My attitude towards this film has changed over time, and it’s not that adults are not interested in children’s toys, or even in some personal luggage. What changed in me was that I stopped forgiving deception, stopped accepting "Well, it's okay," stopped considering a bad attitude to myself as acceptable. When the film first came out, I was a teenager who had already walked with Spider his amazing journey in an epic 90s animated series. There Parker from the first series began as a cool guy, genius, handsome, favorite of women, and ended as a hero of cosmic scale. And after that, in the film we were shown a downed sucker! And I'm ashamed that in those years I let myself think like a chukcha from a joke: "Maybe so nada?" Of course not. I shouldn't have accepted this abomination, this humiliation, this mockery of the viewer. And nobody had to. Raimi decided to make a film not about the hero, but about a pissed-up New York nothingness, whose image was close to him. Because he was making a movie about himself. Google "Sam Raimi in his youth" and you will understand why he picked up such an actor. The image of Spider was simply destroyed, Maguire was an outspoken mistress for this role, the whole concept simply died. But then no one noticed this, unpampered then people took the film for the fact that it simply exists, and even flights on the web there showed canonically, but in the cinema. No one had a sense of taste. Compare it to what? With 4 Batman travesty parts?
Yes, I can agree that the Spider of the 90s was also not directly canon, they made him opposite too old, too cool, because in the 90s the hero could only be like that – about the same as Schwarzenegger and Van Damme. But Spider was never a jerk 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. And he remains that way, even when he has strength.
Other than that:
- Despicable linear narrative – where he was born, how he studied, how he became a hero, what pushed, how he found trouble, how he won, everything. Well, this scenario plus or minus can write any teenager in 14-16 years.
- No villain. More precisely, Defoe plays well, but he had little to play. Sniffed a man of military gas and went to wet people, that's all the motivation. In the comics, the Goblin was not so much a conceptual villain, but he had some ideas, motives, a personal arch. It's just a fool who kills everybody.
Mary Jane is a skin, a natural fallen woman. 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. At that time, there were already Aliens, Terminator 2 and Lord of the Rings, so it is impossible to justify such a nightmarish visual simply by era. It's just a piece of work.
So I'll conclude with a conclusion that might hurt you, but I'll say it. The Maguire spider remained in the hearts of so many viewers not because he was a worthy embodiment of this hero, but because they recognized themselves in this insignificance, or allowed themselves to impose such an image out of naivety. It was necessary to reject such a "hero" immediately.