Spider-Man (2002) (2 Viewers)

[RobertR]

Realism is not quite the goal in the film, it's HYPER realism. It's a live COMIC, and should feel that way.

Here's a concept that seems to have flown right over Ebert's head:

 

[Brian_J]

Terrell, I think everyone understands your wanting to dampen the personal attacks on Ebert but its really just venting and Ebert can handle the criticism I am sure. Its usually easier in fact to handle name calling then spot-on criticisms. He's been stung pretty hard in my opinion from people pointing out the obvious flaws in his review.

People often say things they don't really mean but truthfully, Ebert's review may be one of his poorest to date. You really wonder if someone at the studio or connected with the film "dissed him," so he took it out on the film itself and struggled in coming up with reasons why it was not good just the same.

It is also possible that he was not in the right frame of mind when he saw this film (this happens to me sometimes). But then he should not have been so confident in his own review and made a fool of himself. Which, IMHO, he did.

Brian

 

[DanR]

I liked the movie, but that last scene with MJ and Peter was terribly scripted, and also terribly acted by Dunst (who is otherwise good in the movie). Yes, I got the point that Ebert missed, and it's a really cool thing for Parker to do. But the dialogue and acting by Dunst in that scene was horrid. That made the movie end on a bad note for me.

Also, not being a comic book reader as a kid, I would like it if people can point out "cameos" for other potential villians in this movie. Was that kid he beat up in the school, "Flash" I think his name was, the guy who becomes Electro or something? Do you guys really think that Osborne's son will become the Goblin in a future picture?

Regards,

Dan

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I must side with Terrell in not bashing Ebert. I completely disagree with his review, but every critic screws up sometimes. I am surprisaed he chose such a faithful and charming film to do it on, but I still have great respect for his knowledge. I just don't trust his reviews much anymore. I still greatly respect him, and I thank him for his great support of OAR.
On Spider-Man...the morning after. I just want to see it again And again
I was a decade-long faithful reader of the comic...and Seth nailed my opinions regarding opening a Web of Spider-Man comic.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Andy_R]

With regards to mentions of future villians, didn't JJJ make some reference to another Bugle photographer named Eddie? Readers should know who Eddie will become.

 

[teapot2001]

If Green Goblin wanted to kill Spider-Man, shouldn't he have used that weapon that turned people into skeletons instead of that exploding ball?

~T

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Yes, but he's INSANE!! And he wants to punish him as well, for refusing him. It's not a logic hole...

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Frank Anderson]

Was that kid he beat up in the school, "Flash" I think his name was, the guy who becomes Electro or something? Do you guys really think that Osborne's son will become the Goblin in a future picture?

I believe the crazy nutty Doctor Octavious will be in the next one along with some appearances of the Lizard. It's a good bet Betty will create some sort of love triangle.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

If Green Goblin wanted to kill Spider-Man, shouldn't he have used that weapon that turned people into skeletons instead of that exploding ball?

And instead of talking about the master plan, shouldn't the villain just shoot the hero when he has a chance?

 

[Luc D]

Geez, after going through the Official Review thread it seems that I'm the only one who didn't really like the film (strange seeing as though I went with four people who felt the same way). Did anyone else on this board not think so highly of this adaptation?

And the Ebert thing, give it a rest, it's borderline pathetic. He does make some valid points in his review and yes he may have missed the point with the ending, but this doesn't need to become an Ebert bashing thread. He knows a hell of a lot more about film than any of us ever will. And I hate that I have to defend him because I so rarely agree with him, but he's an important voice in the world of film and film criticism and this animosity towards him is misdirected and juvenile. He didn't like the film, you did, let's leave it at that.

 

[Stephen Orr]

Another Raimi surprise: The credits list Lucy Lawless as the punk rock chick "A guy with eight hands? Sounds hot."

 

[Mitty]

Well, this has degenerated into another "Ebert has lost it" thread. How charming...and original.

Why do so many need validation of their own opinions?

Spider-Man is the single most critic-proof movie released so far this year. Why does anyone care, let alone get offended (as some so clearly are) by a critic's marginally negative review?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Mitty,
You're a jewel!
Crawdaddy

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Geez, after going through the Official Review thread it seems that I'm the only one who didn't really like the film (strange seeing as though I went with four people who felt the same way). Did anyone else on this board not think so highly of this adaptation?

Luc,

I haven't really gathered all of my thoughts about the film together yet, but there were aspects of the film I was less than enamored by. I didn't like the Green Goblin's costume at all; I didn't mind that it was changed from the comic book, but I couldn't stand the fact that we can't see his face during the action scenes. I know, we can't see Spidey's face either, but there was a lack of emotion in some of the bigger action setpieces because of this(IMHO). Thank goodness for the final confrontation, which I felt delivered(and had a great homage to Amazing Spiderman #122, one of the greatest comics in history).

Overall I enjoyed the film. It didn't quite meet my expectations, and two of the people I saw it with flat out didn't care for it at all(another friend loved it though).The audience I saw it with didn't seem to be too thrilled either, but I saw it at a 10:10 showing right outside of Philly and later Philly audiences tend to be more subdued(at least in my experience).

I do want to see it again, and hopefully I'll be able to overcome my quibbles and enjoy the film more on a second viewing.

 

[Robert Holloway]

Box office Mojo has just reported that Spidey grossed $40 million on it's first day. We could see the first $100 million 23 day weekend

Rob

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

The exact estimate is $41,413,000, which is an amazing opening. I don't think anyone is expecting it to make that much. It is on its way to make around $110M this weekend if that estimate holds.
Wow! That sure puts a lot of pressure on Episode 2.
~Edwin

 

[Ken Leggatt]

I saw this movie last night and I can't find any complaint with it aside from the Green Goblin's costume. This movie nailed the comic books so well I can't believe it. I can't wait for the sequels. My wife loved it and she didn't read the comics when she was younger. The movie makes me want to run out and buy all the Amazing Spiderman issues from where I stopped collecting.

The only thing that worries me is that they will do the next movie with an ensemble of villians like they did in Batman with the riddler, and Two Face and Poisen Ivy etc. I hope they stick to a more one on one story in the next installments. I really hope they bring in Doc Octopus next, if not the Scorpion would be cool.

Loved it.

 

[teapot2001]

$40 million??? Holy Batman!
~T

 

[steve jaros]

Sounds like a record for a day. Will stand for 2 weeks.

 

[Jason Whyte]

"We could see the first $100 million 23 day weekend"
Blang Blang! Now THAT is a long weekend!
And to think I saw it for free.