When the movie first came out, I was a teenager who had already walked with Spider his amazing journey in an epic 90s animated series. There, Parker began as a cool guy, a genius, a handsome man, a favorite of women, and ended up as a hero of cosmic scale. After that, in the film we were shown a downed sucker. Many people actually noticed this, but they judged it like a Chukcha from an anecdote: “Maybe so nada?” It was an obvious mockery of the audience, but it was swallowed by the whole world. Because everyone was too eager to see Spider in the movies, because it was then that budgets and countonium were brought into fiction, because in the early 21st century, the world was euphoric and everyone wanted to see only the good.
Raimi made a film not about Spider, but about the aching nothingness from the poor neighborhoods of New York, the image of which was close to him, a film about a 30-year-old schoolboy with hair on his fingers, who is humiliated by everyone even after turning. And I picked up an actor who looks like himself as much as possible. Google "Sam Raimi Young." That is, he shot an autobiographical sketch. This film is not about Spider, but about how Raimi dreamed of becoming Spider. And he did so well even in pink fantasies.
But then no one noticed, unspoiled then people took the film for the fact that it simply exists. What was the comparison? With 4 Batman travesty parts?
Yeah, I can agree that the '90s Spider wasn't really a canon either, it was made opposite too old, too cool, because the '90s. But the spider was not insignificant in the original comics. I had to take somewhere in the middle: a strange, charismatic, strong, not very lucky, but cheerful guy with his secrets. And you know what? That's what we got in Garfield's version. That was the right character and the right actor, the middle ground. I believed him. And Toby's version is a slob that evokes only one feeling - pity.
Other than that:
- Flat linear narrative. Where he was born, how he studied, how he became a hero, what pushed him, how he found trouble, how he won, everything... This scenario can be written by any teenager in 14-16 years.
- No villain. Yes, Defoe is loved for his unique face, and he plays well, but there was not much to play here. Sniffed a man of military gas and went to wet people, that's all the motivation. In the comics, too, the Goblin was not so much a conceptual villain, the Joker's copier. But here he is just a fool who kills everyone because he can.
- Mary Jane is just a skin. In time for the film to spin with Flash Thompson, Harry Osbourne; as well as Peter and Spider, not knowing that it is the same person. 4 for the movie. And in the sequels, she behaves the same way. In the cartoon it was a decent lady, and here I try to put on her nowhere. By the way, Dunst since childhood only plays such.
- The special effects with the skeletons are miserable. There were Aliens, Terminator 2, and Lord of the Rings at the time, so you can’t forgive that visual. It's just a piece of work.
I will end with a conclusion that will make someone sad. The Maguire spider remained in the hearts of so many spectators not because it was worthy, but because they recognized themselves in this insignificance. Or they allowed themselves to be imposed by naivete.