Against the background of the current trend, the film genre acquires new colors, changes, improvements, perhaps even the decline of a subgenre. The most famous genre of films to date is the superhero. Based on this term, we already understand what characters we are talking about: comic book characters. One of the most important and important representatives of this genre is the beloved character Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man. The hero was born in 1962 and since then in the film industry Spider-Man has become a real story.
The first film about a teenage loser, who received the powers of a spider, was released in 2002. The main roles of the film starred quite famous and good artists: Tobey Maguire, Kristen Dunst, James Franco and William Defoe. The film was directed by Sam Raimi, who once directed horror. The film won two Oscars in 2003 for best visual effects and soundtrack. However, the film was discussed many times and already quite often it was praised and rarely criticized, so it is worth evaluating the picture not from the point of view of the review, but in comparison. A more different image of Peter Parker was presented to us by Marvel Studios in 2017, where Kevin Feige was produced. In this spider-man the main character played a young artist Tom Holland, as well as Michael Keaton known for his legendary Batman. Although both films are about the same character, but they were directed very differently.
Spider-Man 2002 is more remembered by the audience not only for the iconic actor, but also for directing, cinematography, music and history. Having watched this film many times, I hasten to confirm that Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man turned out to be much deeper and more interesting from the point of view of drama. The story is extremely simple and sometimes predictable (all known tropes about people who received powers randomly). We meet the classic three act structure and structure from the book “Save the cat”. However, Peter goes through the whole test in this story, from gaining strength and overcoming fear, to accepting that he is now living two lives and sacrificing everything he needs. The film immerses us not in the atmosphere of history, but in Peter himself, not only demonstrating his experiences, but also makes the audience stay in the place of a nerd. We understand each character. We understand the motives and goals of Harry, Mary Jane, Osborne. We sympathize with each hero, so the film will not make the viewer look at one point. In addition, the camera work directs our attention to certain objects, which is clearly seen in the film. The music complements reality. Danny Elfman is the composer of all three of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films. Each musical theme has its own mood and character. Summarizing everything, the director focused on personal conflict. It’s a Spider-Man movie, but it doesn’t matter. We care about Peter and his problems. The genre here is not a key weapon, but rather a setting. We don’t need to know who will win the fight between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin. Therefore, the main trump card of the film is dramaturgy.
Of course, the above does not always apply to Spider-Man 2017. In contrast to 2002, this time the film took not only the director, but also the whole studio, sponsoring the film. Since the film is based entirely on commerce, you shouldn’t expect it to have any new highs. In many ways, this is a true position, but not always. The new Spider movie surprised viewers with a completely different Peter Parker and characters. In principle, the story is very different from the original source (comic). Now Peter is quite handsome, playful, attractive apprentice of Stark, Ned, Peter's best friend, is no longer the son of a model millionaire, and girlfriend Michelle Johnson is now a cheeky and joking woman. The characters are very complementary to the world in which the new Peter lives. We were introduced to a new antagonist in the role of Vulture and this time the villain Spider-Man is not rich and smart billionaires, but rather the wards of Stark. The main distinguishing feature of the film is that this time Marvel did not try to create a feature film with an emphasis on drama, but rather to make a comic book adaptation. Even if the characters are fundamentally different from the original, the setting remains the same.
There is no correct version of Parker’s story. Each of the film adaptations presents us with a new vision of people on the story of Peter. While Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man is stronger and deeper in many ways, that doesn’t mean all movies have to be this level. This is a great opportunity to look at one character from different points of view.
By 2002, the development of the comic book genre led to the fact that Sony’s studio still decided on a large-scale adaptation of a series of graphic novels about Spider-Man by Peter Parker. The film was directed by Sam Raimi, who, in addition to horror, also directed many successful television series. Now he got the opportunity to make his biggest film of his career and was able to please us.
Tobey Maguire plays high schooler Peter Parker, who lives in a cozy and peaceful neighborhood of New York City with his Aunt May and Uncle Ben. Peter is secretly in love with his classmate and neighbor Mary Jane Watson, and his best friend is Harry Osborn, the son of famous and wealthy businessman Norman Osborn. In general, Peter is the most ordinary schoolboy, but he changes after he was bitten by an experimental spider from the Osborn Corporation.
In the morning, Peter wakes up very strong and skilled. He can jump over houses and run on walls. Soon he makes himself an innovative suit and adopts the name Spider-Man. This becomes very important to him, because now Peter can help people and give security to those who need it. Parker became a kind of friendly neighbor. But soon the super-villain Green Goblin is announced in the city. He destroys everything and only Parker can stop him.
I don’t doubt that on closer inspection, this film isn’t perfect. He has a very weak romantic line between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson, the actors often overplay and do absurd things on the set, but this is precisely the imperfection and lies the beauty of the film by Sam Raimi. The director managed to very nicely introduce the stupidity of comics and modern trends in large-scale cinema, thanks to which his “Spider-Man” looks good even 20 years after the premiere.
Tobey Maguire himself played a very convincing role. He showed us his character, Peter Parker, at first a typical schoolboy-loser, but then he felt the strength and became a real hero. But he hasn’t changed much inside. He continues to be a kind and good guy who will always come to the rescue. This is very important.
“Spider-Man” from Sam Raimi came out that film based on comics, which is not just made history. Compared to most modern crafts, this is a real masterpiece that certainly should not be missed. If you’ve watched it for a long time, it’s time to return to this movie.
It's been a little over 20 years. I already thought I wouldn’t watch, but the KP made fun of recordings from TV broadcasts (see they even go without advertising, although once the film got caught with it), so there was such a legal opportunity (you can still add these videos to the tab to continue watching with an indication of the time, how much more is left before the film disappears). It's fun, it's fun. It's fun to go back to the beginning of zero. Young James Franco, already quite old Willem Defoe. Yeah, there's someone to look at with a Cinematic spider's eye. My spider flair does not deceive me when I need to see what I need.
Strange business. If you think about it, this kind of movie should be contraindicated for arachnophobes, but I, although I am afraid of spiders, have never been afraid of a spider franchise. Uh-hmm.
This film is the quintessence of what we love: the acquisition of strength by the weak, the struggle between good and evil, youthful romance, geek eyeglasses, the hidden confrontation between rich and poor, etc. - all as I love.
A spider bite is a scary thing, but only if it's poisonous. In fact, spiders often bite you even at home. I sometimes see such bites on my body. Once to see a pregnant spider brood left in the house and one species of spiders just all year I came across, including in the bathroom, from where they themselves are often unable to get out. The bite in them, not poisonous, is hardly noticeable, just two neat points next to each other, very close to each other located. You can't say spider. But they like to crawl under the blankets, especially if they are cold. I think so. I once found such bites on my hands and feet a couple of times a month - I at least think they were spiders, since they were often found everywhere.
Anyway, that's why the guy in the picture's reaction is a little disappointing. He realized he had been bitten by a spider. And it's obvious that she's kind of intimidating. And he didn't even ask for help, even though he knew so much about arachnids.
Oh, come on. Great movie. There's no BLM or mita or anything we don't want in movies. “Yes, it was a chic time, I was almost born,” recalls his childhood youth KP.
We remember that at that time, the combination of computer graphics and practical effects made really significant progress. A golden era in a way. It is funny that today even computer games are about Spider-Man with graphics, mechanics like in the movie or better.
Otherwise, comedic, heartwarming, love, science and technology film for us. Give me two more parts.
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.
I’m personally a liberal conservative in terms of film, which means I like both old and new movies, but I don’t like the first spider because of conservative views. Screen adaptations of Spider-Man, although there were before that, but few people know about them and, despite the completeness, you can understand how much they are inferior to what I will write about.
What I have a lot of respect for Sam Raimi’s trilogy, like other old Marvel movies, is the absence of any super-plots, time travel, conflicts between heroes, parallel universes and other purges. Why choose a brain explosion when you can use a clear and meaningful story? However, I will still include my conservative views: why reinvent the wheel over and over again, make a wrapper with a so-so plot and cash in on the classics? I'm not talking about tolerance. Plus Marvel has been making too many TV shows and exclusives for online cinemas lately. It all started when Mickey Mouse came.
It’s hard to say which part of the trilogy is the best, but I can say that of the trilogy and the franchise in general, this part is the most plausible (if we don’t talk about spider abilities), even if it is fiction. Recently, Marvel has turned from fiction to fantasy.
I also note the special effects. It is hard to believe, but none of them were created on a computer, except for chromakei. For example, a lot of takes were spent on the real catch of the tray. Try to shoot without CGI these days, because too much attention is paid to the picture rather than the narrative. The film has very original costume designs. We don’t get clown suits or futuristic armor like the Predator.
The film touches on the problem of relations between generations, the problem of love. The painting also teaches you to be confident. When I first watched, as a first-grader, I didn’t notice anything, then revisiting a few years later, I realized the meaning of the film.
Another film in which you sympathize with the villain. Willem Defoe successfully embodied the image of a colorful villain with a split personality. The Spider-Man performer was also successfully selected. For the role of schoolchildren, although actors are much older, but the middle ground was chosen: not too old and not too young, unlike the following spiders. Toby Maguire is not getting old.
And let’s not forget about the dubbing, an important part in the popularity of the film among our viewers.
Let the claims here are more to the source, but why does Parker not go to the doctor after the bite of a spider, over which dubious experiments were put?
I’m revisiting more than 20 years after it came out in front of all these commercial products, and I’m glad there’s one. For me, there has always been and will always be one Spider-Man, Tobey Maguire.
P.S. Happy Halloween!
One of the most famous and beloved comic book characters among the most diverse generations of readers is Peter Parker, or Spider-Man. He first appeared on the pages of graphic novels in the 60s with the filing of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, and finally in 2002 the world saw the most ambitious and fascinating version of this iconic character at that time in the film by Sam Raimi “Spider-Man”. And it is noteworthy that even after more than 20 years since the premiere, this version of the superhero story is considered the best in a variety of ratings and polls.
Tobey Maguire plays Peter Parker, an ordinary high school student who wears glasses, is considered a typical weakling and tough guys don’t invite him to their company. Peter is secretly in love with his neighbor Mary Jane Watson, but he does not have enough strength and confidence to approach her. Peter’s best friend is Harry Osborn, the son of a wealthy father and heir to his millions. He goes to a regular school.
One day, Peter Parker’s class went on an excursion to the company of Norman Osborn, where a genetically modified spider accidentally sits on the boy and bites him. The night after the incident was unsettling for Peter, but in the morning he saw that he could give up his glasses as his vision became perfect. What’s more, Peter now has powerful muscles and is able to jump through houses without being afraid to fall. Now he can become the hero he never dreamed of being, but at the same time a dangerous villain appears in the city, a green goblin and the new-born Spider-Man must be stopped.
Sam Raimi and the team of writers partially reworked the story that the audience knew from the comics, but their version proved interesting and worthy of special attention. We were shown the story of Peter Parker as a friendly and pleasant guy who finally managed to gain confidence and will not deny himself the opportunity to charming jokes when necessary.
Of course, the most attention here is directed at Tobey Maguire, who has already become a fairly famous dramatic actor, and now he got the opportunity to become famous in the big Hollywood studio film. He plays quite interestingly and emotionally. At the same time, he tries to keep within the framework of the image and once again not to cross the edges of the canon, which Parker fans from the comics know well. So our Peter came out a little shy. But when he wears a Spider costume, he is dramatically transformed and becomes the hero he definitely wants to have in his friends.
“Spider-Man” Sal is one of the first films based on comics, which showed that painted stories can be adequately transferred to film, thereby delighting both fans of the original and ordinary viewers. This is a film that can be revisited many times.
If this movie were to come out now, in 2023, it would be torn apart. And it’s not that technology has come a long way and the graphics, which for 2002, in my opinion, sometimes looked so bad, now look like it’s from a computer game, not from a blockbuster about superheroes. No, the movie is infinitely naive about everything. In its plot, in the actions of the characters, in the performance of the actors, in the moral values that the film tries to convey to us. All this now looks too childish, fake, like a fairy tale, cartoon, comic book. But that's why we love this Spider-Man.
This spider seems to have come off the pages of comic books. These were the days when they were paid homage and tried to find actors who really looked like characters. Look at the Goblin, played by Defoe and Aunt May, played by Rosemary Harris! It's like they're copied one by one. And that's great!
Of course, there are a lot of very strange decisions in the film. For example, the costume of the main villain Goblin does not withstand any criticism. It's just an animator suit. And when I found out what kind of mask the filmmakers made initially, I generally immediately wanted to give everyone the back of the head for such a stupid decision.
The plot is saturated with a huge amount of cliches. The main villain, instead of immediately nailing the spider begins to talk to him, at the time of capture, puts him before a choice - the love of his life or the life of children, and in a conversation with his beloved uncle, it was necessary to be rude, so that later, when certain events come, all his life to lament that the last conversation was just such. Yes, now it is very ridiculous and even caricature. But how charming it looks! With such naive tapes, I still plunge into my childhood, in a time when all this naive seemed important and meaningful. And for that, a special thank you to Sam Raimi's spider. And no matter how many new spiders appear, no matter how much Tobey Maguire is criticized for his strange play in other parts, for me he is a real friendly neighbor – Spider-Man.
And, of course, a special thanks for the kiss scene, which certainly looks pop and in the style of MTV (by the way, won the award of this channel), but is one of the most recognizable in pop culture.
If you’ve never watched a superhero movie, you’ve missed a lot, but some of the characters in this genre are amazing works with their own twists and turns. I now include Sam Raimi’s film Spider-Man.
Peter Parker is a simple school nerd who gets bullied, but he's Prince Myshkin and he doesn't care. He tries to be kind and understanding to everyone, despite his awkwardness and lack of courage. Since the age of 6, he has loved a girl next door named Mary Jane-Watson. She does not pay attention to him, but does not spit at him from the high bell tower. It's just the kid's too daring to be in her sights. He is considered a sucker and an idiot, but here he is bitten on a school excursion by an unusual spider. After a bite, Parker’s genes suddenly change, and he has superpowers: he shoots spiders, climbs walls, he has a spider sense, and also incredible strength. Peter fights back against the school bullies and goes to make money in fights without rules on the car to impress Mary Jane. But there’s something going on that kicks off his superhero career, where he only makes money... selling his photos? The plot of the film is primitive, but it is due to this primitiveness that the plot is interesting. The viewer sees the classic superhero stamps, which are implemented in this film better than anywhere else, he sees a childishly naive story. Yes, the events seem to be childish, but the humor with which all this is presented is amazing and heartfelt. Add to that the atmosphere of New York City, high school life and the charming J. John Jamson and you get an insanely enjoyable film that suits all ages, but predominantly those who are older than the average viewer. Personally, as a child, I thought Tobey Maguire was the worst Spider-Man, and now he is indisputably the best for me.
Unfortunately, the intentional childishness of the plot and characters does not allow me to give them the highest score, but due to the acting of Tobey Maguire, I hesitated a little with the assessment.
This is the best Marvel comic book movie so far.
As a child, everyone loved watching superhero movies.
We all imagined ourselves for a moment in their role - how we save people from villains, put on a superhero costume and how everyone loves and adores us.
And here's the bad luck - everyone at least once wanted to feel like Spider-Man, who flies over New York on his web and fights crime.
Today I want to share my impressions about watching this masterpiece of Sony, which became a superhero classic and for many years set the bar for the quality of films about superheroes.
The first Spider-Man film was released in the distant years, and since then it has become a real legend in this genre - and this is not for nothing!
After all, the main character is Peter Parker, seemingly an ordinary, quiet guy, but he began to save people thanks to the bite of a radioactive spider, losing a lot on the way to becoming a famous person.
Here we meet the first, real villain of our GG - the Green Goblin, who is also the father of his best friend - Harry Osborn.
Norman is a brilliant scientist who drank serum and put on a special suit and now wants to use all this uniform for his evil purposes, and to be exact – the seizure of power in the whole city!
But Spider-Man will not allow him to do this, because he is the protector of the city, who is always ready to protect its inhabitants from evil, no matter what it costs him.
To sum up, I got very involved with the film – I liked the brutality, epicity, drama and at the same time the high message and moral component.
As Uncle Ben once said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Immediately you begin to feel the world differently, taking an example from this small but memorable phrase.
8 out of 10
Is this the best movie based on comics? Eat better. But this movie isn't bad? Of course I am. But to call it outstanding requires something more than what we end up with. And yet, I consider Sam Raimi’s creation a worthy film that deserves praise.
I'll start with the story. Schoolboy Peter Parker is bitten by an unusual spider, after which Peter acquires superpowers. The plot is simple, but suitable for the film, where we are just beginning to tell about how the story of a superhero was born, who knows how to shoot webs and climb walls.
I want to point out that the story does not move very quickly. While watching it, I didn’t like it, but I realize that the slow development was forced, as it was necessary to show the story from the beginning: from the bite of a spider to the beginning of the fight against crime. But in the second half of the film there was more dynamics in terms of events. I liked that already.
I am positive about the quality of the script. I liked the dialogue between the characters, which did not make me bored, and somewhere sounded smart and instructive words. I think it’s impossible to forget the phrase Uncle Ben said to Peter during a conversation in the car.
The movie doesn’t look like Marvel’s modern creations. Spider-Man 2002 is more serious than today’s comic books. There is no such thing as humor.
I like how the characters of this picture are revealed. This is especially true for Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Norman Osborn and Ben Parker. Yes, I believe that even in a small amount of screen time, Cliff Robertson was able to interest the role of Uncle Ben and reveal this character as a kind and wise man.
Well, once I said about the characters, it is worth noting the actors who played them. Tobey Maguire played Peter Parker (Spider-Man). His hero helps people when they are in danger, and also tries to fight his main enemy. A green goblin. Tobey Maguire also perfectly conveyed Peter’s feelings and emotions for Mary Jane. It looks like it's time to talk about Kirsten Dunst as the red-haired beauty Mary Jane Watson. She played her role very convincingly. I’m sure the filmmakers didn’t miss out when they gave Kirsten the role. Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn (Green Goblin) was able to bring trouble to Spider-Man. In general, the film is strong with its cast. Everyone in their seats. James Franco is the best friend of Peter Harry Osborn. Not the most important, but no less significant roles went to the already mentioned Cliff Robertson, as well as Rosemary Harris and J. K. Simmons. I listed the names of all these actors and actresses because they've all done really well. Thank you for that.
The movie runs for two hours. The first half of the film seemed boring to me, but then it became much more interesting.
7 out of 10
Spider-Man aka Peter Parker is a unique character. After all, in the comics about superheroes, readers saw Kryptonians from other planets, rich crime fighters with their own cave or a super soldier raised by patriotism and doctors. The reader could not see himself in these characters, too few people were in the same conditions as the characters. There have been attempts to put ordinary people in context, like Robin. A simple boy who helps Batman fight crime. But it was not that, because Robin was far from in the foreground.
But that all changed in August 1962, when the first comic book debuted Spider-Man. Under the guise of a fearless crime fighter lurked an ordinary nerd, Peter Parker. He was not very strong and was not popular with girls. He was bitten by a radioactive spider that changed his life forever. Peter defeated criminals not only because of his strength, but also because of his intelligence. But most importantly, he was from the common people, and the people felt it.
And in the movie, it goes through. After all, Peter Parker (Toby Maguire) is a simple guy from an ordinary family. He lives the normal life of an ordinary schoolboy. He's in love with a girl who's dating the coolest guy in school. In general, a standard set of stamps. But as Peter gains his abilities, he tries to satisfy his own needs and earn money for the car. But he is cruelly burned, losing one of his closest people - Uncle Ben. After that, he realizes that he must protect people from criminals, not for himself, but for the sake of society. And Peter's antagonist is the exact opposite. The Green Goblin (aka Norman Osborn) is a typical capitalist who only cares about his own interests and money. He would never have thought of helping the common people because, as he said to Peter, “There are 8 million people in this city.” And all this huge herd exists only to lift a few outstanding people on their shoulders.” Norman is an egotist who believes in the superiority of some over others (typical social Darwinism), while Peter “believes” that all are equal. And Norman will lose, because Peter has not only his strength and intelligence on his side, but also the support of the whole city, ordinary hard workers. People who in ordinary life are indifferent to each other, but in a moment of danger stand up as a single wall.
All these thoughts develop in the sequel. Namely, the scene on the train, when Peter saves an entire train from a crash and loses consciousness. And people take him out like a hero, and put on a mask, maintaining anonymity and showing that they trust a person without a face (which was the claim of J. J. Jameson).
There are also many subtexts in this film. An allusion to puberty. Harry, a friend of Peter’s, is the son of a wealthy tycoon and attends a regular school. Because of this, they did not develop friendship with Peter, as they are from different backgrounds.
Uncle Ben once said, “Great power is great responsibility.” This thought is key to Spider-Man’s character because he constantly has to choose between his own life and fighting crime. And at the end of the first film, he chooses not to put Mary Jane in danger, which took the franchise with Tom Holland 3 films.
I also want to praise the amazing graphics for my time, the music of Denny Elfman and the direction of Sem Raimi (who, in some moments, literally says, “Yes, I did the Evil Dead”). This movie looks like a lamp comedy from the 2000s and a modern action movie. It is suitable for any viewer.
One of the disadvantages is Tobey Maguire. He is certainly very charming, but in some places he did not play or directly overplayed.
So Spider-Man is a movie for the ages. A movie that set the bar high for both superhero cinema and all blockbuster movies.
The third film, my personal MCU. Yes, I should probably say thank you, after all, Marvel. At that moment in the movie No Way Home. Thanks to this film, I can now, with a clear conscience, make my choice – what kind of comic book adaptation about this character I like. And Spider-Man 2002, for me, is the best.
Well, it’s time to write your opinion about this film. Scenario and script it is the most common and predictable. But it's all about execution. The quality of the performance is simply magnificent! Not a single downside from the technical side. Everything happens in seconds, exactly when you need it. The film does not sag throughout its timekeeping and remains interesting until the end.
Knowing that the film is essentially about "Vasya, which (bitten by paVuk)", the creators made every effort not to get bored. Thank you very much. The film, years later, is almost outdated, the graphics still look great! Fights and flights also look good. And one more point - this film is disproportionately higher, the films about Peter Parker, with Garfield and Holland. Which makes you wonder why they were filmed? It would be better to continue this series of films.
The actors are very well matched to the characters - Toby fit in very well with Parker, the rest, Uncle Ben, Aunt May, Osbourne and MJ - are also very harmonious. Especially Norman Osbourne is a gorgeous Defoe game! The costumes and practical effects are great! To sum up, Spider-Man is still a great movie, one of the best comic book adaptations of the genre. And although I have reviewed it more than once, I still like it.
10 out of 10
When you think of Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man, you’re smiling. This is probably because now it is an unshakable classic, one of the first superhero films, of which there is now a pond. This is a film from childhood, which essentially determined the state of affairs for children's minds. It was simple. There is good and there is evil. No complexities in the plot, dual interpretations of situations. There is just a protagonist and an antagonist, and they fight each other like good fights evil in order to defeat one of them and thereby show an interesting story.
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy with Tobey Maguire has become something light and simple. And the first film in this series tells the story of the formation of the young hero and his acceptance of the fallen power and responsibility. The genre of modern superheroics is not even born, the now famously successful Marvel Cinematic Universe and the less successful DC Expanded Universe are not even planned. Only the beginning of the series about the X-Men is remembered as a kind of comparison with the story of Spider Maguire. And that's a good thing. The viewer learns to understand the simple rules of this world, to accept the absolute polarity of the characters, to comprehend the laws of the presented universe. It is for this reason and repeatedly complicated as the comic book world of films, and in general ambiguous surrounding real world with many existing truths, "Spider-Man" Sam Raimi allows you to immerse yourself in one story of a young man who is looking for himself and finds it his duty to become a friendly neighbor for the residents of a huge New York.
The film was heartfelt and intense. The few main characters allow the director with the help of a competent script to introduce us to all the characters and show their evolution in the allotted couple of hours on the screen. Tobey Maguire and Peter Parker fit perfectly into the concept of history. As a grown-up actor, I always found myself fit for this role as a high school student. His manners, shy smile, true emotions - all this allowed to see in Toby a high school student Peter Parker, who begins his growing up and transformation from an ordinary unremarkable teenager into a young man who learns to make adult and balanced decisions.
Kirsten Dunst at a young age became popular, playing well in “Interview with the Vampire”. And her appearance in Spider-Man once again confirmed that she is a great actress. However, to open up in this film, she, in my opinion, did not allow the script. Her heroine Mary-Jane Watson appears as a defenseless girl who is constantly in need of rescue by an eminent hero, she sometimes looks like a trophy in the fight between the young heroes of the film (Peter Parker and Harry Osborne) than a real person. And again, I am sure that this is not a problem of the actress’s play, but a script blunder or even a simplification of her character.
Good and James Franco. Let it really unfold for me in the third film of this franchise, here the young actor honorably shows the younger Osborne as a man who spent his life seeking the approval of his father. This is a complex character with its own internal problems, which will still inevitably backfire in future films.
A separate decoration of the film is actor William Defoe. That's who really gets the whole picture. His Norman Osborne will give a head start to any villain. Defoe, as always, is charismatic, bright and dangerous on screen. You can't negotiate with him, you can't get away from him. He is purposeful, dangerous and incredibly attractive as an antagonist. Watching the Green Goblin on screen is a pleasure. Given the complex family and friendly ties in this small circle of protagonists, the viewer is sure that even a family dinner is unlikely to be able to pass in a calm friendly atmosphere when such diverse characters are at the same table.
Be sure to mention the peculiar calm characters, which are Uncle Ben and Aunt May - relatives of Peter Parker. They seem to be the glue that binds together the whole picture, represent the morality of this world and teachers, probably for all heroes and spectators. "Big power has a big responsibility" is a saying that I think I and many other fans have carried through their lives. After all, these words are very correct and teach you to be able to take responsibility for your decisions, especially when you are already becoming an adult and must be responsible not only for your actions and responsibility for yourself, but also for your actions and your family in trying to give her the best, as well as protect from a bunch of different problems.
"Spider-Man" was born in time. This is an ageless classic for my generation, a breath of that almost perfect and simple world that could never have been real, but one that existed in Raimi’s interpretation, when everything was not as complicated as it is now. Then you knew the world was much simpler, predictable. Now, when you look around you, you clearly understand that the world is multifaceted and complex, doing things in it is much more difficult, and the results of actions are unpredictable. This was taught not only by real life, but also by many times complicated superhero paintings, of which several dozen have since appeared. In them, the world seems much more real and dangerous. And this fact also brings to mind the first picture of the Maguire Spider-Man trilogy with a special warmth in the heart. After all, this is a well-forgotten past, which sometimes you want to revive, simply by re-starting the picture on the screen and hearing the first chords of the famous melody from the colorful screensaver.
Spider-Man (2002) is an immortal classic of my childhood. This film was born on May 3, 2002, I was born on May 25 of the same year. This movie has been with me literally my whole life and it has had a huge impact on me. And not just me, because it's been sorted into all sorts of memes for 20 years. Lord: Now that I am writing this review, it is difficult for me to even choose the words. My review will be a little inelegant, but I do not care.
Now the first part of the Sam Raimi trilogy is something like a retro, something like an old nostalgic fairy tale. But even 10 years ago, I already noticed the charming old-fashionedness from which this tape about Spidey was filmed. And in my opinion, it is the old-school and naive atmosphere that makes Spider-Man special and unlike all other comic book adaptations; as if it were created simultaneously in the 1950s and 2000s. Here relatively (relatively!) a little computer graphics and really a lot of staged special effects. This takes me back to the distant times when the main scenery for films was built from real materials (rather than completely sawed on computers); when battle scenes were staged in a natural and realistic way, carefully developing lighting and choreography/fight sequence; when the spirit of art and love for art was above all else for filmmakers. I’ve watched Spider-Man countless times and I’ve never had the impression of a hastily done, careless ‘fuck off’ job.
I find this film very soulful and vital, which was greatly contributed by the actors involved in it. Peter Parker is the main character – played by Tobey Maguire is a pretty and innocent simpleton, whose amazing immediacy has captivated me since childhood. Toby may not have a huge acting talent, but his natural charm and talent to play the role of anti-cool losers “out of this world” bribes me to this day. I think he's done more than 100% of the job. By the way, I’m egregiously wild claims that 25-year-old Maguire does not look like a 17-year-old teenager. Because when I was 17, I looked 27. Not particularly looking at their age people are not uncommon, especially nowadays.
IMHO Kirsten Dunst as Peter’s lover Mary Jane Watson really looks like an angel, in this respect I agree with the main character. Like Peter Parker, Mary Jane is completely devoid of falsehood and strikes me as natural. Peter and MJ look very harmonious as a couple, and their dialogue is very romantic, unlike her prototype from the comics, where Watson was a carefree fatal diva. Instead, she is shown as a traumatized dreamy girl living with an abusive father and seeking support in different men.
Paradoxically, like Toby and Kirsten, they both present very simple and at the same time very complex, deep and sometimes carefully thought out images. Even with some cardboard and uncomplicated characters, I see in them sincerity and genuine emotionality. I really felt sorry for them.
Willem Dafoe in the image of the travel scientist Norman Osborn/nightmare antagonist Green Goblin and J.K. Simmons, who played the role of J. John Jameson (editor-chief Peter Parker) – charismatic uncles, they played very effectively. I remember that as a child, one sight of the Goblin helmet plunged me into indescribable horror, and Jameson’s eccentric antics impress me today.
I won’t say much about Harry Osborne, played by James Franco. For me, it just is and is, and that's all.
The film is made very smoothly, the narrative is smooth and pleasant. I managed to dive into the story being told, during the viewing I did not have any discomfort. Someone will say that Spider-Man (2002) is a bit boring and long, but for me it is just gradual and not very hasty.
10 out of 10
Once again, I belatedly touch the treasures of world cinema after a colossal time. So, I saw Spider-Man on May 3 of this year, the same day, but only twenty years ago, its American premiere. I don’t really regret superhero movies, and the Marvel Universe itself passed me by, so I didn’t have expectations (neither high nor low). Therefore, I will evaluate the film as an independent creative unit.
The success of the picture is quite explainable – and it’s not even the success of comics and so on. The film is shot according to the classic Hollywood canon, slightly fabulous - the main character-loser gains strength, walking around fighting with offenders and enemies and in the end, a long-standing unrequited love falls to his feet. Does this movie make it worse? Hardly. But its creators in this regard, the task lies with showing this pattern in a new way, filling it with a strong script, staging, acting.
And, I must say, they generally succeeded, minus some offensive shortcomings. I'll start with them. Peter (Toby Maguire) is perfect for the role of a nerd, but he doesn’t look like Spider-Man. Especially strange look his eyes with a glazed look at the moment when maximum concentration and accumulation of forces are required. And in ordinary dialogue, his fish face is puzzling. Consistent with this annoying quality of partner and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), who in some scenes on the face there is a fatal system error. Therefore, it is difficult to see in her fatal beauty, for the mercy of which several guys compete at once.
The story seemed a bit long. Two hours for such a compact story is a bit long.
Now on the pluses. On the scale of the film, Harry (James Franco)’s presence is short-lived, but with every remark and look he captures attention – you want to watch him, even when he is silent. The professionalism of the young actor is obvious, it is no coincidence that he still, despite all the scandals, remains on the crest. The only problem is that his character in the first film does not have much significance - except as an obstacle to the union of the hearts of Peter and M.J., and even that obstacle is very fragile.
The mobile facial expressions and acting skills of Willem Dafoe allowed him to create a very colorful character who (unlike the main character) is absolutely different in every interaction with other people - and even with his son he is patronizing (the scene in Rolls-Royce), rude and straightforward (leaving a dinner party), then affectionate (in the mansion). He was an excellent man, five points.
Exciting graphics and special effects even in 2022 is amazing. The creators tried, yes.
Of course, what is happening (especially in fantastic moments) often gives a certain naivety, simple-minded and a little caricatured youth, which is especially evident in the dialogues of the antagonists - but for a blockbuster fairy tale will go.
What in the dry residue is a good film, not a masterpiece, but not a passing average. I am going to watch the following parts.
P.S. Special thanks to the voice actors of Nevafilm - it was so joyful to hear their native voices, which, as in many cases, greatly enriched the film.
Despite the fact that superhero films were shot before, it was “Spider-Man” Sam Raimi that gave a strong impetus to the genre. Despite the fact that the plot develops according to the already worked out scheme, the film is interesting and very pleasant to watch, since the emotions of the characters are very sincere, and even predictable events cause delight.
Peter Parker (Toby Maguire) is a character that everyone has known since childhood. Charming young man, in whose life there is tragedy, fantastic reincarnation and love. Can such films do without love? Kirsten Dunst may not be the most beautiful girl in the Parker films, but with Toby, her performance is convincing. Especially inimitable Willem Defoe in the image of the Green Goblin - Spider's most famous enemy. Willem’s appearance, his penetrating eyes remain in memory for a long time. Even if all the other actors played worse, thanks to Willem, the film would still take off.
For 2002, Spider-Man is striking in the scale of filming. Camera flights through the streets of New York are amazing even without 3D effects, and the sun above the skyscrapers adorns many shots. Spider and Goblin costumes can also be considered formal perfection, they only enhance the impression of the protagonist and antagonist, emphasizing the strength of one and the anger of the other. Again, before and after Spider-Man, we've seen plenty of other superheroes and supervillains with more sophisticated costumes, but they already look more fake. The spark of “Spider-Man” are those scenes in which the background characters-citizens express support for the superhero and unite against the villain as firmly as possible.
Of course, “Spider-Man” is not without naivete, since before us unfolds a typical story about a brave knight and his princess, but due to the fact that the director very carefully approached all the details, it turned out great. I want to believe that we will see the same superhero movies many times, but looking back on what was made in the United States over the past 20 years, I can hardly believe it.
The best and most nostalgic Spider-Man movie, and here’s why.
Let me start with the most important thing with which this film became famous - actors and actresses.
Toby Maguire – among many candidates for the role of Spider-Man, took it, although at the time he was not particularly popular, but this decision made this film a cult, it is very difficult to imagine anyone in this costume. But most importantly, Tobey Maguire embodied the loser Peter Parker so well that it is sometimes embarrassing to look at everything he does.
Kirsten Dunst is the only weak link in this film, I don’t know whether it’s because of the role in the movie “Power of the Dog” or she doesn’t fit into this role, but she’s a great fit for this film. And what about Mary Jane Watson herself, I don’t like her in all the trilogies, all the time she screams and whines.
Willem Defoe – One of the best performers of this film in general, he played the Green Goblin perfectly, and as for the goblin himself, he came out stupid and scary.
The first successful Marvel comic book film about everyone’s favorite Spider-Man. There is no point in telling the story, everyone has watched the film several times, and what about the script, it is not bad, but from time to time what they see seems fairy tale or incomprehensible.
As for special effects, maybe for 2002 it looked great, not for me to judge, but it does not feel really great, but sometimes the presence of special effects is superfluous.
The soundtrack can be heard anywhere and not depending on the mood, and the main theme is inspiring. This is all you need to know about Danny Elfman.
Unlike all the films of the MCU, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, this film is not associated with other films, of course, as a child I wanted to see other superheroes, but this truly makes this film unique in its kind.
Watched: 12.10.21.21:30-22:54.
Production of this film was delayed for 25 years, and eventually in 2002 the first part of the trilogy of Sam Raimi about Spider-Man came out. And after so many years, this trilogy can be safely called a “classic” of Spider-Man films. The release of this film caused a high stir among fans of the Marvel universe, and personally fans of Spider-Man, which fans could only see in various animated series, such as Spider-Man and his amazing friends, which was released from 1981 to 1983 or Spider-Man, which ran from 1994 to 1998. And the expectations of fans from the upcoming film were fully justified.
For me, this film is a classic adaptation of the Spider-Man comics, because in my opinion, this film shows us Peter Parker as a friendly neighbor. Peter Parker’s development as a character continues throughout the film, and he also has to make choices and sacrifice what is dear to him. Watching the film is carried out literally in one breath and two hours pass unnoticed. And this means that Sam Raimi managed to immerse the viewer in the atmosphere of the film.
In the '90s, the rights to Spider-Man were handed over to different directors and a lot of actors could do it, but I can tell you that Raimi picked up an amazing cast. Three episodes of Spider-Man films have been released, but many viewers continue to give their preference to Tobey Maguire’s Spider. It is also worth saying that Willem Defoe was literally born to play the Green Goblin, so only he can convey the emotions of the villain in my opinion, personally I do not see anyone else in this role. It’s worth mentioning that James Franco’s choice was the right one, as he and Willem Dafoe really look like father and son in this film. Kirsten Dunst also perfectly coped with the role of Mary Jane Watson, let it be places and replayed.
The film won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects, as it looked stunning for that year as it does now. The atmospheric soundtrack for the film, created by Danny Elfman, also deserves the highest praise.
I would like to add that I am delighted to have Sam Raimi appointed to direct the upcoming Marvel film about Doctor Strange. I believe this movie will be worthy. To sum up, we can say that Spider-Man Sama Raimi was the beginning of an amazing trilogy about a friendly neighbor. The film deserves high praise and is truly cult for many fans of comics.
10 out of 10
There are films that I call the classic genre. So in the subgenre “Superhero Movie” for me, the models are such films as “Iron Man”, “Hulk” and, of course, “Spider-Man”. And I’m talking about the 2002 film, with Tobey Maguire in the lead role. I love movies that show the average person becoming a superhero. Or a supervillain... Such films demonstrate how difficult it is for a person to maneuver between ordinary life and saving the world. How heavy a burden of responsibility.
It has been almost 20 years since the release, I am not afraid of this word, a blockbuster, and the picture still does not lose its charm, its zest. "Spider-Man" wants to watch again and again, despite the fact that the plot is already memorized. It seems that there are no special effects, and filmed without much frills, but there is something in this ... Sincerity. Work for conscience, not money. At that time, it was not so bloated commercial project from Marvel.
The plot is as it should be. Here's Peter Parker, an ordinary schoolboy, an outcast in his class. Here's a spider biting him on a tour. So he's discovering superpowers. He is learning to control his powers. This is saving people. Here - meets the villain. So here's a tough choice. All this without any scenes. The work of the writer at the top, the highest score!
The actors are perfect. I can't imagine anyone else in their place. Tobey Maguire deserves a standing ovation. To me, only he is a true Spider-Man who has gone from outcast to hero. Willem Defoe came outwardly, and the game showed excellent - his grimace gave me goosebumps, a real villain! Kirsten Dunst... in my opinion, she is good, but her role in most cases was to smile and flirtatiously. It was possible to reveal her character better.
If you haven’t seen this movie yet, you should watch it. By the way, that same kissing scene in the rain where Spider-Man hangs upside down from this part. And she's a masterpiece.
9 out of 10
I watched the first Spider-Man the other day and, to my surprise, found that I liked the movie. I’m not a fan of Marvel or DC.
And so I look and think: in general, the plot is more or less standard for a superhero movie, but this movie for me is strikingly different from its counterparts. An ordinary guy lives his ordinary life, but suddenly some shocking event happens to him, after which the hero discovers his superhuman abilities - as well as the desire to use them for the benefit of his city; on his Way of the Hero, the character meets with the treachery of the press, the problem of conspiracy in his "ordinary" life and, of course, with a supervillain. Here Peter Parker is a completely ordinary superhero.
I think Tobey Maguire made him unusual. In him, or at least in his acting talent, there is some inner and outer slowness, silence. And this inner silence creates the effect of depth, volume of personality.
In his performance, Peter Parker becomes a real mystery that hides the origins of his character: Spider-Man is part of Peter’s inner world. So, in tribal cultures, a young male hunter ritually received his totem animal. The meaning and function of the totem animal is to include first in the psyche - and through it in the human body - some active, strong, animal principle capable of competing with other animals.
Spider is a totemic animal of Peter, which communicates to its owner such qualities as incredible agility, strength, endurance, the ability to climb walls and release webs. Peter, as we shall see in Part II, can control this entity mentally. When he changes his values and again becomes a “normal” guy, the spider dutifully leaves and hides somewhere in the bowels of our hero’s soul.
In a big city like New York, in this rocky jungle, how do you find your place for a young guy with no money, no connections, but thick glasses? In order to survive and realize himself, Peter awakens his beast, his spider archetype, which activates his inner potential and brings it to the surface.
I think it was Tobey Maguire’s play that created the necessary space in his character that allows the viewer to understand that the spider is Peter Parker’s inner psychic archetype, part of his complex soul. Other Marvel films about superheroes leave almost no space for the realization of this metaphor, they more exploit the spectacular component of the story than its psychological meaning.
And I'm sorry, because I think there's nothing in this world more mysterious and fantastic than the human soul.
The first transfer of a friendly neighbor from the pages of comics to the big screens caused many enthusiastic applause in his time. Of course, attempts were made before that, but it was the work of talented director Sam Raimi that rightfully began to be considered among fans of the cult. In those years, cinemas were not yet crowded with all sorts of comic book films, and therefore the genre of superheroics was almost not tested. But is Spider-Man as good as we remember it? Let me give you my opinion on him.
Since for the uninitiated viewer this is essentially the first acquaintance in the hero, the film begins even before the main character - Peter Parker - found his strength. Together with him, we have to go from a simple schoolboy to a superhero. And the director managed to almost completely reproduce one from the original comic (although in future parts will still be made deviations from the canon). And to watch how inexperienced Parker only masters his new opportunities, is very interesting for those who have already read this in the comics, and people far from them. The humorous tone of the narrative may not appeal to everyone, but within the film it is more than acceptable. However, all the chemistry between the characters and the dramatic element lose a couple of points.
Although the film positions itself as a fantastic action movie, a significant share here is allocated to comedic elements. Some characters completely assume the role of the source of endless loules, with each appearance defusing the situation after intense clashes with evil. And in general, the actors are not averse to throw away seriousness and accompany even the plot tragic moments of some overplayed emotions grimace, which causes laughter.
The graphics and special effects by the standards of 2002 are gorgeous, but for the modern viewer some moments are definitely cut in the eyes. Nevertheless, the film looks cheerful to this day, casting the visual drawdown into the background. But what is definitely immortal is the musical theme of the film. Every time music begins to play from the speakers, the events reflected on the screen acquire an even more expressive atmosphere.
Spider-Man is a very naive, kind and sometimes caricature film about a superhero. Having absorbed many positive qualities, he is undoubtedly worthy of his cult status and an army of fans. Through the veil of nostalgia, it is objectively more than viewable. But it is still not perfect.
It’s been so many years since I first watched ‘Spider-Man’, and what have I learned from this film for myself? That after so much time has grown a real sect of fans Toby Maguire. I have to say that I don’t like Spider-Man in his performance, and that’s enough to make me miss the review. Although here we kind of talk about movies, and the attitude to the film and the attitude to the main character are different directions.
Yes, the classics must be respected, and I will be honest - I respect this film. Along with '' Brian Singer he is considered the founding father of the genre ' superhero cinema'. The work done by Sam Raimi can be considered revolutionary, because at that time they had no idea how to bring heroes from the pages of comic books to the big screen. Now the backbone of the film may seem boring - well, the ordinary guy as a result of the incident gets super powers, is eager to help people, and there must be a villain in this story. But what impact? If you've seen any movie about the birth of a superhero, consider it inspired 'Spider-Man'
Having tossed a bone in the form of my presentation about Toby Maguire, I must explain why I do not consider him the best Spider. This thought will flow through the reviews of all three films, so ' don't switch.' And I'm not going to let go of things like ' if Maguire is a schoolboy, I recently went to first grade.' No, the main reason for my rejection is the lack of a middle ground in the character. Have you ever noticed that Peter Parker wearing a mask and without a mask are different people? Psychologists know similar cases when a person, taking a different guise, becomes more confident, but in the film it looks dry. Imagine Tony Stark if all his charisma appeared only as Iron Man. I think that the love of the fans of the character of Maguire comes down to his superhero alter ego. Because in ordinary life, Peter Parker in his performance turned out to be timid, naive, detached. It's so jammed that it doesn't even react to a fatal spider bite, although anyone else would immediately go to the nearest scientist and say, ' I was bitten by your escaped guinea pig, call an ambulance! '
And although Peter Parker in the performance of Maguire causes me a storm of doubts, he still looks much more profitable than Mary Jane in the performance of Kirsten Dunst. This is where I get really angry. Although the actress looks juicy in the company of Maguire, but by itself her character turned out to be fake. And Peter Parker becomes sorry when he tries to show feelings for the girl, while she shows the character of a girl of easy behavior. Then she meets with a school bully, then with a rich friend of Peter Harry Osborn (James Franco), when Spider-Man saves her a couple of times, she generally rushes at him, forming that famous moment with a kiss. The moment is memorable, but Peter better stay away from such a girl, God forbid she would give him some supervillain herpes.
Calm down, although Toby Maguire seems to me a romanticized fool, and Kirsten Dunst is a wooden one & #39; Princess Mario' there are three characters in this film that I really like.
The main villain Norman Osborn performed by William Defoe. As a result of the experiment, he acquires superhuman strength and with the light hand of the latest military developments becomes the Green Goblin. The villain turned out to be clichéd, with the desire ' to take over the world' but due to the novelty of the genre looks good. Add in Dafoe’s facial expressions and hints of Jekyll/Hyde and get perhaps the best villain of the trilogy.
Aunt May, played by Rosemary Harris. Aunt May turned out to be a typical good-natured grandmother, and when you look at the difficulties she faces, your heart bleeds.
J.J. Jameson performed by J.K. Simmons. Or J.K. Simmons as J. John Jameson. Of all the supporting characters, this one turned out to be the most charismatic, and I think everyone will agree with one idea - everyone has their own Spider-Man, but editor ' Daily Bugle' there can only be one.
To sum up, I want to repeat once again – I like this film, I appreciate what Sam Raimi did with his team. I like some scenes that look decent to this day, the main soundtrack of Danny Elfman is generally on my list of favorite music. But adore Toby Maguire just because he was the first in this image? No, I'm not here. I do not try to convince anyone or touch feelings. Remember one thought – love of the character and adoration of the film are different things that are a personal matter.
I'm surprised by Peter Parker's classmates. You went on an excursion where you were told about radioactive spiders. The next day ' nerd' Peter Parker suddenly became a powerful trickster, and after a while he appeared as a superhero Spider-Man. And you didn't see the connection here? What?!
The film, so to speak, corrected the circumstances of Ben Parker's death. When I read the comics, I wondered what was the probability that the same burglar Peter let escape would break into the Parkers' house? Here, Uncle Ben waited in the car near the building where the fighting took place. By the way, the wrestler with whom Spidey fought is 'Macho Man' Randy Savage, a cult figure in the world of pro-wrestling. And as a ring announcer, we first see the character of Bruce Campbell, who will appear in all the films of the trilogy.
The Osborns will not have a unique hairstyle, which is understandable, because people do not have hair in a transverse horizontal strip. When you see Willem Dafoe and James Franco together, you believe they are father and son.
Speaking of Defoe. Norman is portrayed as the self-confident, self-sufficient person that a successful businessman should be. But once the Goblin's essence emerges, Norman becomes a frightened girl. Depicting the Goblin, Willem uses the classic technique of playing Jekyll-Hide: changes his voice, makes faces. It looks a bit comical.
In the trailers for the film was the following scene: a group of criminals, robbing a bank, flies away in a helicopter, but the rotorcraft gets stuck in a web between the towers of the World Trade Center. As you understand, after the events of September 11, this scene had to be cut.
Oh, yeah. In the middle of the film, we are shown a series of interviews with New Yorkers – what they think of the new superhero. The female punk smoker is Lucy Lawless, the warrior princess Xena. And one of Jonah Jamieson’s assistants is Ted Raimi, the brother of director Sam Raimi, the performer of the role of Joxer in the series about Xena.
9 out of 10
The greater the force, the greater the responsibility.
(About the 35th minute of the film)
Spider-Man
I understand what will happen with this review. But Uncle Ben was right. And my responsibility to other moviegoers is to be honest. It was not possible to paint the first “Spider-Man” in green, unfortunately.
As for comics, I don’t read them, I don’t understand them. What Peter Parker was like in the pages is not for me. I'm judging the movie. Like it or not, that's it. Subjectively, I emphasize.
Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man is a normal one-view comic book movie, basically. Timekeeping is two hours! The first hour, guys, I enjoyed watching. Blind, loser Parker, beautiful redheaded Mary Jane around the corner, radioactive spider, Uncle Ben (again). The fight in the ring (for Randy Savage, thank you) is great.
Raimi's directing is really exciting. But as soon as the timing passes into the second half, the movie begins to hang out. This is especially noticeable with the arrival of the antagonist. You realize you don't care about Spider-Man and the Goblin. The graphics of spectacular scenes are noticeably outdated, there was only one clash in a burning house.
What's the Goblin's motivation? You want to shut down my office, I'm going to bomb the whole city for you. Spider, honey, come with me, uh, kindergarten, honestly. I don't believe it! The relationship between the Goblin and the son is not too catchy. Franco is a weak actor, the weakest of the whole cast.
Defoe plays well outside the Goblin image. The lunch scene, the clearest proof. We should wear a kaput suit. By the way, the costume itself is already thrash, it's damn creepy. I never got it, rubber on one side and iron on the other. Strange image, strange villain, not for me. Kirsten Dunst, on the contrary, impressed. Mary Jane believed in her flawlessly, beautiful scene with a kiss in the rain.
Twenty minutes before the final, I started looking at the clock. The sweetest thing is Peter Parker. Hand on heart, I like Toby as Spider-Man. The only complaint is that I would like more positive emotions for him to explode, fasten to himself and make him climb the walls with him. I'm sorry, but that didn't happen. But I didn't.
Yes, comic book movies had a lot of problems in those years (Daredevil, Catwoman, and Electra all confirm my words), so Spider-Man was welcomed with special joy. He looks really cool, I admit. If you ask me, I’ll pick Brian Singer’s first X-Men. No offense!
P.S.
Ash ' all cut ' – appears in the 37th minute!
6.5 out of 10
Given the fact that the unassuming to superhero movies of the 90s and, of course, the earlier years did not experience any complexes in relation to their “latex” characters, “Spider-Man” turned out to be very impressive. Although, here the matter is not even in the absence of any amorphity, which was inherent in Schuschacher's "Batman". The spider, who received a new life in the XXI century, became aliveer than all existing people X, but did not get competent dramaturgy.
Yes, which is very pleasing, for the first time the foreword of a picture of this genre is revealed in stages, explaining to the viewer who Peter Parker is and why this character embarked on the path of goodness and justice. In general, this would be quite enough for the whole concept of the work, but David Koepp and Steve Ditko erase the script originally planned in the 80s into powder, adding to this "bukashkin pot" red-haired simpletons, useless law enforcement agencies and in general, the entire children's set of naivety and sweetness. In fact, the kids just became the target audience of the film. After the sixth grade of high school, to look at the hero Toby Maguire without ridicule is already difficult - the constantly confused and handsome botanist does not inspire confidence as the savior of the Big Apple, and all his surroundings are ugly plastic, like the mask of the Green Goblin.
But there are white spots in this story (sadly episodic), in the form of GK Simmons, sacramental phrases and a few really interesting battle scenes (especially in the finale). From this work does not become completely fresh, breaking through the steps in an already ossified niche. Thank you for that.
'Spider-Man' - a perfect example of high-quality superhero cinema, which looks all the same interest as in the year of its release. To all the fans of the spider, welcome.
This story is known, probably, to anyone who has any interest in superheroics at any age, and even fans of Marvel comics know it by heart in all the details and interpretations. We have an awkward and awkward schoolboy named Peter Parker - classic & #39; nerd & #39; not particularly popular among peers and a favorite object for bullying all sorts of room alphachees. There's a GMO spider that bites our hero and gives him superhuman powers. And the new hero begins to do justice left and right and do good on an especially large scale.
First of all, we need to talk about the cast. The main role was played by Tobey Maguire, who forever associated himself with this image and in the opinion of most remained the best performer of the role of Parker / Spider until now. To be honest, I never really shared the general excitement around Maguire, even as a child, when I was still watching the first two Spiders & #39 on VHS. I did not like his stupid facial expressions and I did not see him as a superhero, and in principle I still remain my opinion. But still we have to admit - insecure, shy guy who suddenly breaks the jackpot in the form of superpowers, Maguire played well. And when he hides his face behind a mask, everything becomes fine.
Good for the rest of the caste. Kirsten Dunst played the role of Parker's eternal passion - Mary Jane Watson, or simply MJ. Kirsten coped with the image of the cult red-haired companion of Spider perfectly, in the role she looks great, and in general very ' hot' (if you know what I mean). Magnificent Willem Defoe embodied on the screen the image of Norman Osborn and his alter-ego Green Goblin. Defoe turned out to be a beautiful villain, insanely colorful, and the actor’s charisma overshadowed some scripted flaws of the image. James Franco starred in the role of Harry Osborn - Peter's friend, and J.K. Simmons tried on the image of Jay Jonah Jamieson - the eccentric head of the local newspaper 'Daidy Bugle'. In general, the cast in the film as a selection - all stars really have talent, which is not always found even in modern comic books.
The story told in the film is simple, but thanks to the excellent presentation and dynamics, it is interesting to watch the events taking place. Action in 'Spider-Man' it turned out not so much, but it is very high-quality and falls well on the plot (i.e. there is no action just for the sake of the action itself). The picture in the film is still good, even if in places you can see already outdated special effects and graphics, but still not so much that it spoils the overall impression. And about the magnificent soundtrack (and in particular the title theme) Danny Elfman is not even worth talking about, it is better to hear once, as they say.
Coming to the finale - 'Spider-Man' it's still a great movie and top-notch superhero. Does the tape have flaws? Absolutely. Someone may not like the liberties that violate the unshakable canons of the Spider universe, someone may have claims to the actors and, for example, inconsistencies between their real age and the ages of the characters, someone may present something else, based on their own tastes. However, despite everything, 'Spider-Man' of 2002 as a whole work is a great product, worthy of attention even those who have never been particularly fond of superheroics.
There is something that the inhabitants of the city are much sweeter than heroism... the hero’s failure, his fall and death.
Spider-Man
For the past ten years, Marvel has been very active, and the long-awaited move of Spider-Man into their cinematic universe represents, I believe, the final step up the ladder. But, in the 00s, Marvel was finally able to catch up with his rival - DC comics, shooting several blockbusters with their superheroes - Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man. The second X-Men movie was on the way, as were the long-suffering solo films Daredevil, the Hulk, and, a little later, the Fantastic Four team movie. Of all the Marvel heroes, Spider-Man probably has the most recognizable name. In the late 60s and early 90s, animated series were released, which became one of the main products of the company. There was even a rash outing on television, but the first series is probably best remembered by fans and casual viewers. In the '90s, James Cameron spent years developing the project, but eventually abandoned it when legal issues delayed production indefinitely. In the end, these intrigues and ambiguities were dropped and the director of Evil Dead, Sam Raimi, was brought on board, which is undoubtedly a great choice.
"Spider-Man" is one of the best superhero outings - bright, colorful, and well-developed, without suppressing the mind and not insulting the audience's intelligence. On the scale of superhero cinema, it's about on par with "X-Men", ahead of Burton's Batman dilogy, and behind the majesticly thrilling "Superman" from Richard Donner. The truth is, Superman was much more revolutionary. In fact, everything went with him, but this is a question of my personal perception. And, like the first Man of Steel movie, it has a wide-open ending that asks — no, it needs to be continued, because it is clear that the unexpected box office disaster was not even close. In comic book language, this is an original story that tells how Spider-Man was born. The film begins with the socially uncouth Peter Parker, who is obviously one of the least cool guys in school. He's shy and smart, and the girl of his dreams, Mary Jane Watson, doesn't know he exists, even though he's lived next door to her for more than 10 years. Peter's best friend is Harry Osborn, the loveless son of rich and arrogant scientist Norman Osborn. Peter lives with his uncle Ben and Aunt May, who are like father and mother, friend, brother and sister to him.
The 1st hour of the film is definitely better than the second. This is the segment of the film where Peter discovers his new powers and explores them tentatively. Covertly, and then with more confidence, he stands before a school thug to fight back. He deals with his unrequited love for Mary Jane and copes with the responsibilities and consequences of using (or not using) his abilities. The exhilarating moment in which Peter first uses his web to move from skyscraper to skyscraper is filmed in a way that we can feel him close to losing control and falling. The last half of the film is more action-oriented and overly dependent on special effects. Peter Parker has a lot of appeal and emotional depth. These qualities always hold true, even when he wears a max. Although it is primarily a rather adventure film, there is a high ratio of romance - after all, many of Peter's motifs center around his obsession with Mary Jane. The two make a cute couple, but most of their love story has yet to be revealed. Spider-Man gives random doses of morality, much of it coming from Uncle Ben's mouth. The film's greatest strength, Tobey Maguire, who has never shown a bad performance, is an inspired choice. Not only is he able to easily cope with the role, he has physically transformed to look good in a Spider costume.
A quiet, serious performance and it won't take long for us to believe in Peter. In addition, Toby manages to make some extremely silly dialogues persuasive. Of course, Willem Defoe is intimidating, but not to the point of embarrassing it, and he isn’t given enough screen time to overshadow Peter’s story. As a love interest, Kirsten Dunst is moderately attractive, but, she's always been the Marvel equivalent of Lois Lane, sorry, she doesn't have to do much. Raimi avoids overabundance, but steers the movie in a way that gives us the feeling of being traveling and overcoming with Spider-Man, rather than standing on the sidelines like observers. As a comic book character, Spider-Man has been around for decades. The leap into a new realm has rejuvenated the legend and offers moviegoers the chance to sit back and enjoy the birth of a new cinematic superhero.
If you ask each of us which superhero is the most beloved since childhood, you will undoubtedly answer the same: Spider-Man. It doesn’t matter when it first appeared. The main thing is that it is very popular not only for children, but also for adults. At first, fans preferred to buy and flip comics with his participation, then watched all the animated series on TV. They even bought VHS tapes to watch over and over again. It is possible that some had so many cassettes that the entire shelf was packed.
But in the early 2000s, the Friendly Neighbor won success in cinema. Now it is unlikely that you can say anything about the film, as everyone already understood, discussed and wrote. I still want to think about it.
The fact is that Spider-Man was repeatedly tried to bring to wide screens in the 70-80s. True, the creators helped push it to television. But it was a mistake because of a bad script and a low rating. The full-length pilot proved otherwise. Nevertheless, the directors and Stan Lee himself have long thought and tried to do everything possible to Spider be not only in the animated atmosphere. And while they were slowly “climbing” along the “wall of designs”, the rights to the superhero flew on the web from one film studio to another. And in the late 90s, the rights to even created scripts acquired Sony Pictures. And the most extreme director was Sam Raimi, who, most surprisingly, loved Spider-Man from a young age.
There were too many scripts to fit into one movie. And I had to give up a lot, including cartridges with webs. However, this was not done in a negative sense. The organic web was a phenomenon, which gives the film an old, but updated and at the same time original image. The cast was difficult to recruit: if not for Tobey Maguire, and Leonardo DiCaprio tried on the costume, it would seem very strange. Just think: first to portray the image of a downtrodden nerd and then a crime fighter who climbs walls and releases webs ... Maguire was given the role for good reason. But he once played a nerd in various films. As for the role of the Green Goblin, there really is a need for an actor who can portray psychotics and people with dual personality. It's Willem Dafoe. He is surprised by the director’s descriptions of psychological nuances similar to those of the Joker, portrayed by Jack Nicholson in Tim Burton’s Batman, and Dr. Jekyll with Mr. Hyde.
The music for the film was different from the other that was written for the opening screensavers of the animated series. Every superhero has a musical theme. She has a major role in cinema, as well as acting, special effects and costumes. Thanks to the main theme, it is possible to understand the image presented by the creator. That's why the choice fell on Danny Elphaman. The musical theme is built around a friendly neighbor. Although for some reason now there are rumors that there is no most recognizable musical theme after the creation of 2 reboots of the franchise, one of which was a failure.
It is noteworthy that the first quarter of the film is built in the biographical context of the main character. We see how an ordinary schoolboy in a non-Tepovsky form and wearing glasses goes on interesting scientific excursions, and among his classmates there were only rockers and hooligans. And all of a sudden, quietly descends on a web right on Peter Parker's arm and bites. And when superpowers appeared, the student no longer wants to tolerate antics and bullying. At the end of the first quarter of the film, the main character comes to the conclusion that his forces must be used as intended. After he could not save his uncle, who was killed by a robber who ran past Peter, and he did not catch, believing that it was better to think of himself. Well, the most interesting thing was in the rest of the movie: the birth of Spider-Man’s career, the first superhero assignment, the first supervillain... everything was for the first time. I want to watch the movie again.
It is not for nothing that the director made a feature film about a friendly neighbor, showing all the imagination to be embodied in the real. Since: firstly, superheroes can be not only on the pages of the comic book and in animated series, but also in the movies; secondly, every viewer-fan wants to look at the hero in a different atmosphere of presentation; and thirdly, the creators still try to make the characters even better, so that they do not lose interest.
A very powerful film. One of my childhood favorite movies and one of my favorite superhero movies. This film is based on the comics about Spider-Man, probably one of the most popular and recognizable superheroes in the world.
I really liked the way this film was made. The viewing experience was somewhat different from that of X-Men (2000), where the film seemed too short and the plot and characters were not fully revealed. We managed to weave together the action and the plot component, seasoning it all with a pinch of philosophy. Although, the timing of "Spider-Man" in two hours, in principle, allowed you to do it without any problems. Thus, the film turned out to be rich, interesting and, as I think, his thought was fully revealed.
At first it was a little messy. There was virtually no backstory, and the action immediately began, and we were shown how Spider-Man and the Green Goblin were getting their powers, and quite rapidly. I loved the way the film showed Peter’s familiarity with his abilities: how he learned to crawl on walls, jump on roofs, and of course, use webs. After that, the progress of the film began to slow down a little and the emphasis began to be placed on the characters. Especially the character of Peter, who began to change and decided to use his abilities in a different direction. However, a sharp turn in fate forced Peter to change his mind. From the point of view of the production of the film, I liked that in the moments of the formation of Peter Parker as a hero, shots were used with newspaper clippings and comments from passers-by. Very profitable. For these few shots, it became clear that some time has passed and already in the next full-fledged scene, the viewer perceives Peter as a formed hero. Thus, the authors saved time and left it for other scenes.
The main thing I like about Spider-Man and what sets it apart from other movies is that this film is not just about Spider-Man, his abilities and how he fights crime and supervillains, but about what it's like to be a superhero. After all, Peter is an ordinary guy who needs to combine a superhero with everyday life. This film is about the pain of choice, the fact that being a superhero is a heavy burden that not everyone is able to take on. A good solution in this regard is to conduct a parallel between the Green Goblin and Spider-Man, which showed the difference in their thinking. Peter grows up and becomes more and more aware of his new role in society.
I loved how Toby Maugair and Willem Dafoe played their roles. Despite the fact that to date, many actors have tried themselves in the role of Spider, in this role I perceive Maguire. He perfectly played Peter Parker - a ridiculous, insecure nerd and perfectly fit the image of witty and charismatic Spider-Man. Willem played the Goblin beautifully. I especially liked his performance in the mirror scene at Norman's mansion, when Willem played a split personality. I also think Kirsten Dunst was a great fit for the role of Mary Jane and played her well.
The only thing the film loses is some action scenes, such as Peter running on rooftops where computer graphics were visible. Still, it blurred the overall impression. However, mostly I liked the fight scenes, great camera work. The scene of the final battle with the Green Goblin was epic. However, the action was not paramount in this film.
For me, Spider-Man is first and foremost a philosophy film and then everything else. For myself, I noted the directing work of Sam Raimi, which I had not noticed before. I’d like to see some of his movies and watch some of them.
9 out of 10
It’s hard to overestimate my love for Spider-Man. Suffice it to say that since childhood, this is my favorite superhero, the love for which I carried into adulthood. Of course, like many in our country, I am mostly familiar with its universe thanks to the animated series, which ran from 1994-1998.
It is clear that now, in an era when the movie Spider-Man has already experienced two reboots, it makes no sense to write about the first film adaptation as if the rest do not exist, so I will not avoid comparisons with them in my review. To begin with, I remember my emotions from watching the movie the year it was released. At the time, I was negative about the film, because the characters were different from those I knew from cartoons: Peter Parker was different, and the Green Goblin, and Mary Jane, and others – all of them seemed to me untrue, because I believed their image from the cartoon to be canon. But then I watched this film more than once, I had a VHS cassette, and therefore subsequently “tried” – exactly for the release of the second film (2004).
Since, as I said, I have seen this film more than once, I am well acquainted with its contents, up to the fact that I periodically quote phrases from it. And still, as in those years, it is scary to think, more than 15 years ago, I reverently relate to this adaptation of the adventures of the comic book hero Peter Parker aka Spider-Man (and its sequels). And let me explain why: in this film, we not only reveal the character in all the details, we really understand what he is, we see the development of his character, how he turns from a nerd into a hero. We see his feelings about the girl he is in love with, Mary Jane, his emotions, his relationship with his best friend, Harry Osborne, which are not easy and in the whole trilogy of Sam Raimi this topic is raised constantly.
There are a lot of interesting thoughts about high. Peter's uncle and aunt are truly great people. And it seems logical that in such a family, a teenager who by the will of fate received a superpower became a superhero, not a supervillain. The legendary “With great power comes great responsibility” is one of the leitmotifs of this film, and it is gratifying. For example, in the last Spider-Man with Tom Holland, the phrase was completely left behind.
For me, this film (and, of course, its sequels) will always remain the canonical manifestations of my favorite superhero in cinema. In none of the subsequent film adaptations, the hero and his world were revealed in such detail. And only in the trilogy of Sam Raimi missing the current trend of universal tolerance, which, sorry, annoying recently.
This is not a stupid film, like the films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: if Marvel took a course on “entertaining” and total lawlessness (since “Piple grooves”), Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” is really deep films and make you think, and what to say, teach good things, and it is they that I would recommend for family watching, not stupid comics of the MCU. At the same time, the film is also all right with humor - jokes in moderation, and they are all funny, and there are no hypertrophied situations when the heroes of each other mutate ala Hulk Loki in "The Avengers", and he, as if nothing had happened, gets up - and again into battle. On the contrary, there is a serious movie, while not heavy - the atmosphere of the film is light, you are drawn into viewing with your head and enjoy watching the film to the end.
I want to mention the music separately. She's wonderful, fame and respect for composer Danny Elfman and his music. Music in the title credits - still sounds in my head, and I can easily hum it, so it is successful and memorable. And the soundtrack in the credits - especially there pleased the track Hero performed by Nickelback, watching the credits for it - a pleasure.