connected the two properties were in the minds of average film goers. Sure, those of us in the business knew, but did the couple in line at their local theater on a Friday night know they were both Marvel comic books created by Stan Lee (and Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, respectively)?
What if it was something else? What if it was the quality of the film or even - gasp - the character instead of the momentum?
"Even after many people complained about the casting of this soft-spoken, yet talented, actor as one of the comic-book world's greatest legends, a few of us out there had faith he could pull it off. Spider-Man is an introspective superhero, after all, and if you want someone to play him right, you need someone who can act," said the reviewer for Hollywood.com.
That understanding might represent the biggest breakthrough yet in superhero films. Take it back to its root, comics, for just a moment: Superman, in the hands of most writers (not the great ones, mind you, but even most of the good ones), is not about Clark Kent. Clark Kent is a disguise for Superman. Batman, similarly, is about a relentless war on crime driven by a horrible, emotion-scarred origin. As in Superman, Bruce Wayne and his fortune are merely a front for Batman. Clark Kent is only essential to Superman in the hands of the best writers, and some top creators in our field have pretty much stumbled their way around what to do with Bruce Wayne when he's not Batman.
Spider-Man has all of those great powers, of course, but the essence of Spider-Man is Peter Parker.
"Peter Parker is just a normal, geeky teenager struggling with the pangs of first love, who just happens to turn into a superhero," echoes Joe Wong on moviemutterings.com.
-- concluded in next post --©2003 Gemstone Publishing, Inc.
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2043&si=124
