Average Rating: 
Rating:  - Maybe the most faithful "comic book" movie of all time
For starters "Spider-Man" is probably the most faithful translation of a comic book superhero to the big screen. Throughout the movie I kept thinking, yes, this is in "Amazing Fantasy" #15, that is from the cover of "Spider-Man" #39, and that is what "really" happened to the Green Goblin. Go back and look at "Batman," "Superman" or any other comic book film and you will find that beyond the basic plot of their origin, you will not find anything reminding you of specific issues or great moments from the actual comic books. On this score I believe the credit goes to director Sam Raimi, but there is always the possibility David Koepp's screenplay might have had something to do with it (note: Stan Lee and Steve Ditko get credit for creating Spider-Man but John Romita, Sr. deserves some credit too given that much of his artwork is invoked by the film as well). Of course there are differences, because film is a different medium from comic books (feel free to quote me on that one). Some of the changes result from a desire to provide an appropriate rationale for Spidey's powers. This means we get a scientist providing expositionary details during the visit to the lab where the spider (now genetically enhanced rather than radioactive) puts the bite on Peter Parker. While this works for the ability to cling to walls and the good old spider-sense, I am less sure about the natural web spinning ability. I mean, on the one hand, the invention of his special web fluid was how we knew Peter was a brilliant young scientist, while on the other, how does the web go through the costume? No, this is not "No Prize" worthy, but it does bug me. My thoughts on other changes: Yes, it was good to forget about Gwen Stacy, go right to Mary Jane Watson and completely ignore Betty Bryant, given the history of Peter Parker's love life. However, having MJ have a crush on Spidey smacks too much of Superman and Lois Lane for my taste, although since she is a high school senior they were right to tone down her sexuality from the bombshell Peter finally encountered in the comic. The Spider-Man costume looks a lot better than I thought it would and I certainly understand why the Green Goblin goes heavy metal. However, the yellow eyes on/off was a bit bothersome, although, again, I understand why you do not want two characters with giant eye blanks trying to have a lengthy conversation. My biggest complaint with the film would be that the computer generated sequences of Spider-Man web-slinging through New York City just do not seem real. Granted, it is really hard to get a feel for watching somebody do that (compare it to Tarzan going through the trees in the old Johnny Weismueller films versus the Disney cartoon), but maybe they can do something in the future films. Similarly, some of the fight sequences when Spider-Man takes on a gang seem (ironically) rather cartoonish and, again, I wonder if it is because this is computer generated action. The casting is fine, although Rosemary Harris never looks as frail as we all remember Aunt May. Tobey Maguire tends to keep things a bit too sedate with MJ after his transformation, but there is undeniable chemistry between him and Kirsten Dunst at key moments in the film. Willem Dafoe does some of his best acting opposite himself (you will see), and James Franco does a nice job of reinventing Harry Osborn for the modern world. Special kudos to J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, who only has a limited number of scenes because he steals every single one of them. Look real quick to spot Stan Lee in this film. "Spider-Man" is one of those films you give 4.5 stars, because it manages to surpass expectations in some key regards while still needing to be improved in some other areas. However, the basics are all here for extending the franchise and I have to think that the second time around they will fix all of these "problems." Ultimately, the faults are not of the comic book story but of the filmmaking, and who would have ever thought that would be the case? The main thing is that even hardcore Spider-Man fans are not going to be bitterly disappointed by this film.
Rating: - Action packed
An unwilling young boy gets bitten my a mutated spider and becomes the super hero: Spiderman!!!Tobey Macguire stars as your freindly neighborhood Spiderman in this fast paced spazmatic action movie. Kirsten Dunst stars as the beatiful love intrest of Peter Parker, the red haired Mary Jane Watson. Watching Spiderman was very entertaining eventhough I knew what the story was. Watching it was like watching a tennis match, moving your eyes back and forth, back and forth. As far is I can see, Willem Dafoe played the Green Goblin almost flawlessly. Because of a science experiment gone wrong, the mild manered scientist Norman Osborne gets metamorphisised into the supervillian Green Goblin. James Franco plays the cast aside son of Norman Osborne, Harry Osborne. Although he doesn't have a big roll in the movie, you will see him in the other movies. The movie has an unpretentous B-movie quality that made it irresistable to any movie goer. Unlike the other comic book to movie ventures, Spiderman stayed very very very true to the comic series. The webslinging scenes and the fight scenes truly made the movie come to life.
Rating: - The best film adaptation from a comic book yet!
Finally, "Spider-Man" is here! Personally, I thought it was great that they decided to do a live-action version of this classic comic book character rather than a dumb animated one, like the TV show. To me, live-action is always better, mainly though because the films looks more real. I just saw "Spider-Man" and have to say that it was fantastic! I already cannot wait for it's sequel, which will hopefully be released next year in 2003. If you've ever read the comic books and saw the show, then you've probably got a good idea on what this movie was all about. Spider-Man vs. the evil Green Goblin (played by William Dafeo). It's also about how Peter Parker (played perfectly by Tobey Maguire) came to be Spider-Man, and trying to win over the affection of the beautiful Mary-Jane (played by Kirsten Dunst). There's a lot of action and spin-tingly moments. Although I still thought "Star Wars--Episode II, Attack of the Clones" was a better film, "Spider-Man" was still awesome and worth seeing, but basically because I am a bigger "Star Wars" fan than "Spider-Man" fan...I really only went to see "Spider-Man" because I heard it was a good movie and I'm really into sci-fic/fantasy/action movies. Plus, I also think Tobey Maguire is an excellent actor (but Hayden Christensen in "Star Wars" is hotter, and I believe, more talented!). Anyway, getting back to "Spider-Man", the special effects were amazing and a great touch to the film. The storyline and dialouge were strong, but dialouge seems to never be a very important element in fantasy and action films, in reality. The acting was superb, including the performances by the supporting roles. I can't wait for the "Spider-Man" DVD to be released and I'm glad I got the chance to see it on the big screen. I believe "Spider-Man" will be nominated for a few Oscars next year...I think though mostly for technical nods, if any. Probably not any acting nods, and most definitely not a best picture nod because fantasy films just don't get nominated for best picture, which is wrong, I know...because there are a lot of excellent fantasy films out there that the Oscar judges overlook, come Oscar time! Sam Raimi did an excellent job with the directing...though it would've been interesting to see James Cameron direct this, like he was first supposed to. And Danny Elfman provides a wonderful, haunting score. Elfman is no John Williams or James Horner, but he does a good job in his own right. ... All in all, "Spider-Man" is an awesome film and should be seen by all fans of Spidey! It was rated PG-13 for some very mild lanuage, some violence, and a few scary moments. I wouldn't really recommend it for very young children, but I think it is appropriate for people ages 7 and up. Final Grade: A+
|
