Spider-Man (2002) Movie Review

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheMetalGearZero

WARNING: THE REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

Plot:

Peter Parker’s your average teenage geek from Queens – he’s always late to the bus, he has trouble talking to girls, he’s picked on at school and he’s kind of a loner. Abandoned by his parent’s at a young age and raised by his Aunt and Uncle, Peter comes to attend an exhibition in a genetics lab territory, bitten by a radioactive Spider – and discovers unique and one of a kind powers and abilities brewing inside of him – enhanced strength, speed, reflexes, agility; the ability to scale walls/stick to surfaces and spin his own webs… doing whatever a Spider can. Initially; Peter Parker uses his abilities and becomes a bit of a jerk – getting into fights at school and abusing his powers in almost every way possible. Getting into a fight with his Uncle Ben; Peter Parker enters a cage match against Bone-Saw for a sum total of money… eventually leading into a tragedy.

Soon; Peter Parker discovers he must use his abilities and become the hero and sole protector of New York – embracing his abilities and transforming himself into the Amazing Spider-Man as he graduates high school and moves into the city – living with Harry Osborn and occasionally, yet having trouble doing so, talking with Mary Jane Watson; who used to be the girl next door. A new threat rises, when Norman Osborn is thrown under the bus and transforms into The Green Goblin – Spider-Man’s first classical foe. A threat arises and a battle begins.

The Review:

Story and Characters:

Wow… there’s a ton of stuff to say about this film. Because there’s a lot of stuff I liked, and a lot of stuff I really didn’t think, and the other things I didn’t really mind – so yes, it’s partially a mixed bag. The story and execution are both straightforward and somewhat basic – Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider and finds himself developing unique abilities, uses those abilities to become a jerk, enters a wrestling ring, wins the cage match, let’s a criminal go, and that leads to his Uncle Ben’s death – and so Peter learns that with great power comes great responsibility – thus becoming The Amazing Spider-Man. I don’t hate most Spider-Man films; this just isn’t one of the best. There’s stuff here that are altered, like – a number of stuff, some minor and some actually major. For one – Peter Parker’s depiction isn’t kind of original, he isn’t very faithful to the source material, Crusher Hogan isn’t really in the film, he’s replaced with Bone-Saw, Peter Parker spins Organic Webs, not mechanical ones, and Green Goblins is a power ranger costume. Some changes I didn’t mind; some really bothered me… a lot.

Peter Parker’s depiction and portrayal isn’t all that bad. I liked how he was written at bits, he’s got his moments; but at times, he comes off as a bit dull and a monotone - now I didn’t really understand why this really varied from the take on the character that’s from the comics – but maybe this just goes with their version more. They attempted to base him off of the Peter Parker of the Lee/Ditko days – and this doesn’t completely work. Peter Parker’s meant to be confident – that’s also in his high school days. He isn’t some sort of Tony Stark; but he isn’t completely a wimp – his confident is kind of a miss in this first incarnation of the character. But he retains some classical elements and they work well. He’s still a light-hearted, down to earth guy, he’s picked on at school and he hasn’t got many friends. They wrote those well – but he felt he was weak at parts. Does this guy really run around in spandex? That being said; I didn’t feel his character developed much throughout the film. Yes; they attempt to develop him, they touch on the subject of him being a jerk, but it doesn’t really affect his character very much – they don’t really do much with that concept. Basically; Peter Parker was sort of a mixed bag; not very faithful for a CBM portrayal – but it worked fine with the plot.

Now; his writing and depiction as Spider-Man is completely different – it’s a whole different story. I actually really liked how they depicted the web slinger, they wrote him out very well – I liked that, when Peter’s in the suit, he’s a completely different person - he’s more confident, sure, he quips and throws around jokes – and he’s your classic friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man, the way it should be. He could’ve cracked more jokes here and there, but it’s still good – and fits within the context of their universe. I liked how the movie used the web slinger - I didn’t feel he felt out of place in the story, every-time Peter Parker went into the suit, it was really used well – the persona wasn’t wasted. Actually, his portrayal as Spider-Man – unlike Peter Parker – is actually really faithful, he’s just short of a couple of jokes. The costume looked brilliant; pulled out of a 1960′s comic book – dug it’s design.

I’ll applaud Sam Raimi; I really liked how he depicted New York as a society – as a group united. When Spider-Man’s being beaten down by Green Goblin, the New Yorker’s come together, they unite and they stand for their hero (as evident in the final battle between Spidey and The Goblin), and it was really touching – because that’s NYC’s charm – they’ll come together as some sort of group when they have to. We’re given insight – we’re shown just how the city of New York views Spider-Man and that’s developed thoroughly throughout the narrative – initially, their views on the wall crawler are more cynical – he’s a menace in their eyes – but that soon changes… and it’s all because of James Jonah Jameson.

James Jonah Jameson was brought to life by JK Simmons – it’s fantastic, he was taken from a comic book panel and fleshed onto the big screen, brilliantly. I’ll talk more about the actor who plays him in another section of the review, but I’ll say, he was written very well. The rest of the Daily Bugle staff don’t really do much – they aren’t very thick, but this is an origin – and they don’t really get much focus dedicated to them. Meaning Betty Brant and Robbie are reduced to minor roles – serving as cameos.

However; for the chunk of the narrative, it just felt like a classic, basic and sometimes even boring origin story. A bulk of the film is merely Spider-Man’s origin, there isn’t really much too it. Well; there’s Harry Osborn – who was depicted very well – and Mary Jane Watson – she’s extremely terrible and the depiction is sexist – and Flash Thompson – he’s put to waste – but really – the movie somewhat seems like Amazing Fantasy #15 was painted onto the big screen – with MJ and Harry thrown on, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Because at times, it gets boring – it’s just a retelling – not it’s own movie, not with it’s own plot. I believe you have to go around 60 mins into the movie for Peter to actually become Spider-Man – and the first 60 minutes are boring at times, you’ll know just what’s going to happen.

The movie attempts to feel like a Lee/Ditko Spidey comic book – but it isn’t very much like them, the comics are actually much more entertaining then this, and even the tone and themes aren’t completely faithful to the material and source they were aiming at. The movie is filled with clichés, a somewhat generic antagonist and some overlong dialogue scenes – cheesy dialogue that drags on too long, I remember I, at one instance, zoned out. However, that just merely adds to the comic book tone – so it’s somewhat of a good thing. There’s a romance arc weaving into the overall narrative, and I’ll get to that shortly. Our love interest is Mary Jane Watson…

Oh, god, Mary Jane Watson’s portrayal is often. Throughout the story; she’s merely a tool, someone for Spider-Man to save, someone to compliment Spidey, someone to make Spider-Man look good. She isn’t really her stand alone character, they’re written here in a way that somewhat makes the writers come off as sexist, and she doesn’t really do much for herself. I couldn’t really consider her as her own character – for she’s got goals, but there really isn’t any point, because they aren’t executed well. In the material, MJ’s a powerful woman – not weak, and in no single way is she a tool. So, yeah, I didn’t like MJ’s depiction here – not at all… not at all.

Then there’s Harry Osborn… Harry is really good. In fact, he’s one of the highlights – he’s depicted faithfully to the source material, he’s a cool kid, he’s more on Peter Parker’s level – and it works really well. His interactions and bro-chemistry with Peter Parker are great to watch – James Franco is well casted and he even looks right – he looks suited for Harry Osborn, really suited. The infamous Harry Osborn/Norman Osborn father/son dynamic is portrayed really well here, I liked it very much; it shows that Norman Osborn isn’t a bad person, not a bad father – actually, at one point here, Norman tells Harry he’s proud of him – and I’m glad they put that in – again, not a bad father, he’s just tough as guts on his son at times.

Wow… it’s been too long into this review and I haven’t even gotten into the villain yet – yes, our antagonist is Green Goblin, AKA Norman Osborn, his arc doesn’t completely fit well into the context of the story – but generally, I think it flowed well. Norman Osborn’s motivation is generic, but, c’mon, it’s a movie designed to resemble the Lee/Ditko Spidey run (although it doesn’t really, I think SM2 does) and the antagonists of those days were generic. I surely thought Norman Osborn was a solid villain. I liked the dynamic between Norman and Peter – because as Norman/Peter they’ve got a father/son relationship, and as GG/Spidey they’re enemies. And I thought the method in which Norman discovered Spider-Man’s identity was well rounded – and although it isn’t really creative – it unfolds cleverly and it works nicely. He’s a sadistic villain – towards the end, he grasps MJ and a group of kids and threatens to drop them off a bridge, and Spider-Man’s only able to save one of them – and that moment was really gripping. In the end; he manages to save both of them, but the guy’s villainy doesn’t end there.

His acts as The Green Goblin haven’t really much build up, but they’re all justified. He doesn’t just roam around stirring trouble – every criminal arc here is justified, there’s back story to each of his actions. I didn’t like the split personality thing very much, it was just too over the top. It could’ve worked if it was well executed, but it just wasn’t. It was generic… even though it’s meant to resemble the classical Spider-Man comics.

There’s a love triangle that weaves itself into the overall narrative, but primarily as a sub plot – it’s MJ and Peter/Harry. Harry completely violates the bro-code, making a move on MJ and they become boyfriend/girlfriend, but nonetheless, MJ cheats on Harry with Spider-Man. Oh god… the first kiss was incredible – it was just so charming and you know? Touching, I guess. I liked the idea of MJ kissing Spider-Man before she discovers he’s really Peter Parker, before she knows who’s behind the mask, and she ends up falling in love with him (she basically falls in love with 4 personas throughout the whole film). I liked how, throughout the film, Spider-Man wasn’t battling big baddies only, he occasionally comes to combat your average crimes every now and then – and Spider-Man’s first appearance was climatic – it was truly awesome… dare I say Amazing?

The rest of the cast is well picked, and the movie isn’t really bad; there’s stuff that work… and stuff that didn’t work.

Visuals, Effects, Web Slinging and Action:

This film is 13 years old, and although you’d think the effects and web slinging hasn’t aged yet – but they actually look cool, and somewhat incredible. I really liked the web slinging in the film – physicals are thrown aside for something amazing, Spider-Man swings in mid air brilliantly – it’s all well put together. I’m glad they incorporated the Spider-Man hanging upside down on a thread post onto a movie… it was so great to look it, it works so well in live action. The combat in the film isn’t really agile or non-linear, it’s more arena-orientated combat – and the encounters between Green Goblin and Spidey look awesome on the big screen – they trade punches and it’s fluid and realistic.

At one point in the final battle, when Spider-Man is grasping onto the vehicle holding the children, he’s knocked off, but he successfully manages to swing right back in slo-mo and clings onto the cable again – and it looks damn brilliant. That being said, I liked how the slo-mo was employed here, because early on, there’s a bullet time effect thing portraying the abilities of Peter Parker’s Spider-Sense, well aware of his surroundings. For a film released in 2001 or something like that, it all looks incredible.

The action here is really good; although it doesn’t completely match with modern films; it’s still watchable. I just would’ve liked it if Spider-Man was much more agile then he really was in the movie… that’s just a gripe.

Acting

Tobey Maguire just isn’t really Peter Parker to me. Earlier on in the review, I explained how I didn’t think Peter was really authentic, and that’s partially to writing, but it’s also because of the actor’s delivery. Tobey’s got talent – and he’s able to do some good stuff here and there, but at parts, he comes off as monotone and a bit dull. His portrayal of Spider-Man is a complete step up – he plays the web head incredibly good and impressive. He really adds to the character – constructing our friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man. James Franco’s really good as Harry Osborn, as I explained, the depiction is basically nothing but great, and he works well with Tobey Maguire. Kirsten Dunst wasn’t really given much; but she doesn’t really try to make it any better – both her and Tobey don’t really give it their all, and that effects their depictions… badly, maybe.

Rosemary Harris’s heart is in the right place, Cliff Robertson, for the most part, is good as Uncle Ben, although he wasn’t an exact replica (and in all honesty, it isn’t really hard to depict an old guy rightfully), Betty Brant is played by Elizabeth Banks, and although she’s got a short cameo, I didn’t really like how she was written in that, it wasn’t a really faithful depiction. The rest of the cast works for the most part.

Verdict

So, what about SM1? It’s been released 13 years ago, and the question of the day is; does it hold up today? Yeah; it’s rewatchable, but it hasn’t got many of the aspects of modern MARVEL films – and it’s been overshadowed. There’s a lot of stuff I didn’t like, and a couple of stuff I liked. It’s not a bad film, it’s not a great film; but a lot of it works, it just get’s boring at times. It’s worth watching and re-watching… but it isn’t even in the two top Spider-Man films, if even the third. Watch it; just don’t expect too much.

Avatar image for sheenlantern
SheenLantern

7808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It's aged like a fart, borderline unwatchable IMO.

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It's aged like a fart, borderline unwatchable IMO.

Yeah, well; there's a ton of flaws and it isn't really great - I surely wont be re watching any time sooner, I merely watched to review. I'll get to SM2 later on.

Avatar image for sheenlantern
SheenLantern

7808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@themetalgearzero: Agreed, I think anyone who is still putting it on their Best CBM lists needs to go and give it another watch.

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@themetalgearzero: Agreed, I think anyone who is still putting it on their Best CBM lists needs to go and give it another watch.

I wouldn't... I wouldn't even rank it in my top 13-15, believe me.

Avatar image for symbioticspider-man
SymbioticSpider-Man

3595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 10

Don`t use the comic book to judge the movie. At all. Accuracy doesn`t equal entertainment. Also, I`d give this movie a 10/10. Personal opinion, of course. The story is easy to follow, the characters are likable, the origin is PERFECTLY executed, the last fight scene and the ending were well executed as well. I appreciate this review though and hope you do more :)

Avatar image for mazahs117
MAZAHS117

20104

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By MAZAHS117

Good Review

Looking back, I still give this movie a 8.5-9/10. The only thing that really bugs me about this film is Gobby's costume, it's straight up Power Rangers level (ugh). The sequel, Spidey 2, I give an 10/10. It's still my favorite comicbook movie to date.

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Don`t use the comic book to judge the movie. At all. Accuracy doesn`t equal entertainment. Also, I`d give this movie a 10/10. Personal opinion, of course. The story is easy to follow, the characters are likable, the origin is PERFECTLY executed, the last fight scene and the ending were well executed as well. I appreciate this review though and hope you do more :)

Thanks ^^ I'll be reviewing SM2 soon, then SM3, then TASM and then I'll get to the TASM2 so I hope you enjoy those; feel free to follow the user for notifications once the reviews are out.

Although, I'm an avid comic book reader and I like my CBMs to be authentic, just as most people on this site, but I respect your opinion and your score. It's a good movie.

Good Review

Looking back, I still give this movie a 8.5-9/10. The only thing that really bugs me about this film is Gobby's costume, it's straight up Power Rangers level (ugh). The sequel, Spidey 2, I give an 10/10. It's still my favorite comicbook movie to date.

Thanks ^^

It did well kicking off the rest of the series. I'll be reviewing SM2 soon... I reckon I'll like that more; oh my gosh, I'm going to struggle TOO MUCH giving an honest review on SM2. That's the most nostalgic film to me... ever, seriously.

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Don`t use the comic book to judge the movie. At all. Accuracy doesn`t equal entertainment. Also, I`d give this movie a 10/10. Personal opinion, of course. The story is easy to follow, the characters are likable, the origin is PERFECTLY executed, the last fight scene and the ending were well executed as well. I appreciate this review though and hope you do more :)

Thanks for the follow.

Avatar image for deactivated-5fbfd5d291164
deactivated-5fbfd5d291164

12702

Forum Posts

1547

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 74

User Lists: 7

I still love the movie. Saw it a month ago,

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I still love the movie. Saw it a month ago,

It's good; there's some stuff I didn't like.

Avatar image for jknox
Jknox

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By Jknox

I agree, it's a mixed bag for me as well especially if we take the whole trilogy into account.

"They attempted to base him off of the Peter Parker of the Lee/Ditko days – and this doesn’t completely work"

I think this worked just fine. Sure there might be some differences but heck, it's a movie and there will always be differences. When I watch the movie I feel like I'm watching the Spidey/Parker that I've always known and loved. Again, not everything is perfect but it's definitely overlookable (for me anyway).

Another thing we have to remember is this is the movie that ushered in modern comic book movies. If for nothing else, it deserves respect for that even if it's not a 100% accurate representation.

"I didn’t feel his character developed much throughout the film"

hmm I thought he developed perfectly. He started out as "puny Parker" and by the end of the movie he developed and knew exactly who he was meant to be, the Amazing Spider-Man who has a responsibly to use his power for good. I feel like his whole mental state shifted while his character still captured the good hearted guy he's always been.

"I actually really liked how they depicted the web slinger"

Same here.

"James Jonah Jameson was brought to life by JK Simmons"

Could they have gotten a better actor for that role? He was perfect. I wish Betty had a bigger role to play as Parker liked her in the comics.

"A bulk of the film is merely Spider-Man’s origin, there isn’t really much too it"

We needed a Spider-Man movie that was focused on his origin and him finding himself. I don't think that was a bad thing at all. I liked the fact that they took time to develop his character while showing his origin even if it was a big chunk of the movie (I know you don't think he was developed much).

"and Mary Jane Watson – she’s extremely terrible"

I agree she wasn't written very well but taking the first movie by itself I think she was done alright...in light of the trilogy it could have been better...I still wouldn't say terrible.

"it gets boring – it’s just a retelling – not it’s own movie, not with it’s own plot"

Wait, I thought you knocked points off for it not being exactly like the comics. And I don't believe it's boring at all. It's a good story. Not sure what you want from it. Lord of the Rings was a retelling as well but it was awesome to see it portrayed on the big screen.

"Norman Osborn, his arc doesn’t completely fit well into the context of the story "

Pretty sure the context of the story includes Osborn/Goblin quite solidly.

"And I thought the method in which Norman discovered Spider-Man’s identity was well rounded – and although it isn’t really creative"

I feel like all I'm doing is attacking your negative points. What do you mean it wasn't really creative? I feel like in some of this you're just looking for ways to criticize.

"It [the split personality of Osborn] could’ve worked if it was well executed, but it just wasn’t. It was generic… even though it’s meant to resemble the classical Spider-Man comics."

How was it not? I felt like it perfectly showed the struggle he had. And again, do you want it to resemble the comics or be it's own movie? It did a little of both but you don't seem to know what you want.

"Tobey Maguire just isn’t really Peter Parker to me"

This definitely is based on personal taste (as we've seen in debate after debate the last decade) but I love Tobey as Spider-Man especially in the first one. In the second one, still liked him but a little less...third one (yes, I liked the third movie) I liked him even less but still liked him.

I thought he was a good solid actor and much better than a spazzy kid like Andrew Garfield (though after watching the 2nd movie I like him as Spidey). I really did feel like he brought to life the Spider-Man of the early comics.

"Rosemary Harris’s heart is in the right place, Cliff Robertson, for the most part, is good as Uncle Ben, although he wasn’t an exact replica"

Oh please, don't tell me you're going to nitpick those actors. They did great. Usually I say things are up for personal taste but come on....if you rag on them then you're just a very critical person and I would hate to go watch movies with you.

"but it isn’t even in the two top Spider-Man films, if even the third. Watch it; just don’t expect too much."

I would say it's in the top three. In no specific order I'd say the best are, Sp1, Sp2, AS2. I feel like in Raimi's trilogy there are many moments that make me as a Spidey fanboy get chills. Such as when Peter says, "I am Spider-Man no more" (as is the title of AS #50). I think Raimi's trilogy will always be in my heart as the best of Classic Spidey but this new series is a good Spidey romp (except for the god awful first one).

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jknox said:

I agree, it's a mixed bag for me as well especially if we take the whole trilogy into account.

"They attempted to base him off of the Peter Parker of the Lee/Ditko days – and this doesn’t completely work"

I think this worked just fine. Sure there might be some differences but heck, it's a movie and there will always be differences. When I watch the movie I feel like I'm watching the Spidey/Parker that I've always known and loved. Again, not everything is perfect but it's definitely overlookable (for me anyway).

Another thing we have to remember is this is the movie that ushered in modern comic book movies. If for nothing else, it deserves respect for that even if it's not a 100% accurate representation.

"I didn’t feel his character developed much throughout the film"

hmm I thought he developed perfectly. He started out as "puny Parker" and by the end of the movie he developed and knew exactly who he was meant to be, the Amazing Spider-Man who has a responsibly to use his power for good. I feel like his whole mental state shifted while his character still captured the good hearted guy he's always been.

"I actually really liked how they depicted the web slinger"

Same here.

"James Jonah Jameson was brought to life by JK Simmons"

Could they have gotten a better actor for that role? He was perfect. I wish Betty had a bigger role to play as Parker liked her in the comics.

"We needed a Spider-Man movie that was focused on his origin and him finding himself. I don't think that was a bad thing at all. I liked the fact that they took time to develop his character while showing his origin even if it was a big chunk of the movie (I know you don't think he was developed much).

A bulk of the film is merely Spider-Man’s origin, there isn’t really much too it"

"and Mary Jane Watson – she’s extremely terrible"

I agree she wasn't written very well but taking the first movie by itself I think she was done alright...in light of the trilogy it could have been better...I still wouldn't say terrible.

"it gets boring – it’s just a retelling – not it’s own movie, not with it’s own plot"

Wait, I thought you knocked points off for it not being exactly like the comics. And I don't believe it's boring at all. It's a good story. Not sure what you want from it. Lord of the Rings was a retelling as well but it was awesome to see it portrayed on the big screen.

"Norman Osborn, his arc doesn’t completely fit well into the context of the story "

Pretty sure the context of the story includes Osborn/Goblin quite solidly.

"And I thought the method in which Norman discovered Spider-Man’s identity was well rounded – and although it isn’t really creative"

I feel like all I'm doing is attacking your negative points. What do you mean it wasn't really creative? I feel like in some of this you're just looking for ways to criticize.

"It [the split personality of Osborn] could’ve worked if it was well executed, but it just wasn’t. It was generic… even though it’s meant to resemble the classical Spider-Man comics."

How was it not? I felt like it perfectly showed the struggle he had. And again, do you want it to resemble the comics or be it's own movie? It did a little of both but you don't seem to know what you want.

"Tobey Maguire just isn’t really Peter Parker to me"

This definitely is based on personal taste (as we've seen in debate after debate the last decade) but I love Tobey as Spider-Man especially in the first one. In the second one, still liked him but a little less...third one (yes, I liked the third movie) I liked him even less but still liked him.

I thought he was a good solid actor and much better than a spazzy kid like Andrew Garfield (though after watching the 2nd movie I like him as Spidey). I really did feel like he brought to life the Spider-Man of the early comics.

"Rosemary Harris’s heart is in the right place, Cliff Robertson, for the most part, is good as Uncle Ben, although he wasn’t an exact replica"

Oh please, don't tell me you're going to nitpick those actors. They did great. Usually I say things are up for personal taste but come on....if you rag on them then you're just a very critical person and I would hate to go watch movies with you.

"but it isn’t even in the two top Spider-Man films, if even the third. Watch it; just don’t expect too much."

I would say it's in the top three. In no specific order I'd say the best are, Sp1, Sp2, AS2. I feel like in Raimi's trilogy there are many moments that make me as a Spidey fanboy get chills. Such as when Peter says, "I am Spider-Man no more" (as is the title of AS #50). I think Raimi's trilogy will always be in my heart as the best of Classic Spidey but this new series is a good Spidey romp (except for the god awful first one).

  1. Peter Parker was too shy; I've read a chunk of the Lee/Ditko run; and even there, he's more confident then 2002's Peter Parker.
  2. Yeah; I'll agree there, he really did develop a good amount throughout the story, but that was only a tiny portion. The only moment they played at his character development was Ben's death, and they skipped time after that so I didn't feel it had much of a role to play.
  3. Glad you agreed; I like the Web-Slinger persona.
  4. I agree; they couldn't have gotten a better actor!
  5. Yep; basically.
  6. Alright, I was exaggerating there, but I still didn't like her.
  7. It was basic, that's what I meant to say.
  8. It didn't fit well within the context because, whilst in TASM, Doctor Connors fit into the origin, into the Untold Story; however, Goblin didn't fit much into Peter's origin here.
  9. The idea of the split personality was good, but I reckon they should've depicted it similar to Doc Ock's split personality in SM - in here it was too cheesy.
  10. It's a review - I guess reviews are personal taste. I cant talk for anyone else; and a bulk of Spidey fans didn't think Tobey was really good. He was monotone.
  11. You'd hate to watch movies with me? It isn't as if I voice my criticism's whilst I'm watching a film - Aunt May, I'll agree, was an exact replica of the character, and Cliff is a great actor, but Uncle Ben's meant to be a former military man. Cliff didn't seem the type. How am I a critical person? Are you serious; it's fine for me to dislike an aspect? I mean, I'm watching SM2 right now and I'm falling in love with it - just because I didn't like a depiction, means I'm too critical? You thought TASM1 was god awful - does that make you too critical? SM Trilogy holds a special place in my heart, it's my child hood, I love it, but it's fine for me to criticise an aspect.
  12. Don't get me wrong; I really liked how Norman discovered Spidey's identity. It was awesome and really climatic, loved it, just didn't think it was completely original.
  13. I respect your opinion very much.

Thanks for reading my review, and more so for taking the time to respond, even though we disagreed on some stuff; I appreciate it :)

Avatar image for sheenlantern
SheenLantern

7808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By SheenLantern

@shazam117: 8.5-9/10?!

Sometimes I wonder if you people have ever seen a movie that wasn't based on a comic book.

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@shazam117: 8.5-9/10?!

Sometimes I wonder if you people have ever seen a movie that wasn't based on a comic book.

I really disagree with Shazam's opinion, but I guess we have to respect each other's opinions. My favourite CBM is TASM1, and I know it's an unpopular opinion, and I dislike when people insult my opinion. But yeah; I think Shazam needs to rewatch and maybe he'll re-evaluate his opinion - not sure.

Avatar image for manwhohaseverything
Manwhohaseverything

3818

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

I've re-watched it many times, and still find it enjoyable. I may be one of the few that liked the way they handled Green Goblin's costume. To me, a crazy guy wearing high-tech military armor is much more threatening than a crazy guy wearing a rubber suit armed with pumpkin bombs. That's one thing I really ask for in a comic/hero based movie. A villain that appears threatening. This is an area most of Marvel's modern films fall short. Loki, the Red Skull, and a few others never reached the level where I said "This villain is real trouble." I also liked the way MJW was done in the first film. Her and Peter have this chemistry/sexual tension but both feel the other is out of reach. (The back yard scene where MJ is getting away from her parents fighting shows this quite well.) I often hear people say Gwen/Peter in the new films have more chemistry, but it's simply not true to me.

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I've re-watched it many times, and still find it enjoyable. I may be one of the few that liked the way they handled Green Goblin's costume. To me, a crazy guy wearing high-tech military armor is much more threatening than a crazy guy wearing a rubber suit armed with pumpkin bombs. That's one thing I really ask for in a comic/hero based movie. A villain that appears threatening. This is an area most of Marvel's modern films fall short. Loki, the Red Skull, and a few others never reached the level where I said "This villain is real trouble." I also liked the way MJW was done in the first film. Her and Peter have this chemistry/sexual tension but both feel the other is out of reach. (The back yard scene where MJ is getting away from her parents fighting shows this quite well.) I often hear people say Gwen/Peter in the new films have more chemistry, but it's simply not true to me.

You liked how MJ was written? I thought her portrayal was sexist.

Avatar image for manwhohaseverything
Manwhohaseverything

3818

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@manwhohaseverything said:

I've re-watched it many times, and still find it enjoyable. I may be one of the few that liked the way they handled Green Goblin's costume. To me, a crazy guy wearing high-tech military armor is much more threatening than a crazy guy wearing a rubber suit armed with pumpkin bombs. That's one thing I really ask for in a comic/hero based movie. A villain that appears threatening. This is an area most of Marvel's modern films fall short. Loki, the Red Skull, and a few others never reached the level where I said "This villain is real trouble." I also liked the way MJW was done in the first film. Her and Peter have this chemistry/sexual tension but both feel the other is out of reach. (The back yard scene where MJ is getting away from her parents fighting shows this quite well.) I often hear people say Gwen/Peter in the new films have more chemistry, but it's simply not true to me.

You liked how MJ was written? I thought her portrayal was sexist.

I thought it was realistic..there are women in the world like that. Not 100% of people (male or female) are independent types that never need help from anybody. In fact, very few people of either sex are like that. I've heard this complaint about the MJ character before, but tbh, I find it more people trying to be "politically correct" than objective. Her character is of a shy one, who, I feel is embarrassed by the broken home she comes from, and nobody really believes she can achieve her dream of being an actress. This, I feel. would lend itself to her being quite vulnerable and unsure of herself. I think it would also explain how a guy like Parker could be attracted to her (beyond the physical aspect) He's never felt like anyone's really needed him. Now, Gwen in the newer films is done differently, and that's okay. There are people in the world like that as well, but I think it's silly to say there's only one type of female character that can be shown in a film, a strong, independent-type, and that's it. To me that's much more sexist, it stereo-types every singe woman into being exactly the same.

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@themetalgearzero said:

@manwhohaseverything said:

I've re-watched it many times, and still find it enjoyable. I may be one of the few that liked the way they handled Green Goblin's costume. To me, a crazy guy wearing high-tech military armor is much more threatening than a crazy guy wearing a rubber suit armed with pumpkin bombs. That's one thing I really ask for in a comic/hero based movie. A villain that appears threatening. This is an area most of Marvel's modern films fall short. Loki, the Red Skull, and a few others never reached the level where I said "This villain is real trouble." I also liked the way MJW was done in the first film. Her and Peter have this chemistry/sexual tension but both feel the other is out of reach. (The back yard scene where MJ is getting away from her parents fighting shows this quite well.) I often hear people say Gwen/Peter in the new films have more chemistry, but it's simply not true to me.

You liked how MJ was written? I thought her portrayal was sexist.

I thought it was realistic..there are women in the world like that. Not 100% of people (male or female) are independent types that never need help from anybody. In fact, very few people of either sex are like that. I've heard this complaint about the MJ character before, but tbh, I find it more people trying to be "politically correct" than objective. Her character is of a shy one, who, I feel is embarrassed by the broken home she comes from, and nobody really believes she can achieve her dream of being an actress. This, I feel. would lend itself to her being quite vulnerable and unsure of herself. I think it would also explain how a guy like Parker could be attracted to her (beyond the physical aspect) He's never felt like anyone's really needed him. Now, Gwen in the newer films is done differently, and that's okay. There are people in the world like that as well, but I think it's silly to say there's only one type of female character that can be shown in a film, a strong, independent-type, and that's it. To me that's much more sexist, it stereo-types every singe woman into being exactly the same.

Hm... nice words; I'll think about that for a while - not sure if I completely agree with you yet. But the authentic MJ isn't like that - she's a powerful woman - you've gotta consider authenticity.

Avatar image for manwhohaseverything
Manwhohaseverything

3818

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@manwhohaseverything said:

@themetalgearzero said:

@manwhohaseverything said:

I've re-watched it many times, and still find it enjoyable. I may be one of the few that liked the way they handled Green Goblin's costume. To me, a crazy guy wearing high-tech military armor is much more threatening than a crazy guy wearing a rubber suit armed with pumpkin bombs. That's one thing I really ask for in a comic/hero based movie. A villain that appears threatening. This is an area most of Marvel's modern films fall short. Loki, the Red Skull, and a few others never reached the level where I said "This villain is real trouble." I also liked the way MJW was done in the first film. Her and Peter have this chemistry/sexual tension but both feel the other is out of reach. (The back yard scene where MJ is getting away from her parents fighting shows this quite well.) I often hear people say Gwen/Peter in the new films have more chemistry, but it's simply not true to me.

You liked how MJ was written? I thought her portrayal was sexist.

I thought it was realistic..there are women in the world like that. Not 100% of people (male or female) are independent types that never need help from anybody. In fact, very few people of either sex are like that. I've heard this complaint about the MJ character before, but tbh, I find it more people trying to be "politically correct" than objective. Her character is of a shy one, who, I feel is embarrassed by the broken home she comes from, and nobody really believes she can achieve her dream of being an actress. This, I feel. would lend itself to her being quite vulnerable and unsure of herself. I think it would also explain how a guy like Parker could be attracted to her (beyond the physical aspect) He's never felt like anyone's really needed him. Now, Gwen in the newer films is done differently, and that's okay. There are people in the world like that as well, but I think it's silly to say there's only one type of female character that can be shown in a film, a strong, independent-type, and that's it. To me that's much more sexist, it stereo-types every singe woman into being exactly the same.

Hm... nice words; I'll think about that for a while - not sure if I completely agree with you yet. But the authentic MJ isn't like that - she's a powerful woman - you've gotta consider authenticity.

True, and I'm trying to remember how MJ was portrayed in the comics in the 1970's. I get the feeling this movie was going more for the Lee/Ditko version. Tbh, all I can remember is Peter, often times, did not even like MJ. She was portrayed a bit differently back then, but so was Peter. I think it' be intriguing if you did a review of the first X-Men film.

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@themetalgearzero said:

@manwhohaseverything said:

@themetalgearzero said:

@manwhohaseverything said:

I've re-watched it many times, and still find it enjoyable. I may be one of the few that liked the way they handled Green Goblin's costume. To me, a crazy guy wearing high-tech military armor is much more threatening than a crazy guy wearing a rubber suit armed with pumpkin bombs. That's one thing I really ask for in a comic/hero based movie. A villain that appears threatening. This is an area most of Marvel's modern films fall short. Loki, the Red Skull, and a few others never reached the level where I said "This villain is real trouble." I also liked the way MJW was done in the first film. Her and Peter have this chemistry/sexual tension but both feel the other is out of reach. (The back yard scene where MJ is getting away from her parents fighting shows this quite well.) I often hear people say Gwen/Peter in the new films have more chemistry, but it's simply not true to me.

You liked how MJ was written? I thought her portrayal was sexist.

I thought it was realistic..there are women in the world like that. Not 100% of people (male or female) are independent types that never need help from anybody. In fact, very few people of either sex are like that. I've heard this complaint about the MJ character before, but tbh, I find it more people trying to be "politically correct" than objective. Her character is of a shy one, who, I feel is embarrassed by the broken home she comes from, and nobody really believes she can achieve her dream of being an actress. This, I feel. would lend itself to her being quite vulnerable and unsure of herself. I think it would also explain how a guy like Parker could be attracted to her (beyond the physical aspect) He's never felt like anyone's really needed him. Now, Gwen in the newer films is done differently, and that's okay. There are people in the world like that as well, but I think it's silly to say there's only one type of female character that can be shown in a film, a strong, independent-type, and that's it. To me that's much more sexist, it stereo-types every singe woman into being exactly the same.

Hm... nice words; I'll think about that for a while - not sure if I completely agree with you yet. But the authentic MJ isn't like that - she's a powerful woman - you've gotta consider authenticity.

True, and I'm trying to remember how MJ was portrayed in the comics in the 1970's. I get the feeling this movie was going more for the Lee/Ditko version. Tbh, all I can remember is Peter, often times, did not even like MJ. She was portrayed a bit differently back then, but so was Peter. I think it' be intriguing if you did a review of the first X-Men film.

I'll be sure to rewatch X-Men and write up a review, thanks for the rec :D

Avatar image for hotrod82
HotRod82

53

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I haven't even seen any of the post Tobey Spiderman movies but judging by the way the action sequences look, story line, most of the positive reception i've heard and Andrew Garfield definitely resembling Parker ALOT more than Tobey in my opinion...i've already tired out of Tobey's Spiderman movies. The best part for me was the infamous upside down kiss in the alley lol

-Now what i'd REALLY like to see is an accurate live transformers movie that retells the events of the great war of 2005-

Avatar image for themetalgearzero
TheMetalGearZero

1368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@hotrod82 said:

I haven't even seen any of the post Tobey Spiderman movies but judging by the way the action sequences look, story line, most of the positive reception i've heard and Andrew Garfield definitely resembling Parker ALOT more than Tobey in my opinion...i've already tired out of Tobey's Spiderman movies. The best part for me was the infamous upside down kiss in the alley lol

-Now what i'd REALLY like to see is an accurate live transformers movie that retells the events of the great war of 2005-

Yes; the upside down kiss is really good - although you should really watch TASM. Here's my review:

http://www.comicvine.com/profile/themetalgearzero/blog/the-amazing-spider-man-movie-review-spoilers/98979/