Spider-Man (2002) (1 Viewer)

[Terrell]

Okay Duane! We're going in circles. I still think those analogies don't work at all. Mainly because it's not as cut and dry as those analogies make it seem. We can continue this tomorrow after I've seen the film. However, dismissing a negative review as someone trying to get attention is fanboyish. I didn't say you were a fanboy. All films get negative reviews. And to say those people aren't being honest, that they're just trying to fly in the face of popularity doesn't make sense.

But I'm seeing the 7 o'clock show tomorrow. We can discuss it more then.

Peace.

 

[Randy Tennison]

I dragged my wife to the 7:00 showing. I enjoyed it, but fell short of "loving" it. Unfortunately, I was pulled out of the film each time there was a bad CGI moment, and there were many. The goblin on his jet was always bad. Spidey's first wall climb in the stocking cap was so obviously CGI. They didn't even get close to matching Maquire's skin tone. He looked more like one of the secondary characters in Shrek.

I thought the story was great, Maquire nailed the role, Defoe was fine as the villian, despite the costume limitations he had to work with.

It will definately be in my DVD collection.

 

[Duane Robinson]

That's exactly what he did. It would be the same thing as someone going to a movie about the Flash and complaining that the character moved too fast and he could barely see him. That is what the character does, plain and simple. Just because he doesn't understand or like the concepts or rules presented by a movie doesn't mean a reviewer (professional no less) can use that as negative ammunition against the film. Spiderman moves faster than a normal human being, he has quicker reflexes, he moves differently and the movie presented those rules and abided by them. Eggbert shouldn't have used them as negatives against the film unless it broke those rules or never established them at all.

PS: I'll wait for you to see the movie so that you can decide for yourself if Spidey was moving too fast or doing things that the character as written and recognized for decades was not capable of doing.

 

[Terrell]

See above post.

 

[Duane Robinson]

Most of Ebert's review flaws were just basic fundamental things that he failed to understand about the character, like his motivation and his abilities. Complaining that Spidey moved too fast was just one of the most ridiculous complaints anyone who has seen the movie could have. No need to spoilerize anything because after you see the movie yourself and read his review again you will wonder how he came to the conclusion he did even if you hated the movie. Also, comparing Spidey's motion to CTHD and claiming CTHD had a better feeling of gravity just borders on senility in my opinion. If that comparison doesn't bring up some warning signs that something isn't right in the review then I don't know what will.

 

[Terrell]

Well, he's just saying that because he thought it was a better film. I don't agree with him on that point. There was no sense of weight or gravity in CTHD. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna attack him personally.

As for comic books, I can't help you there. I was more of a Hulk and Superman fan than Spidey. I never read any Spider-Man comics.

 

[Nick Graham]

Ebert is the only "pro" critic I ever pay any attention, and he is still on the ball 50% of the time. There is a simple formula for any reader of his reviews. If he gives it a medicore rating, there is an excellent chance it is actually a good movie (Gladiator, Series 7, Donnie Darko, and Blow being recent 2 - 2 1/2 star reviews). If he gives it a poor rating, there is possibly an even greater chance it is a good or at least fun movie (Death to Smoochy, Zoolander, Jason X), but at the same time, it's more likely to be as bad as he says it is. If he gives it a good review, then chances are very good that he's right, although there have been some MAJOR exceptions (Spawn got 3 1/2 stars!!! Final Fantasy got 4). If you follow this guide, Mr. Ebert can still be useful, and he's still a good writer, not to mention one of the few "elite" critcs who still give sci-fi, horror, and comic based pictures a chance. He also is an outspoken defender of OAR on home video formats, and corresponds with the net film geek community when many of his peers see themselves as above it.

 

[Terrell]

Agreed Nick. I'm not saying Ebert is right or perfect. He's not. I'm only saying that personally attack him for a negative review, for whatever reason, is not right. His opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, even if you think his reasoning is flawed. As for Gladiator, he hated that film. I loved it. I railed on him when I read it. But I've since grown up and not gotten so riled over opposing views.
Now if he writes a negative one on AOTC, he's dead. Just kidding.
Spider-Man is a film that I have absolutely no doubt I'll enjoy. It's just a question of how much. Superman and Batman are my favorite comic book big screen adaptations. If it is up there, then I'll love it.

 

[Heath Phillips]

25 years I've waited to see this movie. My earliest memories of life includes this stack of Amazing Spider-man comics that I read over and over again. He's my all time favorite superhero.

I don't go to the theater often anymore. I just wait for the inevitable DVD, but there was no way I was missing this opening night. Spider-Man ROCKED!!! This is the Spidey I've loved all these years. My only complaint, and its a minor one, was that they tried to cram so much into the 2 hour run time that it felt rushed. Still, If your worst complaint is that the movie left you wanting more... Solid A rating.

A few things I caught: Stan Lee's blink and you miss it cameo in Times Square during the Goblin's attack. An almost unrecognizable Lucy Lawless also had a cameo as the punk interviewee with the cigarette. Aside from the mention of Dr. Curt Conners, the Lizard, the name of Osborn's ill-fated assistant was Strohm. If I remember correctly this was the name of another Spidey villain who called himself the Robot Master and later Gaunt. He was a part man, part machine kind of deal so maybe he'll show up in a later film. He was never what I would call a major baddie, but his inclusion in the film shows the level of detail Raimi and co. have put into this movie.

Sorry to ramble on for so long. I just wanted to add my voice to the avalanche of positive reviews for "Spider-Man", the best comic book adaptation ever.

-Heath

BTW, I've no real problem with Ebert panning the movie. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But what's with all this "We" stuff? Speak for yourself Mr. Ebert.

 

[Terrell]

I was wondering what people thought about the running time myself.

 

[Duane Robinson]

I respect the man as a lover of film and for his steadfast defending of OAR... But that review must have been written by the pod-people version of Ebert. I've read reviews by him of movies I've loved that he's absolutely trashed and gotten a good laugh out of it and in some cases even agreeing with his negatives while still maintaining my love for the film. This review was just awful, and not only because he gave a film I love a negative review but for the flawed and incorrect way he goes about it. He attacked the movie's action for being what it had to be when dealing with a man who has the attributes of a genetically enhanced spider among other ill-conceived complaints.

What would he have Spider-Man's movements look like, a guy in a rubber suit suspended up by his crotch slowly floating around and kicking bad guys slowly so that his old eyes can keep up. If he had attacked the acting or said some of the CGI looked unrealistic (which it obviously will when dealing with a man who swings on webs and does impossible movements that human beings aren't capable of doing) then I would have no problem with his review and I would agree with you about people getting mad at him just for not liking the movie but when he does what he did in his review then I have no problem with people attacking his review. I do admit some of the personal attacks were kinda rude (mine included) but when you see all the mistakes and just plain fallacies in his review then you realize why people got so angry about it.

 

[Terrell]

Duane, I have no problem in getting angry with it. I only have one comment. That doesn't call for personal attacks and attacks on his intelligence. Saying he should retire, and things like that. I never said you couldn't disagree or even get angry. I agree on everything else as far as discussion goes.

 

[NickSo]

Personally, i thought this was a pretty good movie... Lostsa nice action, cool flying stunts, the hot girl :p)
The action in the movie just made it seem to breeze through, it really kept my attention...
The love story i didnt mind, coz im always a sucker for a 'nerd-gets-the-hot-girl' love story in any movie, so that was 'cute'.
In the spiderman cartoons, it shows that Peter sewed his costume together, he's a damn good seamstress to make that costume
The sound was pretty good, i watched it in a THX theater, not sure if it was in DTS or not.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Someone refresh my memory:

Who's Betty Brant?

and

What's the name that Jameson mentions?

 

[Seth Paxton]

On to other more important things. Did anyone else catch the homage to Superman when Spiderman starts to tear his shirt off? Pretty cool.

I was going to mention this specifically. To close to be coincidence. Also, the people yelling and throwing things...a lot like Superman 2 don't you think.
I liked those tribute touches.
This isn't a review thread, so I won't go into that. But I did love the film and consider it the best comic book film yet, honestly.
I was thoroughly impressed on all levels. I thought the script was great and I thought Defoe brought his A game yet again. I haven't seen Defoe miss in a long, long time, even in eXistenZ which has some up and down acting he delivers his little part with nice punch.
I don't understand any story complaints nor motivation complaints. I thought it was all clear and so freakin tight to the original story that I was blown away.
Frank, regarding the sarcasm. Since you are a big Spidey fan I assume you might have read the Peter Parkers 98-102 I think it was. It was a 4 part story where a nut with a shotgun is blowing people away around town. That series showed Spidey being a lot less sarcastic when he started to question the safety of the people around him that he was trying to protect (innocents, not people he knew). Like his Spidey sense kicks in and he leaps out of way of a shotgun blast only to see a person behind him killed by the shot on accident.
So I think he often used that attitude as a defense mechanism and in times when innocent's safety was more on his mind he tended to get serious and back off a bit. In that way I thought the film was 100% accurate.
Also, if Ebert didn't get that Parker is walking away from MJ because he thinks she will get killed just like his uncle and his best friend's dad then he must be losing his mind. The theme wasn't over-the-top, but it sure as hell wasn't played subtle either. It was (as it should be) the key theme to the film.
Parker trying to decided what to do - that helping others often causes as many problems as walking away. He is always torn between not doing things (which got his uncle killed) and being a hero (and watching those around him get killed or be put in danger). That was always the key message to the Spidey mags for me, the core of his character.
One other thing - the CGI. Like Chuck I say you notice it but it plays well anyway. Spidey moves like Spidey. His fighting style is very Spidey like, and the web-slinging, swinging, flipping, upside-down moments, all of it..comes straight outta the books IMO. Dead freaking on. I couldn't imagine it better to be honest.
Realism is not quite the goal in the film, it's HYPER realism. It's a live COMIC, and should feel that way. I loved X-Men and Batman and I think their tones were different to fit the different tones those books had. X-Men always seemed the closest to playing into reality, IMO, and the film followed that look I thought.
Spidey was always a tad more colorful than some of the mags, just like Captain America or The Avengers were more colorful than something like Batman, or even The Hulk.
If Ghost Rider, Hulk, Daredevil come to the screen as accurately as X-Men and Spidey did, then I will be one happy camper. I hope Spidey makes a mint because I would love to see more work like that on screen.
It was like opening up a giant copy of Web of Spiderman. That's the best thing I can say about it.

 

[Heath Phillips]

Betty Brant was Jonah's secretary and Peter's first love interest. I'm pretty sure that was who the dark haired woman that gave Peter his first paycheck was supposed to be, but I didn't catch her name.

On the run time, I just felt the movie should've been longer to accommodate the ground they had to cover. Cramming Spidey's origin, The Green Goblin, Peter's relationship with M.J., etc. into two hours couldn't have been an easy task. I felt that they skipped over a number of important plot points and exposition to make it all fit a reasonable time frame.

I also understand that anything longer than two hours (which is pushing it anyways) would've been a turn-off to much of the casual audience, so sacrifices had to be made. Like I said, a minor complaint from a life long Spider-Man geek. At any rate, I look forward to the forthcoming DVD's deleted scene selection to see what was cut.

-Heath

 

[Seth Paxton]

BTW, besides some other references, I was pleased to hear MJ call Parker "Tiger" at one point. Nice little detail to keep in the film.

 

[Frank Anderson]

Seth,

Yes I remember those comics. And I can't disagree with that reasoning. Mine is that he is new to the role and just hasn't hit his stride.

Some of the most obvious CGI was during the armor car attack. BUT, what an awesome display of Spidey fighting. I only wish there was more.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Terrell, how the heck can you sit in here and swat at people for getting down on Ebert's opinion while you have done it a numerous times about Gladiator? Huh? Talk about a double standard. It's OK when you do it, but if someone else does it, then it's wrong?
And now admitting you were wrong about it before it way too friggin convenient. :rolleyes

 

[Norm]

Ebert thumb down? You can tell he never read the comic book! But he loved Star Wars Episode 1, go figure!