Spider-Man (2002) (1 Viewer)

[Edwin Pereyra]

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?

You know, I also don't understand why either.

~Edwin

 

[CaptDS9E]

Just got back from seeing it and i must say it was excellent. Met my expectations to the letter. I actually like the green goblin costume. I cant wait for the DVD

capt

 

[Richard Travale]

Was Eddie Brock in the movie? I didn't notice.

Man, I felt kind of stupid in the wrestling entrance scene. I was the only one in the theatre that laughed out loud at the costume.

 

[AJ Johnson]

I'm surprised the last scene when Peter was walking away from MJ in the cemetary hasn't been discussed. When MJ puts her hand up to her lips, was she putting two and two together in her mind that the kiss from Peter and the kiss from Spider-man felt the same or is it just me? From the expression on her face I thought she was putting 2+2 together.

 

[Jason Moreland]

When MJ puts her hand up to her lips, was she putting two and two together in her mind that the kiss from Peter and the kiss from Spider-man felt the same or is it just me? From the expression on her face I thought she was putting 2+2 together.

 

[Eric Sevigny]

-Luc D
I completely agree with your review, I felt the exact same way. What kept bothering me was the great amount of CGIed performance that lacked any sort of realism. That and the Goblin, which, IMHO, was a pretty weak attempt at making a vilain. I also had no expectations whatsover of the movie, tried avoiding all teasers and trailers up to today.
I left the theater with an urge to go see X-men again in the confort of home - a bad sign.
For your information, I am not a big spider-man fan. My only exposure to it has been the animated comics long ago. Although, lack of exposure didn't affect my enjoyement of X-men (to the contrary, it made me want to look for the comics).
I do have to admit that the great number of overly positive review makes me want to see it again just to see what I missed (if anything). I'll give it a shot on DVD as sound was not the greatest in the theater

 

[Norm]

Thi Them,

He ran out of those kind of Pumpkin bombs! If you don't like then maybe it was a special Pumpkin bomb for the Oscorp guys.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I noticed Stan Lee in the crowd (when GG blows up his board of directors during the World Unity festivities). Also did notice Lucy Lawless as the punk rocker chick.

I'm pretty sure MJ did figure out that Peter was Spider-Man at the cemetary (I thought his Spider-Man voice was a dead give-away when he did speak to MJ while rescuing her those 3 times).

I thought it was cool that Bruce Campbell gave Spidey his "The Amazing Spider-Man" moniker (he might make a good Kraven the Hunter).

Did anyone else think the blonde cat-burglar might turn out to be the Black Cat (another one of Spidey's love interest)?

I was surprised they didn't cast someone with blonde hair as Flash Thompson.

And I was surprised they didn't identify the secretary at the Daily Bugle (obviously it was Betty Brant, but I guess they had their reasons) when Peter gets his freelance photographer's job at the Bugle. The Dr. Connor reference was nice. And it wouldn't surprise me if the test pilot for Quest didn't turn out to be J. Jonah Jameson's son (okay, I'm reaching on this one).

For possible sequels:

The writer left open the possibility to do the Gwen Stacy story, though I'd rather see it the 3rd installment of the Spidey franchise. For the next sequel, I think they alluded to Dr. Connors, who was The Lizard in the comics, and might be part of the next film, but I think Doc Ock would be pretty cool (and throw the Lizard in as well).

Then in the 3rd film, bring back Harry Osborne as the new Green Goblin, and bring in a blonde bombshell (who can act) in for Gwen Stacy (and use her as a competing romantic interest between her and Mary Jane for Peter's affections.

 

[EricHaas]

I apologize for injecting a rather shallow observation into the thread, but I think this movie is a major launch for Kirsten Dunst's career. She is definitely moving into another pay bracket after this one. I always thought she was cute prior to this movie, but here she looks positively sublime. The camera is in love with her face. Though her acting was competent here, she arguably gave a better performance in Crazy Beautiful. But with the popularity of this film and the way she is presented, she is going to have serious sex symbol status.

Oh yeah, I found the movie passably entertaining.

 

[Tom-G]

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?

Mitty, you have once again made some very salient points! I totall agree you.
I really like the story and the movie was quite entertaining, but the special effects failed to make my suspend disbelief. Sony should have farmed out the special effects to someone who could have met the challenge.
The other thing I didn't like was J. Jonah Jameson. I would have loved to see R. Lee Ermey play that role. The actor who portryed JJJ just didn't have the biting remarks that I've seen in the comics and on the cartoons. I wanted to by annoyed by his constant putting down of Spider Man, but I couldn't.
Tobey was an excellent choice for Peter Parker/Spider Man. Much like when Michael Keaton was cast for Bruce Wayne/Batman, I had reservations about Tobey, but he pulled it off wonderfully. Yes, he is a "less-is-more" type of actor, but when it came to displaying rage and sadness, he was wonderful.

 

[Andy Sheets]

The writer left open the possibility to do the Gwen Stacy story, though I'd rather see it the 3rd installment of the Spidey franchise.

I'd be surprised if we saw Gwen in a sequel simply because the film's version of MJ was basically the comics' Gwen and MJ merged together, and then the climax on the bridge was already using elements of the death of Gwen/Goblin storyline.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Saw the movie this morning at the local Harkins theater. I went to the 9:45 show at about 9:30...and it was sold out. That's the first time I've ever seen the first show sold out in a long time. So I went to the 10:15 show which was also jam packed.

I didn't really have any expectations, except I hoped it would be better than the last movie I saw in the theater (Jason X, and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from that piece of crap) so I was pleasently surprised to absolutely LOVE this movie. I never read much Spider-Man comics - I was more into the DC universe - but this was a great movie anyway. The special effects were awesome; just enough realism to them to not take me out of the story, but enough comic like to keep you in the right frame of mind. The story was good, and the acting for the most part was very good. Willem Dafoe was not too over the top as the Green Goblin, which was nice. My favorite scenes in the movie would probably have to be the ones where Peter Parker is first swinging from building to building shouting for joy as he goes. Fun, fun movie.

Saw the estimates for Friday, and I was thinking to myself as I was in the theater, this movie is going to make a LOT of money, and if it weren't for Attack of the Clones siphoning off some of the business in the next couple of weeks, I don't know how high it will go. I'll definitely be seeing it again.

 

[Howard Williams]

I just got back from seeing it. I just have to post now. I read the first page of post, now I have to give my impression.

Spider is good, but not great. It just missed on a few marks. I feel compelled to compare it to Superman because to me, Super: The Movie is the measuring stick for comic book super hero movies. It was not as good as the first Superman. The scenes in Superman showing Clarks relationship with his "earthly parents" are superior to those in Spiderman. Secondly, there was something just not right about William DeFoe and the Goblin. I can't put my finger on it but something just didn't jive with me. I felt the same way about Jameson. The casting was off just a little for his charactor. That guy just wasn't quite right. It is very good movie, but not an awesome one.

I remember Spidey constantly talking about 'pulling his punches' in the comics when he fought humans. He should have made such a comment in this movie. How else can you explain him dukin it out full force with a couple of street thugs one minute and then the next minute showing how one of his punches can knock Goblin into the middle of next week.

I will give Spiderman:The movie total credit for one thing. It captures the look and feel of the comic book. Now I am a little more sympathic to what the LotR people were talking about. I had no problem with the speed of the action scenes, etc. Spiderman in the movie was exactly how I imagine Spider while reading the comics. The poses, the webslinging, were all dead on. I liked the comments made about the banter. I too remember Spidey as being full of comments and trash talkin' while dishin' out and giving a whoopin'. I also really appreciated the lack of obligatory scene(s) that suggest a sequel.

It's not perfect but it's definately worth seeing. Much better than Tomb Raider, that's for sure !!

 

[Scott McGillivray]

Well...to add my 2 cents.

I saw it last night and really enjoyed it. I think they really captured the essesce of Spidy well. The effects were not perfect, but worked just fine for the film. I had some questions, which others had touched on but have not been answered:

1. Where did Peter get that suit from? They made such a big deal about him drawing up the idea of the suit and the great laughs at his first attempt, yet we get no explanation as to where the fancy $100,000 (that's what they really cost) suit came from.


2. In the wrestling scene...is that Randy the Macho Man Savage? It has been a looong time since I watched any wrestling. If it is Randy, wow...I mean WOW did he get huge! Must be on vitamin "S" or something!


3. I thought the romantic scene in the hospital room ran a wee bit too long. They really could have shortened that up, had the same effect and not brought the movie to such a crawl.


4. No one in the theatre laughed at Harry Osbourne's line that his work was "murder" I felt like a dork laughing by myself.


Again, overall I enjoyed it but was not blown away by it. It just did not have enough amazing moments to draw me back for a second viewing.

 

[MikeM]

Eric and Luc,

I feel the same way as well. I was expecting to see a lot of negative reviews of Spidey after seeing it last night, but it seems that people here really liked it.

I was totally let down. I too left the theater with X-Men in my head. I was thinking that X-Men was a comic based "popcorn" that worked for me. Maybe it was the lack of melodrama in X-Men, or maybe it was the higher quality effects. I don't know, but there were a lot of elements in Spiderman that disappointed me. Namely the lack of realism in the CGI department.

 

[Nick Graham]

Scott, that was indeed the "Macho Man". He has basically retired (at least until a new promotion with actual money pops up). Strange he chose NOW to become a steroid monster.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Namely the lack of realism in the CGI department.

Not to be argumentative, but how exactly would you do the effects for a character who is able to do what Spider-Man can?

I thought the effects were outstanding. I would have been less than impressed if we had been dealing with anything other than a comic book superhero. To me, the effects were no better or worse than the effects in X-Men, a movie I also really enjoyed.

I'm just overjoyed that we're getting all these comic book translations by good directors/writers/cast/crew. We've got Spider-Man, another X-Men coming, and maybe even the Hulk will be good. Hopefully we'll also get a new Superman and Batman movie.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't necessarily want realism in Spider-Man, just believeability. I felt that it accurately depicted how Spidey would swing and fight. The joy when he swings through the city is INFECTIOUS to me...I saw it and couldn't imagine a Spidey fan, or a summer movie fan, not being thrilled. Just goes to show, you can't please everyone all the time.
I will defend the effects in this film to the bitter end, though
Realism is not the only way to go in CGI effects...that's like saying with regards to painting/art that photorealistic images is the only "proper" style...style counts for a lot. As well as inventiveness and creativity
Take care,
Chuck

 

[MikeM]

Marvin, I hear ya. I'm a big fan of these movies, and maybe as each one comes out, my expectations get a bit higher. I'm really excited to see the Hulk is coming, and my prayers would be answered if they made a few more Batman Beyond (animated) movies.
Getting back to the CGI, it wasn't that I wanted them to do things differently, I'd just like them to do things better. For example:
The scene of Mary Jane on top of the platform where Spidey had to decide to save her or the tram looked really bad to me. The close ups on her face made the background really stand out as a false CGI or matte creation, which made the whole drama seem a little lackluster.

Also, when Spidey was spraying his webs and going from building to building, I didn't have anything wrong with the movements of his body necessarily, but more with the speed and quality of the CGI. It looked completely SPED UP compared to the other action that it was almost out of sync. (Similar to when you watch the Dukes of Hazzard and can easily tell they just sped up the film of the cars scenes to make them seem fast. ) Rather than looking more like a realistic kid spinning his webs throughout the city, it looked more like the opening to a Playstation game. That's all.

 

[Evan S]

The scene of Mary Jane on top of the platform where Spidey had to decide to save her or the tram looked really bad to me. The close ups on her face made the background really stand out as a false CGI or matte creation, which made the whole drama seem a little lackluster.

Do you guys actually LOOK for this sort of stuff? During the scene mentioned above...I'm just totally engrossed by the movie at that point. I'm not watching it LOOKING for flaws and hoping to find them.

Some of you guys sound like people who "critically" listen to music, analyzing the "soundstage" and "imaging"...sounds like you are totally missing the point.

The point is to lose yourself in the story. If you don't go into the theater looking for flaws, you usually don't find them.