***Official SPIDER-MAN Review Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[Frank Anderson]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Spider-Man". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.



Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!



The Official Discussion Thread for "Spider-Man" can be found http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32980

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67505 Frank[/SIZE

 

[Frank Anderson]

Well folks, I just got back from seeing Spider-Man. Let’s see, what’s the best way to describe it?
Amazing
Spectacular
Yup, that should do it. First of all a word of thanks to my co-workers who made it possible for me to go. You see I was scheduled to work the graveyard shift tonight but I took a day of vacation in order to make this viewing. My friend Jim (who owns the theater) decided that Thursdays are slow and there was no need to wait until midnight. He did not play either of the 9 o’clock shows (it’s a 2 screen theater) instead, he closed the theater to everyone except employee’s, their families and some (lucky) friends. My wife, daughter and I arrived in a limo promptly at 9PM. Yes I said limo. A 10-passenger limo. Would you expect anything less from me? I have been waiting years for this movie, thanks to all the legal litigation. I of course was wearing my bright red Spider-Man tie. The show started at 9:30.
I imagine there will be some Spider-Man fans not happy with some aspects of this movie. Long before it was released people have been complaining about CGI effects, organic webbing, the Goblin costume but no matter what your opinion is on them, overall none of these should distract anyone from enjoying the movie. Why? Because they were good. Very good. Nit pick all you want I loved them. Just goes to show you need to see the final version before saying you hate something.
The story remained extremely faithful to the comics. I was overjoyed to see how well they did. The web-swinging sequences were phenomenal. All the moves I remember seeing in the comic books have been faithfully brought to the big screen. Spider-Man was Spectacular! Character development was long but in my opinion this being the first of hopefully many movies it needed to be. I am sure you have already heard it before but it needs repeating, the chemistry between Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst is almost magical. It’s no wonder people thought they were dating in real life after seeing them interact with each other while making this movie. Tobey nailed the role of Peter Parker and all his geekness.
I will go see it again tomorrow and probably a few more times. I have waited too long, been a Spidey fan for too many years not to fully enjoy this movie as many times as I can. The only other movie I can remember that made me feel like this was the first Superman movie. I had the same feeling walking out of that theater in 1978 as I did this evening 24 years later. This movie was FUN. Take your spouse, take your kids, take your parents but most importantly, take yourself. Next up are Daredevil (January 2003) and then The Hulk (June 2003). It’s interesting I saw a teaser trailer for the Hulk during Spider-Man but have yet to see anything on Daredevil and it comes out in 7 months. Hopefully these two will be able to sustain me until April 2004 when Spider-Man 2 comes out.
On a little side note… thank God for laptop computers. We have had terrible storms come through and have been without power since 7:55 PM. So I was not able to record and have missed Survivor, Friends and ER. It’s weird writing my review on a computer using candlelight to see with.
One last thought. If the movie sucked at least two of the posters were coming down. THE POSTERS STAY!

 

[todd stone]

I just saw this movie. my company got an early morning spot this morning to see it.
VERY DISSAPOINTED. There were 100 of us and about half thought it was too cheesy and the goblin suit was HORRIBLE, JUST HORRIBLE.
The movie was too hyped up and just did NOT live up to any standards.
:star:

 

[Frank Anderson]

Todd,

Feel free to post more of the same in the discussion thread... oops I see you already have.

While I will agree with you that the goblin suit was (and always will be) cheesy. But over all this was a movie based on a comic book based on a guy running around in "long johns". I think they captured the spirit of the books very well. Except for changing a few minor details (goblin excluded) throughout the movie it followed the comic.

The movie was too hyped up and just did NOT live up to any standards

Yes it was hyped up but this being a review thread I would love to hear your thoughts on where you felt it "did NOT live up to any standards". Other than just saying it was horrible, give us your review.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

This is going to be a hard-to-beat summer event film. I read Eberts review before-hand and he was right about the fact that *some* of the action and/or webbing seemed cartoonish and that there wasn't a sense of gravity. But, from what I saw, it was the only flaw. A movie this thrilling and spectacular, I'll take that flaw and smile right through it. The stunts were performed on a grand scale and there never lacked for a heart-pumping scene that invigorated the wunderlust. Best of all, though, was the pacing. The film never seemed to slow down and the tension supplied made the "intimate" moments more pronounced, as in, there was a great sense of danger lurking in every shot. This was a summer film in all regards: big action, big explosions, big scenes...but the elements usually lacking in summer films were here, proudly on display-heart, good dialogue and scenes that not only foreshadowed the upcoming tension, but also grounded the film in a common sensibility. Raimi has crafted a wonderful film that at once adores the childhood fantasy and at the same time, pushes the envelope on just what makes that fantasy so sublime: a tragic, flawed human behind the mask who is vulnerable not to pain or injury, but to matters of the heart. His attempt to do good is what buries Spider-Man in chaos and he must face down his own turmoil to overcome. All in all, a real rush. If I ever need to recommend a "summer movie", this would be the one.
Also, J.K. Simmons (the editor of The Bugle, J. Jonah Jameson) gives a scene-stealing hilarious performance. Definitely the suprise of the movie and worth its weight in gold.
Spider-Man :star: :star: :star: :star:
Bruce

 

[Billy C.]

I just got back from catching the 12:20 showing and I must say that I agree with you 100% Frank. I too thought it was spectacular. Toby really did nail the geek factor of Parker and I thought he looked the part in the Spiderman role as well. My only complaint would be with his voice. He has a very distinctive voice that sounds really believable as Peter Parker but I found myself cringing just a little when he spoke as SM. Hard to find words for Kirsten (gorgeous, incredible, yummy... OK, maybe a few words come to mind) but I found myself wanting to be SM not so much for his abilities but just to get the girl.
I thought the CGI was very good. I'm sure there will be mixed feelings on this since there was so much of it. I only detected a couple of scenes that didn't look quite right. Almost all of the swinging scenes were incredible. Unfortunately, the Green Goblin did look pretty bad. I couldn't help but think of UltraMan every time he came onscreen. And I'm not sure what was scarier, the Goblin or Willem Defoe - that's one scary dude.
The audio really stood out in this film. VERY active surrounds and just really enveloping. This is the only movie that I can think of where the sound actually made me jump in my seat. You'll know the scene when you see it.
Most of all this was just a really fun movie to watch. This was one of the very few movies that I wanted to watch again as soon as it was over. I'll definitely be catching it again at the theater (I don't think I've ever done that) and will most assuredly be picking up the DVD when it comes out.
My overall assesment: :star: :star: :star: 3/4 of :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[teapot2001]

Roger Ebert pretty much sums up how I feel about Spider-Man; however some of the action sequences worked for me like the apartment fire and most of the ending sequence. Overall, my main problem was with the believability: the CGI, Green Goblin costume, and certain scenes such as the "buddy chat" between Green Goblin and Spider-Man on the rooftop.

~T

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

Just came back from a 1:00 showing.
My overall assessment is that Spiderman is enjoyable popcorn, with a surprising and most welcome emphasis on character and relationships rather than dumbass action scenes or an overall plot.
Tobey Maguire is picture perfect as Parker. He really nails the role, giving it depth and believability sorely lacking in most superhero-type films. After all the caricatures in Blade 2 -- which I liked -- it was nice to watch a movie with *real* people in it.
The rest of the cast is excellent, with standout roles including J. Jonah Jameson, Aunt May, and Uncle Ben. Everyone is absolutely on the mark here. Dunst looks lovely and gives substance to a thinly-written role.
My reservation is only with the Green Goblin/Norm Osborn character. Willem Dafoe is an amazing actor, but something about the role didn't quite gel with me. There is an uncomfortable and unconvincing gel of comic book-style sinister theatrics and armchair psychology-style inner turmoil.
The action scenes are exciting, overly CGI-looking parhaps but enjoyable nonetheless. Sweeping shots of Spidey zooming past the New York skyline were geek-curdlingly exciting.
In the end, though, this was a fun (if overlong) two hours in the movies. Not a great film by any means, but a good way to kick off the summer (and worthwhile filler until Attack of the Clones comes out).
Rating: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: or a good 7/10. Compared to other comic book movies, it's much, much better than X-Men, between Blade and Blade 2, and not quite as good as the original Batman and Superman movies.

 

[Joe McCabe]

Add me to the spectacular list!!!
IMO this is the best "Comic Book Movie" ever made!
:star: :star: :star: 1/2

 

[AaronMK]

This was a fun ride. However, unlike Batman(1989) and X-Men, it didn't have much that elevated it above the standard superhero movie. The "outcast" and "being misunderstood" themes were touched upon, but not very effectively. The "responsibilites and hardships of having super powers" theme was also touched upon a lot, but, again, not very effectively.

On the other hand, it had the spectacle, action, and good (but not completely convincing) effects that any summer "event" movie should have, and on those merits, I would recommend Spidermen.

**1/2 out of ****

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I do agree about the Green Goblin constume, it was not very good. However I feel like the film hit a homerun in capturing the feel of Spiderman.
I thought Tobey McGuire was excellent and I thought the cast as whole did a very good job. I especially thought the J. Jonah Jameson character came through in spades.
This is the type of movie that, because of its very nature, is going to have an abundance of CGI. While the quality of the effects are good, it is not good enough to pass for seamless. However, it doesn't pose as an obstacle or distraction to the enjoyment of the film.
While I can't say that the film was perfect, I thought it was very good, certainly the best that Marvel has managed on the big screen (I put this ahead of Blade).

 

[James D S]

I just got back from the theater and I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed with the movie.
The CGI wasn't up to par with what I've come to expect from a movie with this sort of financial backing. The "roof-top-to-roof-top" running/jumpings scenes, a la The Crow, did not look convincing and stuck out like a sore thumb. While I agree with Ebert that the swinging scenes lacked an element of realism, which would be easy enough to attain I would think, I found them entertaining in a popcornish way.
This movie is not on the level of Batman, but instead hangs around (maybe a tad below) The X-Men.
I thought Tobey Maguire did a good job as Peter Parker but found Kirsten Dunst to be flat. Of course, I've always felt that this role belonged to Angie Everheart since I hit puberty - At least, Dunst is age appropriate.
The most depressing moment for me was during the rooftop chatting scene. Green Goblin, in one of the worst costume designs since they put nipples on Batman & Robin and not on Batgirl, engages Spider-Man while leaning back on a skylight. It looks completely hokey and contrived. Comics need not retain that attribute (being contrived in that way we know comics are) when they are brought to the screen (Superman, Batman). There is no reason why intelligent dialogue, delivered in an intelligent manner, from one air sled flying, mad scientist super-human millionaire villain to a geneticically enhanced spider bite infused, spandex wearing super-human teenager can't at least give the appearance of plausability.
For a comic-book movie, this film had several dry spots. Only towards the end, when Peter is Spider-Man proper, are the action scenes exciting enough to hold attention. I felt myself waning during the first-half of the movie. Even the Bruce Campbell, Macho Man cameo scene felt bloated, not to mention uneccessary.
Also, would it have been too hard to include a chance encounter with Eddie Brock? The fans, myself included, would eat that stuff up. "Welcome to the paper Parker, I'm Eddie." (I realize the nature of Brock's association with Parker at this point would not have been as co-workers, but squeeze the man in somewhere.) Hell, I'd even take, "Welcome to the paper Parker, I'm Cletus." Like I said, I'm a sucker for that type of stuff.
All in all, I rate the event a solid :star: :star: 1/2 out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
Does the curse of the Marvel movie continue?...

 

[Frank Anderson]

In the end, though, this was a fun (if overlong) two hours in the movies. Not a great film by any means, but a good way to kick off the summer (and worthwhile filler until Attack of the Clones comes out).

Well we all know I felt it was to short but man why did you have to include the worthwhile filler line. That was just plain mean.
I just got back from my second viewing. Again I think the movie was great. I will agree with everyone that the Goblin was sub-par. This time around I would have to say my experience with the audience was the downer. While some eat up the experience I for the most part can't stand them damn babies. Or the people (mostly kids) talking and then the annoying Shhhhhh. But they saved themselves in the end. When the credits started rolling there were CHEERS and APPLAUSE. Been a while since I heard that after a movie. And since everyone else is doing it.
I give it :star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Saw it not that long ago and it was OK.
The main gripe was the CGI. It didn't look that good and didn't mesh with the rest of the film. You could EASILY tell what was CGI, and what was CGI was not animated that well.
Part of my CGI gripe was the "swinging around" shots where the camera would movie through the city (either in a first person view or in the third person with CGI spidey added in). The ones that had a lot of movement came off as though they shot it, then sped it up and the camera just seemed too jittery. They might as well have shot all those shots in a high quality CGI because it would have been easier to add Spider into them and it would have been steadier.
And the very last shot in the film...that jump was a little too high to seem realistic.
I did like the story and most of the writing. The way that the characters have those little connections and loops to their relationships was good. The only problem was that somewhere around the hospital scene with Mary and Peter I started to lose interest and get bored. I also didn't like that the action scenes following right after all the hospital stuff were not that long. I wanted a 30-40 minute chase scene or really long brawl between Spidey and the Goblin, but I didn't get that.
And what about his parents (I know its not explained in the comic, but they screwed some story things up in the movie anyway, why not toil with this one aspect)? Where did he get the suit from? There are many questions that I have that weren't answered, and that didn't really help the movie any.
I would give it a :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Kristian]

I was going to post a long review, but Frank Anderson and Bruce Hedtke pretty much said everything I wanted to say, so I'll keep it short.
As a lifelong Spider-Man fan, this was a dream come true. I went into the movie with plenty of doubts, but I came out of the movie extremely satisfied. Sam Raimi was my first big doubt, but he did his homework, as the movie is very faithful to the comics. Another doubt was the cast, but I can see now that every role, from Peter Parker to Flash Thompson, was cast to perfection. The best comic book movie since Superman and the best movie I've seen all year.
**** out of
****

 

[Evan S]

I think everyone who is complaining about this movie, be it the dialog or the CGI is just plain disappointed only because they went into it with expectations way too high.

Movies are about entertainment. This movie totally entertains. It sets up believeable characters and is not just one big action scene. I thouroughly enjoyed my time in the theater and agree with Frank...it was too short.

Don't go in expecting Hamlet. Go in expecting Spider-Man. I think this movie is better than Batman...which is the standard all Super Hero movies should be judged by.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Spider-Man is only a disappointment compared to my expectations - Sam Raimi, a director whose name makes me giddy with anticipation whenever he's attached to a project, directing an apparently perfect cast in a "Spider-Man" movie? Especially after that great trailer. I fully expected not to be able to discuss this movie rationally until it came out on DVD.
Well, I can discuss it rationally. Maybe it's because Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Bagley retold this story in note-perfect fashion about a year and a half ago to launch the "Ultimate Spider-Man" comic, so Koepp and Raimi had some big shoes to fill. And, don't get me wrong, they did pretty well.
One of the things I really liked about this movie is that it's the first Raimi movie since The Quick And The Dead that really feels like Sam directed it. While his recent movies are pretty good, he's seemed to restrain himself somewhat since graduating from B-movies. Oh, he's still been one of the best guys at letting you scope out the lay of the land before the action starts, but they haven't had the same manic energy as the Evil Dead movies or Darkman. Here, he breaks out the toys - the swooping cameras that make you feel like you're glancing over the hero's shoulder, a groovy sub-cellular shot of Peter's body changing that recalls the hyper-zoom into the Darkman's brain, and gives amusing bit parts to his best friend (Bruce Campbell), little brother (Ted Raimi) and favorite car. He puts his stamp on the movie, without overwhelming it.
The cast, by and large, gets it right. The main characters are mostly teenagers, and all the actors deliver the combination of innocence and cruelty that makes teenagers feel real. Tobey Maguire makes Parker heroic but also just a bit nasty; as much as Peter's motivated by guilt, you can also see the dork who suddenly finds himself able to fight back. So when he throws off one-liners, there's an edge to it that you usually don't see in an action movie. Kirsten Dunst makes Mary Jane basically nice, but also kind of status-conscious. James Franco has a firm grasp on Harry Osborn's contradictions - he's Peter's closest friend but uses Parker's words to woo MJ, wants to be free of his father but is jealous of his attention to Peter. The kids are more than all right.
The grown-ups don't fare quite so well. Cliff Robertson is very good as Peter's Uncle Ben - he makes the necessary good impression in quick fashion - but Rosemary Harris doesn't quite work as Aunt May. She shines in one scene, the Thanksgiving dinner, where this 65-year-old woman who everyone, relative or not, calls "Aunt May" seems to intimidate captain of industry Norman Osborn; but really is sort of just there the rest of the time. JK Simmons almost seems to be in another movie, gleefully chewing scenery as J. Jonah Jameson. And poor Willem Dafoe just seems lost - I'm not sure whether it's his fault or that of screenwriter David Koepp, but it's tough to get a handle on Norman Osborn - he veers between being human and tragic and being a cartoonish supervillain. The two facets of his personality never quite gel.
Raimi's movies have very little wasted space, and that's a double-edged sword. Spider-Man never drags, but it's also worth noting that there's very little sense of time passing, even though the movie takes place over the course of at least four or five months.
On the whole, the movie works. Spider-fans will smile as they recognize the story either being exactly right or tweaked in a fun, new way. Non-fans will get a very good action/adventure movie, with a story that does more than fill space between set pieces, which themselves are pretty spectacular - sure, I'm a biased fanboy, but Raimi at his best is in the same class as John McTiernan when it comes to staging an action scene so that it's both exciting and easy to follow. In fact, I'm pretty sure that despite my mild disappointment that Spider-Man isn't absolutely perfect, this movie will grow on me.
On the four-star scale, Spider-Man is a solid :star::star::star:¼

 

[Kip L]

Okay, I rarely post but I'll give this topic a run. For me, the movie was strong in certain areas:

Story

Character

Effects

Take all three of these and remind yourself this a comic book super-hero. Movies are, IMHO, all about displacement and pulling the viewer into another place, making you feel a part of the characters and the story if you will. SPIDER-MAN did this for me and for that, I can honestly recommend it to someone who is willing to let the movies do what they do best, make the unreal a reality; bring to life that which does not exist and whisk us mere humans away from the doldrums of everyday life:>)

Remember, we are there to be entertained and I truly believe that if you let it, the movie can certainly provide you with ample entertainment for $7.

Generally, we all can identify with Peter Parker in one way or another and although the outcast to hero story may have been told before, it continues to ring true and and is used beautifully in this film. Substantially more character development than X-Men, perhaps because there is only one hero instead of several and this strengthens the story. All in all, a great popcorn flick that that I will be buying once the DVD hits the shelves.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Spider-Man - 4.5 stars out of 5
Forget the hype, as no amount of heavy saturation TV ads and billboards will stand the test of time like a good movie will. And while it may not be a perfect film, Spider-Man easily earns its spot among the superhero elite.
Ignore the semi-controversial "alterations" made in the transition from comic book to silver screen. Better to introduce some logical changes than adopt a slavish commitment to the source material. Adaptations succeed, in large part, due to the filmmakers attempts at reshaping a legend, not photocopying it.
Dismiss the tempting trap of comparing this one to other comic-book flicks. Superman, Batman and X-Men are all all damn fine pieces of entertainment, but I doubt anyone would say that these three films are exactly similar in style or tone.
Judged on its own, divorced from source material and separated from its inevitable sequels:
Spider-Man is a great movie.
The plot covers the genesis of our favorite wall-crawler, and those weaned on the old-time Spidey comics will be glad to see the essential plot points all present and accounted for.
Peter Parker is a sweet and smart, yet socially inept, high school student who carries a very large torch for his beautiful "girl next door", Mary Jane Weston. Pete lives with his lovable Uncle Ben and Aunt May, and is the epitome of all things milquetoast. Aside from his superior intellect, Pete's kind of a loser.
As is often the case in adolescent males, Peter starts to experience strange and somewhat satisfying changes in his physiology. No, this is not the onset of late-stage puberty, but a gift (in the form of mutant DNA) given by a genetically enhanced spider. (Some of Act I's best bits draw a distinct parallel between Peter's uncontrollable spider-ish spurts and 'icky' things best left behind closed bathroom doors.) Although initially a bit stunned by his sudden transformation, Peter quickly learns to enjoy crawling up walls, ejaculating massive web strands all over the place, and using his new strength to earn a few bucks in a local wrestling ring.
But much like any kid given too much rope, Peter unwittingly hangs himself. Uncle Ben meets with a tragic fate when Peter's anger clouds his judgment, and this causes an integral change. No longer content to use his newfound skills for selfish wall-crawling, Peter dons a sleek outfit and takes to the streets to fight crime. No purse-snatcher can avoid the free-flying acrobatics of our colorful hero, and Spidey earns himself his first arch-enemy in the maniacal Green Goblin.
Spider-Man achieves everything a comic-book adaptation is supposed to accomplish, and director Sam Raimi has infused the affair with dizzying "swing" shots, stark iconic imagery, and a playful sense of color. Those who choose to look too closely may see the seams in the CGI mirages, but where's the fun in that? We know Yoda was played by a puppet and that Superman was suspended by cables in front of a blue screen. These other cinematic magic tracks are not negated by our awareness of them, so why should extravagant uses of CGI effects earn such scorn?
As a fast-paced introduction to the Spidey mythos, the movie works resoundingly well. As a colorful and exciting "popcorn flick" it certainly delivers the goods, devoted fans are treated to a few knowing winks, and the movie as a whole goes way beyond a simple action flick. There's some real heart in this movie. It's nestled in between some dazzling effects (not the least of which is the luminescent Kirsten Dunst, but more on her later) and enjoyably pulpy character drama, but it's there all the same.
Though much praise is due to David Koepp's screenplay (although to be fair, Koepp had several "collaborators" on this project), the glue of Spider-Man is not anything flashy or extravagant; it comes in the form of two young actors. Although it was originally a somewhat controversial decision, the choice to cast Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man was a stroke of filmmaking genius. (My original choice was That 70's Show's Topher Grace!) As he's proven in the past (The Cider House Rules, Pleasantville) Maguire is a fantastic (if somewhat understated) young actor, and now that I've seen him play my favorite super-hero...I can imagine nobody else in the role. A combination of boyish charm, mellow humor and realistic awkwardness is Maguire's arsenal, and when he looks at his dear Mary Jane, we really believe he loves her. (That may seem a simple equation, but shoehorning "realistic emotion" into something as high-concept as Spider-Man is no easy feat.)
And what's not to love? As played by the splendid Kirsten Dunst, Mary Jane is everything a smart boy would lust for: she's sweet-natured, beautiful and rather smart. Though this may not rank among Dunst's most commanding performances, she does a fine job with a character that seems a bit light on details. Willem Defoe is lots of fun as Norman Osborne/The Green Goblin, channeling Nicholson's Joker for a few moments, but never allowing the character to become an outright joke. The jewel of the cast is J.K. Simmons as the blustery publisher J. Jonah Jameson. Though he only has a handful of scenes, this guy makes a fantastic (and sarcastic) addition to the eclectic cast of characters.
Aside from the original Superman, this is the only superhero flick in which you grow to love the characters. And in a movie that's sure to be chock-full of visual fireworks and high-flying action, a little love in between the explosions is a valuable thing indeed. Perhaps some of my enthusiasm can be attributed to my affinity for this specific superhero, but I don't see it that way. As a lifelong fan of Spidey, I was prepared to take this movie to task if my favorite hero wasn't adapted with the proper respect for detail.
I needn't have worried. Spider-Man should please just about everyone. Hardcore webheads get to finally see their hero's tale portrayed on the big screen with equal parts flash and emotion, while newcomers will get a strong idea of why this character has stood the test of time. Parents will thrill to see a childhood hero in a full live-action adventure, while a whole new generation gets their first taste of a superhero too cool to ever go out of style.
As a superhero flick, it's already one of the best.
As a plain old "movie", it's one of the most entertaining I've seen in years.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

Warning: Review/Rant following. Many nonmovie related elements. Reviewer is not to be held responsible for boredom.
I went into Spiderman with high hopes. I was not disappointed with the movie. However, I left the theater on quite a down note. I went to the first showing(at our little town's theater) and I suppose that might have been a mistake. I was expecting a large crowd, and many children, but I wasn't expecting the unacceptable behavior from said children. During the duration of the movie, I was hit with candy three times, had suckers roll past my feet many times, and was just plain distracted with talk and contrived "fart" noises. The talk (unfortunately) I have come to expect. The rest was unbelievable. There are many wonderful things about seeing a movie with a crowd, (the reactions, the laughs, the ahhs) but this was what I hate about paying money to view something with others.
Now, having that out of my system, I found the movie to be everything I come to expect of a Sam Raimi movie. I was eagerly anticipating this one for quite some time, and was not let down. I was quite surprised at how much attention the characters and their stories received. The emphasis seemed to be on them as opposed to the action. Yes the CGI was a bit distracting in parts (namely the rooftop jumping), but it was much better than what was in Blade 2. The most of it wasn't too noticeable. I liked the banter between Spiderman and the Green Goblin. It gave it a comic book feel to me.
To sum up, I would recommend this to anyone a fan of Raimi or superheroes.:star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: