First was fine, but a bit corny. Second was the best. Third was drowned by the budget and Hollywood bullshit.
Why the first is good though? Casting was actually pretty damn good. Spidey himself could have been cast better, but since they went for the super dorky geek version of Parker, they picked the right guy for that. I'd of rather him been a bit more confident, sarcastic, and genuinely funny AFTER he got used to being Spider-Man. The way they did it, he always felt like an awkward dude. I hate the actress that played Mary Jane, but I cannot argue against the fact that she looks the part, and can act. Everyone else was cast super well. Goblin? Perfect. J.J.? Beyond perfect. Aunt May and Uncle Ben even sold their parts. The script manages to get Peter to turn into Spider-Man, learn with power must come responsibility, and face off against one of his most iconic foes fairly smoothly. It also sets up his relationships with his aunt, uncle, Mary Jane, and Harry Osborne. I mean that is pretty good for one movie. The second one definitely gets points because it was able to skip the origin and go right into the action. Still, the first one was about as solid as you can do an origin story. Iron Man and Batman Begins basically made the origin stories their focus, with a battle against an enemy kind of tacked onto the end, with varying degrees of success. Everyone knows Spider-Man's origin, and there isn't much else to delve into concerning it, so I think they were right in just trying to get through it quicker.
It was a damn good movie. Don't know what else to say.
Log in to comment