I made it to the incomparable Alamo Drafthouse twice this weekend, to see Spider-Man and About a Boy. For you non-Austinites unfamiliar with the Alamo, it's a movie theater that has tables in front of all seats and waitrons who serve real food and even beer during the show. Is the concept unique to Austin? If so, it should be cloned or franchised elsewhere -- it's been doing well enough here to spawn two locations, one arty/cult rep house and one multiscreen house showing new releases.
Spider-Man was a tolerable bang-bang shoot-'em-up. As you've no doubt heard from every reviewer this side of Kabul, casting Tobey Maguire was a stroke of genius and putting Willem Dafoe in the villain's role was the obligatory waste of a talented character actor. I don't quite get the fascination with Kirsten Dunst, sensing no particular chemistry there, but maybe I don't watch the right TV shows to have imprinted on her. Other than Maguire, the movie was completely forgettable, which is as high as most action flicks aspire nowadays. More fun were the retro Spidey shorts the Alamo was screening while the theater filled up: both the horrid animated and live-action versions from my childhood, as well as a truly bizarre Japanese franchise that featured a strange spider-car, a giant samurai robot, assorted ninjas and a singing cowboy in addition to Supaidaaman. Count on the Alamo to do it right.
Oh, yes, and the other memorable moment from the Spider-Man showing: the preview for Ang Lee's forthcoming The Hulk. Looks like Lee will breathe life into the comic-book archetype. Can't wait!
As for About a Boy, it was the second film adaptation of a Nick Hornby novel which turned out much better than I would have expected. Lots of geniuine laughs and thoughtful moments with scarcely any treacle. I was glad that they left this one in Britain rather than moving it to the States, as they did with High Fidelity. Toni Collette was about ten years younger and 25 pounds lighter than I pictured her character, but they did not make the mistake of introducing any attraction between her and Hugh Grant, which would have been irresistible in a Hollywood version of the story.
One question if anyone familiar with the British class system reads this far: did the various characters' class backgrounds compute properly? I've perceived Hugh Grant as being either slightly or very posh in all the roles I've seen him in, including this one, whereas I didn't get that sense from the book. I mean, I know his character was supposed to have enough money to live without working, but I thought he was supposed to have a carefully budgeted laundromat-and-leftover-pizza lifestyle anyway, and to be educated but with working-class roots, which is what I sensed from the characters of mother and son. Did I miss something in the book, or did they raise the lead's class profile (and bank account) by half a notch to fit Hugh Grant? It didn't affect the end result, I'm just wondering.