The best Marvel comic book hero, and at the moment the best adaptation, from released to date. The picture has a rather loosely shown story, different from the original. Up to the abilities of the main character. The first comic with him, saw the light of day, already in 1962. Who would have thought that after so many years, the era of comic book adaptations will begin.
The story that the authors invented remains timeless, it will never become obsolete. The authors thought out everything to the smallest detail, the whole life of the main character, the whole universe. Perhaps the main factor of success was the fact that the life of an ordinary teenager was shown, left in the care of his uncle and aunt. A very good, smart guy who got hit at school and was in love. Parker's life changes with the death of Uncle Ben. You have to earn something to pay for the apartment, and take care of Aunt May.
The film shows us everything a little differently, but the general idea has survived. I actually liked Tobey Maguire. True, unlike comic Parker, who constantly lets jokes witty, on-screen, jokes as if without a sense of humor at all, throwing boring hamstrings. Perhaps it's not a bad thing, such a kind of self-irony. Emotions conveyed well, not played. It is also worth highlighting Kirsten Dunst. The two of them were remembered. The kissing scene in the rain, the bomb. Willem Dafoe fit perfectly into his role. James Franco will only appear in subsequent films.
The fights are worth noting, they are perfectly executed. The last battle in the abandoned, brick ruins is still remembered. The cheerful heroic soundtrack also sets the mood.
Sam Raimi was the first to prove that a comic book movie can be interesting and successful. After shooting two more great sequels, he left the franchise. After that, the project rebooted, showing us a completely different movie. Which eventually awaits the rebuke again. That's too bad.
It is this trilogy that will always be remembered, this is the story of Peter Parker. The film shows the ordinary life of a teenager with strong moral principles, who became a masked vigilante - Spider-Man.
- Whatever happens to me in life, I will always remember the words “the greater the power, the greater the responsibility.”
10 out of 10
Spider-Man by Sam Raimi became one of the first films shot in the new period of popularity of comic books, to some extent its commercial success gave the green light to many projects, both successful and not very successful. It is clear that as a child, this film caused a real delight, even one of the most recognizable superheroes on the big screen. But the most amazing movie looks quite good now.
The script is replete with delusional scenes, like the bite of Parker by a genetically modified spider or the shooting of a web from the hands, but the main canvas is quite logical and coherent. And the emotional tension of the film can keep at the right level. Yes, the story of turning a downtrodden botanist into a hero has been played out more than once, but Peter evokes sympathy not only with weakness, but also with touch.
That's just someone else would play it, in those scenes when the hero needs to empathize with Tboth Maguire really good. He is emotional, sincerely worried about his actions, convincingly suffers from guilt. But this is the problem in a superhero with such a character can not be believed at all. Kirsten Dunst is necessary rather for the background, so that the heroes had someone to fall in love with and who to save. But at least the main villain did not fail. Willem Defoe made Goblin a full-fledged personality, for me probably even more interesting than the main character. He really struggles with himself, and he does evil things for the sake of thinking good things.
Spider-Man and now quite interesting, he is dynamic, he has interesting characters, the action scene for his time put very cool, and not the best scenario just do not want to pay attention.
Disappointment is twice as strong when expectations are high.
After the studio 20 Century Fox broke the bank together with its phenomenally successful "X-Men" in a kind of comic race entered no less titled Columbia pictures, bought from the publishing house Marvel rights to film adventures of one of the most popular heroes of popular culture - Spider-Man. Around this character has already formed a real cult. All sorts of comics, games and animated series, telling about the adventures of the fearless guy were published annually, but the world catastrophically lacked a full-fledged feature film, for which the producers would not regret a round sum of money. And in 2002, the year there was an event that we have all been waiting for – the premiere of the long-awaited Spider-Man, which, despite all its minuses, became the main box office winner of the year and marked the beginning of a new franchise. The film was directed by Sam Raimi. To be honest, his candidacy at first seemed doubtful, because earlier the director was known mainly as the creator of the inexpensive parody horror trilogy Evil Dead. However, the producers believed in his skill and, as it turned out, did not lose. The main role was chosen young and promising Toby Maguire , who had already managed to get his blessing from critics thanks to his shrill play in the extraordinary Pleasantville. The main female role was captured by Kirsten Dunst, the star of Interview with the Vampire. Well, the casting was supplemented by James Franco and Willem Defoe, who played some of the most important characters not only in the Spider-Man story, but in the entire Marvel canon. My expectations, like those of anyone who respects popular cinema, were very high. “Spider-Man” was positioned as one of the brightest films of the year and it was assumed that he simply had to amaze us every minute of his timekeeping. And millions of viewers really liked the version of the famous story, told thanks to the efforts of Sam Raimi. However, it should be admitted that not all viewers were delighted with the presented spectacle. That's who I am. The 2002 Spider-Man, in my opinion, is a surprisingly monotonous, sagging spectacle. The timing of the tape is godlessly prolonged, the dramatic line crosses all boundaries, and the action, on the contrary, goes to the second, if not the third plane. Well, in addition to all this, the acting of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst is not able to cause any other emotions, except irritation.
So, a little bit about the plot of the film itself. In the center of the story is an unremarkable average American schoolboy Peter Parker (Maguire). The guy never could boast of the respect of his fellow-daughters, the girls bypass him, and the elders will not miss the opportunity to let go of his taunt or optional instruction. But in an instant, Peter's whole life changes once and for all! During a tour of the scientific laboratory, the hero lags behind the group and enters a room with experimental spiders. As you can guess, the guy is bitten by one of the individuals and subsequently he feels the effect of a modified spider venom. From now on, Peter has great power, can climb the walls of buildings and can hear even a small rustle at a distance of a kilometer. Deciding to use the gift of fate for good, Peter comes up with the image of Spider-Man, dresses in a special blue and red suit and goes to cleanse his hometown of crime. However, the hero is not in a hurry to reveal his identity, because then he can put his loved ones at risk. It's also worth noting that Peter's personal life is also being transformed. Suddenly, he draws the attention of the local beauty Mary Jane (Dunst), who at first considers him as a friend, but over time the girl realizes that she gets a real treasure. Only here the relationship of the heroes will not be simple, because in New York there is a dangerous villain nicknamed the Green Goblin (Defoe). And, of course, his main goal is to destroy Spider-Man.
Sam Raimi decided to create not just a colorful summer blockbuster, but a movie with meaning, but played too much into the drama. Instead of showing Peter Parker as a loser who gets a chance to change not only physically but also morally, the director has created a kind of depressive drama, during which the main character was and remains a "nothing." The creators build around Peter Parker a whole cocoon of problems - the death of his uncle, custody of an elderly aunt, a difficult relationship with a girl, best friend (James Franco), confrontation with the Green Goblin ... And all this is presented in a painfully melodramatic way. Timekeeping tape is about two hours, but the active action here takes half an hour. “Spider-Man” could be safely renamed, reduce the budget three times and advertise it as a heartbreaking drama about the everyday life of an ordinary “nerd”. I understand that Peter Parker was not very popular in the original comics, but he did evolve. His character became much more tempered, the hero could endure all the blows of fate and not cry at the first incident.
Tobey Maguire has ambivalent feelings. On the one hand, he phenomenally reliably showed us a guy who can safely be called a classic loser. In the misfortune of his Peter Parker believe and understand that without the intervention of higher forces, nothing in his life will change. However, when you watch the same way throughout the viewing, you start to get very annoyed. Parker has to evolve, become a strong spirit and conquer us with his charisma. But Maguire was unable to transform, and therefore his character looks sluggish and monotonous. The same can be said about Kirsten Dunst. Her character, Mary Jane, has nothing to offer. In addition, obsessive notes of bitchiness flash in the image, which does not add her points. As for Peter's best friend, Harry Osborne, played by James Franco, but he is certainly delighted. Franco managed to show us an intelligent, stately and reasonable young man who, despite his high status, happily maintains friendly relations with his childhood comrades. Well, it is impossible not to note the efforts of Willem Dafoe, who played the Green Goblin. The illustrious Hollywood veteran showed us his villain, as a creature that is constantly tossing between good and hate, gradually sliding into the latter. The Green Goblin or Norman Osborne is as important to the Spider-Man universe as Batman is associated with the Joker. Defoe managed to create both a friendly and frightening image and it can be safely called one of the main decorations of the production.
In conclusion, I want to say that "Spider-Man" despite certain advantages is still far from ideal. Moreover, there are so many shortcomings in this film that they are not just annoying, but make you look at the efforts of Sam Raimi with a considerable amount of hatred. I expected a lot from Peter Parker’s adventures, I was very disappointed. That’s why I think this book is so low.
It is extremely difficult to evaluate this film 12 years after its release. Therefore, I think it would be better if we tried to assess its value for us today, rather than pretending in this review that we were in 2002.
So, if you decide to watch this movie at your leisure, then immediately ask yourself: are you a Spider-Man fan? Or is the character interesting to you? If yes, then the film may interest you and you can even come to terms with outdated graphics, banal plot and other roughnesses.
If you are far from the adventures of a superhero in red and blue tights and you just wanted to watch a blockbuster, then you will find quite a lot of disappointments. And the first is outdated computer graphics, as noted above. In 2002, this film was nominated for Best Visual Effects, so I’ll believe it looked great back then. Now, cardboard, and in places quite similar to the cartoon, the movements of the spider look funny and cause only a smile.
There is no deep story in this film. There will be no complicated twists of history, everything is obvious from the very beginning: the botany of which everyone does not like, destined to become a hero, the villain will be defeated and so on. The film does not even try to escape the canons and constantly moves from one cliché to another.
However, there are advantages to the scenario. Despite the general banality of what is happening, there is no sagging in history. When watching, I didn’t find a single unnecessary scene that just pulled the timing. Each scene moves the story forward, reveals the characters and flows smoothly from one character to another. This is an undoubted plus of the picture, it is clear that the script has been reread more than once and the extra “water” was removed.
Acting – here for 2014 is just horror. As is typical of the times of the beginning of the 2,000th, the cast is very overplaying. Especially Toby McGuire and William Defoe. It is obvious that they are trying, but all the naivety of what is happening affects the excessive caricature of their behavior. Yes, and on the Internet for a long time there are jokes about the excessive “crying” of the main character.
Finally, be prepared for the illogical. The movie is full of them. Characters act stupidly, unjustifiedly, and sometimes even completely idiotic. What is the case when the Green Goblin puts Spider-Man to sleep, but does not even remove his mask, but waits for several hours for him to wake up? And a little later, he himself begins to wonder - and who is hiding under the mask, although he could take off this mask in person a hundred times! This is just one of the most obvious examples.
To sum up, I want to say that overall it is a good movie. Director Sam Raimi very carefully treated the source, competently transferring the story of the beloved hero to the big screens. But it should be understood that after 12 years, the film will not impress you with either acting or strong action scenes. And so now, this movie risks being a "normal passerby."
My score is about 5 points, but we will make a concession, because the film is more than 10 years old.
8 out of 10
“Spider-Man” after the release of 2002 can be safely called the first great and successful film about this superhero. Until that time, several attempts were made to remove something sane, but they all failed miserably. But as soon as Sam Raimi took up the case, it became clear that he should succeed. Such success hardly anyone expected: the film earned a huge amount of money on the 2nd day of the film distribution, and the profit in the end turned out to be about 6 times more than the cost of creating this action movie.
An ordinary school botanist Peter Parker is bitten on a tour by a mutated spider who escaped from a scientific laboratory. After that, the bitten acquires superpowers and decides to use them to fight evil. He becomes a superhero on the guard of the city of New York. But there is a villain who has completely different plans.
There are no serious plot punctures, except that Peter Parker looks much more like a high school student than a high school student. However, the actor plays convincing enough that we can believe that he is a driven and unremarkable kid (at least at first).
Atmosphere. The insecure use of one’s abilities at first, the adjustment stage, and then the complete control over them – all of which we will see on the screen. Immersion in the fantastic world of a superhero is guaranteed. And all this thanks to brilliantly selected actors and a huge amount of memorable acrobatics. But there is a drawback: sometimes people seem not to notice obvious conspicuous moments and hints that something is wrong with Peter. Especially when he uses a web and flies across a huge distance between buildings directly above the heads of peaceful passers-by. Suspicious ...
Special effects. For the beginning of the 21st century, everything looks very decent. Although there are not so many explosions and destruction, they are appropriate and tasteful. Most of all, I liked the scene with the burning building and the final battle, saturated with action.
Music. Drive, fast, incendiary it is perfect for such a movie. Composer Danny Elfman made great efforts to make the scenes look even more spectacular when combined with the music. Do not forget about the original song from the screensaver for the animated series dedicated to Spider-Man. In the final credits, you can enjoy it. Thank you very much for that.
Result. Any self-respecting connoisseur of Marvel comics should see this film. I recommend everyone else to watch it.
To begin with, in the early zeros and in the 90s, there were few successful comic books. There were great (X-Men, Batman returns Tim Burton), there were medium (Hulk, Batman forever) and there was a huge pile of dung (Batman and Robin). But I'm going to talk about a movie that's really good. This is a film directed by recent Oz and the Evil Dead trilogy by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man. But a little bit of everything.
Story and script:
What the film and without me, everyone knows, so there is no need to write. I have no complaints about the script. What the genre requires, the genre received from screenwriter David Koepp. The film even contains memorable phrases.
“The greater the power, the greater the responsibility.”
Will Spider-Man be able to play?
Actors:
Mostly the actors play well for a superhero movie. I know Tobey Maguire cries a lot, but I think he captures the vibe of Tim Burton in the film.
Kirsten Dunst can be harassed. She does not play professionally, but against the background of other actors, you can close your eyes on her.
Well, the “nail of the program” of the film is the excellent Green Goblin performed by Willem Dafoe. His villain came out very charismatic and honorably ranks on my list of villains. To be honest, he scared me even as a child, and even now he shudders at his appearance.
Visual effects:
This, of course, is not Avatar, but the special effects performed well, especially for 2002 (Hulk could not boast of such a visual in the early 2000s, alas). Where there's an explosion, there's an explosion. Slow-mo here is quite appropriate and does not go anywhere, as in recent Stalingrad.
Soundtrack:
The musical accompaniment to the film from composer Danny Elfman (Batman, Oz: Great and Terrible, Men in Black 1-3) is simply magnificent and has not weathered out of my head for a long time.
In the end, I can say that the movie came out great and remains one of the best superhero blockbusters for me. It’s a shame that this trilogy is beginning to be forgotten, because for me Spider-Man is an old trilogy, not a more youthful reboot.
Never forget where it all started, guys. Also remember the good old animated series of the 90s. And we will see what they will do to our friend in the future (maybe we will see him in the Avengers).
10 out of 10
Conscience simply does not allow a lower estimate.
I got acquainted with this film, right before going to the cinema for its remake - it was in 2012. Being familiar with the work of Sam Raimi, who showed himself in a variety of genres of cinema, I had no doubt that I would like Spider-Man. In addition, more than once watching the sparkling parody of this film, tuned in to a pleasant pastime and included the original. There is not much to say here, since the film is really exemplary and does not represent a reason for long reasoning, besides I have nothing to compare, since I did not have the opportunity to watch the animated series about this hero - I was raised on completely different cartoons. Although after the release of the remake, I still have something to compare with this film, since the 2002 original and the 2012 remake are two completely different films. This is where my review will be based.
The 2002 film shows what a movie based on a comic book should be. This should be a film focused primarily on the children's audience, which means that it should be as colorful as possible, spectacular and not straining the brain. Therefore, the primitive plot and the naivety of what is happening should not confuse the adult viewer. Not necessarily very expensive sets and special effects, such as “X-Men” is a movie for older children, and “Spider-Man” can be shown to very young children who dream of becoming superheroes. No cruelty or blood is only a positive primitive. Any boy would love to watch an ordinary kid become a superhero and use his abilities for the benefit of the people. But for every superhero there will be a supervillain, and the decisive battle of Spider-Man against the Green Goblin will cause immense delight among the younger generation of viewers.
The 2012 remake showed a very different movie. Opinions about the new version were divided - someone liked the original more, someone - a remake. The remake was appreciated by those who liked expensive stylish scenery and special effects, which turned out to be clearly cooler than in the original; besides, actors of a more pleasant appearance were selected for the main roles. Those for whom this is all superfluous, appreciated the “fairy tale” of 2002, so simple and naive. The remake showed the spectacle not for the smallest, because the Lizard looks much more formidable than the Green Goblin. For me, both versions are equally good, although they are completely different in content. “Spider-Man” for many became the ideal of entertainment cinema.
10 out of 10
The world-famous superhero Spider-Man is a character in numerous comics, animated series and video games. In 2002, Peter Parker visited the big screens. Besides, after the success of the X-Men, the release of the Spider-Man film was only a matter of time.
Young botanist Peter Parker is in school. He is constantly in trouble, everyone laughs at him, and his love for the beautiful Mary Jane causes only sympathy. But one day our Peter was bitten by an experimental spider in the lab. After that, serious changes occur in the body of the young man. Peter becomes a hero known as Spider-Man. He must protect the people of New York from the criminal community and face the terrible Green Goblin. The villain dreams of plunging the world into chaos and subjecting humanity to his will. And his superpowers make fighting the Goblin extremely difficult. Peter will have to make every effort to win.
The creators managed to convey the atmosphere of famous comics. The plot also turned out in the spirit of Marvel paper publications. In addition, the story turned out to be interesting and looks quite worthy for the next blockbuster about a superhero.
As for the cast, everything is good here too. Even though I don't sympathize with the actor who played the lead role. It is worth admitting that Tobey Maguire coped well with his role. This is really a classic Peter Parker. Kirsten Dunst played Mary Jane as the main character's girlfriend. And Willem Dafoe perfectly coped with the role of the Green Goblin, one of the main antipodes of Spider-Man.
Special effects at a very high level. Flying on the web is just fascinating. Nothing like this has ever happened before. And the fights of the hero and the villain look quite good. In general, the film has a very high-quality visual design.
Audio design of the film also did not fail. Of course, the picture can not boast of soundtracks at the level of "Star Wars", but despite this, the music playing in the film does not cut the ear and well reflects what is happening on the screen.
“Spider-Man” is a good adaptation of comics, which marked the beginning of a series of films about the “arthropod hero”. The film is recommended to all fans of comics and spectacular blockbusters.
This film became a real super hit, and director Sam Raimi thanks to him was the first director to make a trilogy of films about a superhero. Christopher Nolan will continue this tradition, creating his own cinematic universe about the Dark Knight/Batman/Bruce Wayne. Now, many years later (and time runs!), from this first film already blows pleasant memories, and about it I want to say: “It was a long time ago.” But time doesn't really affect perception. Spider-Man is still relevant. As someone who has never read a comic book, and knows about superheroes only from the movies, I was also very interested in getting acquainted with the world phenomenon of Peter Parker. Advertising the picture, mentioned achievements in the field of special effects, and however, from the visual part of this work is strong. I remember that the day I got the videotape, I almost skipped school with joy - I wanted to watch so much.
Scenes with special effects are numerous and look exciting, sometimes they go round the head. Although it must be admitted that in some places there is a slight falsehood. For example, when the Green Goblin does what he does, saying, “Kill out, say?!” Whatever it is, a certain “cartoon” takes place. But this does not spoil the overall impression, especially since it is noticeably rare, and the content of the plot is quite rich, so as not to expect only a good picture from the film. But for now, looks. Of particular value here is not so much the skill of geniuses of computer technology, but the dexterity of camera movements. It is the smooth, active and always accurate angles of shooting that make the film an unforgettable sight. All the scenes with the air movements of the spider-man look delightful, and already in the final it turns out to be not like a childish adult, and the spirit is breathtaking not from the classily drawn jumps, flights, maneuvers, but from the hand-to-hand combat of the main characters. This amazes not only the same accuracy of the display in the frame, but also the true plausibility. And the director demonstrates his flair for moderation and clarity of style, when the virtual fire from a bomb explosion and the blood flying out of the mouth (during a fight) work equally well. Dynamic, strong and measured - this is important. Even in the presence of a mass of fast elements of what is happening, which look bright and fast rushing before your eyes, you admire it, not get tired. But the most important role in creating that unusual atmosphere of triumph and power that permeates the plot, plays the music of Danny Elfman. It's great that this element works both in the main part of the plot and in the most recent air tour of the city - after Tobey Maguire's final internal monologue. The film, although pleased all screen time, and decides to end as if not lost his energy in the process. Therefore, it is not surprising that his sequel to the fight with Dr. Octavius turned out to be successful.
For all its external (but not empty) scale and pomp, Spider-Man turns out to be very simple (but not stupid) and honest, frank. The conversation about power and responsibility is one thing, but Peter Parker’s character is more interesting. In his place can easily put himself anyone who either at the time of the first viewing of the film, or already years after graduation, dreams of finding extraordinary strength and put in the place of scoundrels and brazen bullies. For those who, from the first grade to the end of secondary school, could complain about the not the best attitude of their peers, who constantly offended and oppressed on the principle of “strong can do everything”, Peter Parker will easily become a very close-minded person, as if he was not on the other side of the screen, but on this one. And all his inner experiences are already perceived as personal. And the idea of having a single friend who has been respectful and supportive all along is also good. Of course, friendship will be tested for strength, and the intricacy of the fates of the main characters, albeit familiar, captivates all the same openness and honesty. And the case is taken villain in the powerful performance of William Dafoe. In a sense, the actor plays two in one, and you can feel his inner thoughts. So the behavior of Spider-Man’s adversary is not only understandable, but not indifferent. Of course, I want to reproach the script for having boring moments. And this is connected with love questions, but perhaps they seem clumsy only against the background of the general action, saturated with rapid energy. The contrast between "action" and drama is palpable, but it doesn't spoil the overall impression in unacceptable doses, so all is well. It is important that the writers do not push any of the characters into the background, which makes everything that happens dense. For example, the scene of the rescue of a child from a burning building. The hero has already flown in through the window, and the mother is waiting downstairs with her fingers crossed. It seems such a short scene, but it was made so sensitive that it is impossible not to believe. This is an important step on the road.
The whole plot develops, albeit quickly, but nowhere is overloaded with excesses, everything makes a holistic impression. Special effects delight and surprise, ordinary relationships between people are honest and understandable. What is great, all the same visual scope is decently combined with simplicity inside. It seemed that you could slide to the level of a cartoon for regular screening on Sunday morning, but this trouble does not happen. The film finds the right position and balances there without much difficulty. It is not devoid of things for which one can criticize and condemn, but in general it is firmly sealed in the mind. He is not oversaturated, and he does not strive to be all at once, trying to stuff every moment with special effects and jokes, just to “for sure” impress. It’s different from later Marvel movies, and it’s impossible to imagine it at all, like the Avengers or the super-popular Iron Man. He speaks moderately and even cautiously, but always and everywhere to the point. Spectacular, honest, interesting, and already perceived with a sense of pleasant antiquity. An old and good friend.
“The greater the power, the greater the responsibility.”
By the late 90s and early 2000s, comic book adaptations were in high demand, and in 2002 it was Spider-Man’s turn. The character was first brought to the big screen by the author of “Evil Dead” Sam Raimi. And with the release of the new part, I want to remember each of the films in this series, starting with Spider-Man, which was the first film I saw in the theater.
The life of ordinary student Peter Parker changes dramatically during a tour of the lab. A spider bite changes Peter’s DNA and gives him superhuman powers. His physical strength and agility are greatly increased, and he gains the ability to climb vertical surfaces, create organic webs and “spider-sense” – a skill that allows him to anticipate danger and react quickly. At first, Parker uses his powers for personal gain. But when Peter’s uncle Ben is killed by a criminal he refused to stop, the protagonist realizes the responsibility that his gift demands. Taking the name Spider-Man, he enters the fight against crime and the villain Green Goblin. Spider-Man, like most of Sam Raimi’s movies, is about the atmosphere. The film has barely begun, and you already feel the director catch the style of the comic book. Raimi successfully combined humor, drama and action, inseparable from this character, telling in detail about his becoming a hero.
I know a lot of people think Tobey Maguire wasn't the right person to play the lead role. He is accused of being too sentimental and awkward. But I don't see that as a problem, because that's what Peter Parker was in the earliest comics. I love how Maguire showed the transformation from a frail and timid schoolboy to a hero. He may not be the perfect performer of this role, but I consider him a worthy performer. Kirsten Dunst also played well, but I wish their love line with Peter/Spider-Man was better developed. Even if Maguire and Dunst didn’t cement the imagery, one actor did. J.K. Simmons was unmatched as Jonah Jameson. The character is absurd in his dislike of Spider-Man, with Simmons bringing a necessary element of comedy into the film. But the best actor in the film is, of course, Hive Defoe. He played not one, but two characters and played magnificently: on the one hand, he was a civilized Norman Osborn, and on the other - a completely wild and unpredictable Green Goblin - the embodiment of all the worst that is in Norman and realizes his secret desires. Not only does the Defoe solitary well embody both Osborn and Goblin, he is able to instantly and believably switch between them. One of the reasons I like this villain is that he's trying not to physically destroy the protagonist, he's trying to win him over.
I would also like to mention three very interesting episodic roles. As with most Marvel adaptations, Spider-Man and many other Marvel characters creator Stan Lee appears here. In the second opponent of Peter in the ring plays the legendary wrestler Randy Savage. And, of course, I haven't forgotten about the regular Raimi actor Bruce Campbell, aka Ash. Here Bruce will play the host, who, in fact, will give the name to the main character.
Even the visual part of the film retained a feel close to the comic. The footage is bright and colorful. The special effects hold up well even to this day. Flight scenes sometimes create an effect of presence. There’s even room for visual references to Raimi’s previous films, especially towards the end as the action moves into a dilapidated estate. Especially observant could notice the cameo of the yellow car from Evil Dead. It was great to see Spider-Man on the big screen for the first time. But the goblin costume can't help but be embarrassing. One of the best features of this villain in the comics was his facial expressions, but the mask from this film he lacks it. When I was a kid, she seemed scary, and I don’t take her seriously now. As far as I know, the early mask was based on animatronics, meaning it was mobile, and this pattern still exists today. I do not understand why it was abandoned in favor of what we received here.
For me personally, the main advantage of the film is the Danny Elfman soundtrack. It conveys the essence of Spider-Man, his pain, heroism and struggle. To be honest, this is my favorite robot composer.
Bottom line:
“It is my gift, my curse. Who am I? I am Spider-Man.
More often than not, when I watch a movie that I liked as a child, I wonder, “How could I have liked it?” But nothing like that happened to this movie. More than a decade later, I still like this movie. It’s a fascinating adventure with a solid cast, great visualization and a memorable soundtrack from Elfman, as well as a beautiful debut of Spider-Man on the big screen. But after watching this movie, I could not imagine that it would only get better.
9 out of 10
Any modern teenager will answer the question of who Spider-Man is. We all know him from movies, comics, games, and just heard from someone at least once the phrase, Did you watch Spider-Man?
In fact, you can talk about comic book characters (which were brought to the big screen) for a very long time. Everyone who has read the comics knows that a film about a superhero can fail by 60% (inconsistencies in the plot, no one is suitable for the role of the main characters at all, and everything is wrong at all), but I am relieved to say that Marvel heroes this curse bypasses. Spider-Man is probably the first comic book movie I’ve seen, and I can’t say I’m unhappy.
The director of this picture, at the time known (from such films as the Evil Dead trilogy and the Man of Darkness) Sam Raimi. Even with the fact that Raimi had sinister dead men up his sleeve, I still had doubts about the mediocre nonsense. I can say with relief that the film was a success. Released in 2002, it instantly paid off at the box office, at the moment rightfully becoming if not the best, then one of the best adaptations of comics in general.
One big thorn in the film was the actors. As much as there has been controversy that Tobey Maguire is not suitable for the role of a superhero, he presents himself as an ordinary “whisperer”. Personally, I do not agree with these statements, but he is not as brutal as in the comics, in some places he really pisses off his snot, but he shows that his hero is also a person and he tends to react in this way to what is happening. Can't a hero cry if he's lost his uncle, almost lost his girlfriend and aunt? In this way, Maguire lets us know that the heroes also have feelings, that under a mask and a beautiful costume there is a person like us. He is also capable of loving and hating with all his heart. By the way, the actor of “New Spider-Man” just looks like a “tree”, he does not show any feelings, unlike Maguire. The second person who for many reasons was not suitable for the role is Willem Defoe. The only reason he didn't fit was because he was a little old. Everything else he did was amazing, the whole movie you know Norman Osbarn is a crazy, sick man. But in fact, it was necessary to achieve, Defoe perfectly revealed his character, we saw what evil really looks like. All the other heroes, as I thought, were not so noticeable. But still, the actors were selected wonderfully, from me for this a big plus to the film.
But there is also the flip side of the film adaptation, the dynamics of what is happening. Everything is very long and drawn, there are a lot of dialogues and not all of them fit into what is happening. I do not doubt that the visual effects in the film are excellent (even considering that it was shot in 2002), but the fight and scale are not enough, all the time the hero argues who he really is. If the film added more dynamics, it would be great, and so everything is very boring.
The plot also did not catch much, but it combines the love and experiences of the characters well. Peter Parker is an ordinary schoolboy, whom everyone considers a loser and a bore, but one day a miracle happens to him. Peter is bitten by a mutant spider, after which his DNA changes and he discovers superhuman abilities. From this moment, he begins a new life, he becomes a defender of the weak and a terrible threat to the underworld. But it turns out that Peter is not the only superman in the city, there is another one, but he is on the other side of the barricades, the Green Goblin. To say that I was surprised by the plot and directly dragged into the atmosphere of the film is to deceive yourself. No, this did not happen, the script is quite gray and mundane, nothing that could surprise me in the plot did not appear.
Finally, I would like to thank composer Danny Elfman (Sleepy Hollow, Men in Black, Batman, Mars Attacks, Good Will Hunting, etc.). It turned out a memorable and monumental soundtrack that decorated the film to its dignity. Thank you so much for your work.
I will not recommend the film, it can be seen by both boys and their parents. Of course, everyone who is a comic book fan is worth a look. It turned out a pretty high-quality movie, of course, somewhere too played, the plot does not shine, the dynamics fails, but you close your eyes and enjoy the film. If you want to get acquainted with Marvel adaptations, then Spider-Man I think should be a starting point for you, and believe me, you will not be very upset by making such a choice.
8 out of 10
P.S. How could I forget about the most important thing in the film, this is of course a phrase that captivated everyone who watched the movie? The greater the power, the greater the responsibility.
Sam Raimi’s film was, and continues to be, a very important and beloved movie for all of Stenolaz’s fans. Created in the early 2000s, at a time when comics and their adaptations were not as popular as they are now, it has gained immense popularity, and proved very successful, both in terms of box office and in terms of criticism. In this review, I suggest you remember that good time and the first blockbuster about the most famous superhero.
Since Spider-Man is primarily an adaptation of the comic book, I’m going to think of it as a comic book on screen. I’ve read the original 60s comics and so I can say that the highlights like the characters, their imagery, their origin stories are completely in line with the comics (except, of course, some of the story’s moments that have been revealed in subsequent films).
The actors coped with their tasks well, all emotions played out naturally. The plus of the plot is that the characters are shown in ordinary life situations (I, of course, do not include the battle with the Green Goblin).
Action, which is an important part of comic books, when watching at the present time, admittedly, does not look like something incredible, but for its time everything is done perfectly. Therefore, I have no complaints about the film in terms of action.
The filmmakers picked up the soundtrack as well as possible. Now, when watching, you can no longer imagine other music at any point in the film.
As disadvantages, it seems to me, to note some simplicity and even predictability of the plot, but given the audience of the film (children and teenagers), this is forgivable.
“Spider-Man” is a comic book that marked the beginning of the most famous series of films about the Friendly Neighbor Spider-Man. With minor shortcomings, this film and the two subsequent from the trilogy will forever remain a classic, despite the remake series.
9 out of 10
Spider-Man is one of the most popular comic book superheroes. Created by writer Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko in 1962, this character for several decades was only the main character of animated series. I also learned about him from cartoons (more precisely, thanks to the brilliant animated series of the 90s) and immediately fell in love with this character. Therefore, when I found out in 2002 that my favorite hero of my childhood will appear on the big screen, this news immediately caused me delight. However, the release of the first full-length film about Spider-Man could not but cause a stir among the audience (no matter what age).
It’s been more than a decade since the release of Spider-Man, and this movie is still a success. Yes, he is somewhat naive and primitive. But what could you expect from the comic book adaptation? Before the Nolan trilogy about Batman (where it was possible to transfer the time of action to our days and endow the plots of the films with drama and realism) it was still a few years. And then, in 2002, the film Sam Raimi about Spider-Man on special effects and other features of computer graphics looked better than the old films about Superman and Batman.
“Spider-Man” is the story of an ordinary schoolboy-loser Peter Parker, who once received amazing spider abilities thanks to the accidental bite of a radioactive spider and stood up for his native New York. The main role was played by Toby Maguire. I have to admit, I have mixed opinions about him. Even though the role of botanist-loser Toby looked good, the role of 17-18-year-old teenager 27-year-old Maguire clearly did not pull. As for the other young heroes – Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (who for some reason in the Russian dubbing is called Harry) (James Franco), I had no special complaints about them. Kirsten Dunst I remember from the films where she was still a teenager ("Jumanji", "Soldiers"), but James Franco I first discovered.
The first Spider-Man movie had to be approached carefully. Especially when choosing the main antagonist. Although I did not like the Green Goblin as a child (I was more impressed with Domova than he was), in the film the villain turned out to be a very bright, colorful character. Willem Dafoe was simply the decoration of this film. In addition to the specific villainous appearance, he showed strong acting (for example, in the scene of Norman’s conversation with the Green Goblin). And compared to other opponents of Spider in other films, this one was really cool and insidious.
To the merits of Sam Raimi's film, I would consider it complete. Very often, films have an ambiguous ending, implying a continuation. So in the first part there were no such obvious hints. Ie, as if if you wanted to remove the second part, the third, etc., but the first “Spider-Man” managed to put a temporary point (until 2 years later the second part came out).
Screening comics is a difficult task. You need to be able to make a film that would like fans of comics, as well as surprise the ordinary viewer with a beautiful picture. “Spider-Man,” unfortunately, not all fans liked it (mostly because of the cast), but I, as an ordinary viewer, liked it. The stunning atmosphere of the flight of Spider-Man through the city to the heroic music of Danny Elfman will remain in memory for a long time. It’s not a perfect movie, but as a blockbuster with a moral component (“The greater the power, the greater the responsibility”) for teenagers, it undoubtedly deserves high praise.
9 out of 10
So this movie was made from comic books. The theme of the movie is superheroes. We already know Superman and Batman and now Spider-Man. Since this part is the first, at the beginning of the film, as I expected, I saw Peter Parker pretend to be Spider-Man.
The plot is quite simple and clear. It all lies in the fact that Peter is bitten by a super spider and he, after a while, learns about his abilities - climbing walls and shooting from his hand with a web. Of course, he decides to go and fight for money, and when his uncle is killed, he begins to fight evil. Later, he has his main enemy, the Green Goblin. I mean, I liked the story, but I'm surprised why they didn't come up with something new.
Special effects in the film I really liked! When Spider-Man was flying, it looked very plausible. I liked all the Green Goblin bombs, although I was hoping to see the famous pumpkin bombs.
As a result, the first part is not a masterpiece, but very good and you may like it. I didn’t talk about the actors, but you can see that they are well-chosen. So if you have free time, be sure to take a look!
9 out of 10
Now there are so many superhero movies — I don’t judge them, or rather I love them — there is a plot and special effects. It would seem that why do we — the current generations to watch this rather old movie about a spider, while now there is even a remake.
Oh, no. The film is very colorful, maybe not too adult, but it does not prevent you from enjoying the film.
Toby Maguire is on top, I think he was born for the role. He gave us Peter Parker the way we wanted him to be, the character turned out to be interesting, very funny and of course heroic, that's the whole Spider. As far as I know, it’s one of the very first superhero movies, and I think it’s a great start to the next generation of movies. So, a special thanks to the director Sam Raimi.
I’m not going to talk about the story, I’ve done it before. After all, the film is very famous, only because of the low quality now many beginners in the field of cinema neglect this film. Sorry. It is definitely worth watching.
'Spider-Man' 2002, this is primarily a film of my childhood, it is the most beloved film. When I was a kid, I loved Spider-Man so much, he was my favorite superhero. I had everything about him, comics, cards, drawings, movies, cartoons, I even had a costume as a child, which I wore for the New Year. Spider-Man was not just my favorite hero, he was my idol, my mentor, who was a pleasure to follow. I remember when I was about 3 to 4 years old, I went to the movies on 'Spider-Man' back in 2002, I went to it with my family, and I was probably the happiest child in the world at that time. Six months later, my father bought me a CD with this film, and I watched it almost every day, yes, so much I loved this film, and now I love it.
Today I took up the review of the picture in order to write a review and add a new opinion. My impressions are exactly the same as the first time. But now I’m looking at this movie with a more real look.
Let’s start with the plot of the picture, I will not retell it because I am sure that almost everyone has already seen this picture. In general, the film tells about a withdrawn and shy boy, Peter Parker, he is a real nerd, for which many do not like him. One day, he and his class go on an expedition, a laboratory in which there are different species of spiders from around the world, and it happens that one spider bites Peter’s hand, and then quickly disappears from view. A little later, Peter reveals incredible abilities, amazing agility, grace and reaction, as well as the ability to weave webs and climb walls. After that, Peter’s life changes dramatically, he turns from an ordinary nerd-knuckle into a savior of the world, an incredible Spider-Man!
In fact, the film is incredibly well thought out, there was a place for both drama and love, and of course, stunning action, which for those years looks simply incredibly cool and beautiful. Dialogues are beautiful, the very atmosphere of the picture is also pleasing, which makes it much more interesting to watch movies.
Special effects, as I said above, for the film of those years are incredibly beautiful and demolish the roof in the truest sense of the word. Yes, there are some scenes that look a little clumsy, but with this budget and the year of release of this film, you can forget about it and forgive the creators.
As for the atmosphere itself, the picture. It is bright, rich, Spider flights even now look fascinating, for which I thank the creators. But I didn't like one thing. Spider doesn't joke in this movie, okay, he joked once or twice per movie, even though the jokes aren't exactly good. But still, is that all? Like that? Spider is not Batman, he has to deal with criminals, thereby taunting them. It is a pity that such a small, but very important detail for fans of the comics about Spider was ignored.
Fights. The fights in the film are intense, realistic, and quite violent. What only costs a fight at the very end of the film, it is cruel to incredible possibilities, it is a fight in which there is no mercy, and which is very interesting to watch. Perhaps such a cruel and merciless battle in the films of Marvel has never been.
Actors. Tobey Maguire, to be honest, as Peter I always liked him, he really looks like a nerd, which is a very good plus. He's not bad in the role either. But now I’ve watched the movie and realized that Toby is too cryptic, that Parker/Spider shouldn’t be.
Kirsten Dunst, that's the incredible mistake the creators made. I honestly don't understand how this actress could be cast as Mary Jane, she doesn't fit in at all. Well, in the first part, it looked nothing, tolerant, but what was in the subsequent? That was the horror of it.
Willem Defoe, he's an actor with no complaints. This is an actor who played his part on 'ura!', just 5+. His facial expressions just excite the blood. I especially liked the scene when he had a split personality in front of the mirror, just gorgeous.
The soundtrack also made a great impression on me. The music was amazingly suited to the atmosphere and moments in the film, this soundtrack can be called superhero, because this composition was very suitable for Spider-Man. Composer, bravo!
'Spider-Man' is first of all already a classic, a film for the whole family, in which you will find everything you need a film about superheroes, drama, love line, action scenes, a little humor and of course the atmosphere of the picture, which I will never forget.
10 out of 10
Not many people know that this is not the first adaptation of Spider-Man comics. And yet, she is most famous and loved. And there are reasons for that.
For 2002, the film was, if not a masterpiece, then clearly above average. Excellent direction and selection of actors did their job. Tobby Maguire is a good fit for the role of Peter Parker.
The film was versatile. It makes you feel the bitterness of loss and the sweetness of victory.
In order for the film to be successful in full, it must carry not only the main plot, but also a thought that is applicable in real life. A film should not be an empty narrative, it should teach something. And in Spider-Man there is such a thing.
He not only teaches us goodness, he teaches us that good is not always perceived properly, but because of this, you do not need to stop doing it. – J. John Jameson
The film teaches us to be responsible. The phrase of Uncle Ben, told Peter “The greater the power, the greater the responsibility” settled in the minds of the audience for a long time.
This Spider-Man movie raised the bar so high that subsequent films did not reach it. Perhaps the next Spider-Man 2 movie came closest to her, but Mark Webb’s reboot of The New Spider-Man no longer looks impressive against the background of this film.
So, conclusion: special effects for 2002 at a height, the selection of the cast is wonderful, the director's work is quite tolerable.
An ordinary American high school student Peter Parker, after being bitten by a radioactive spider, acquires incredible superpowers, thanks to which Peter soon becomes Spider-Man, a superhero, terrifying all sorts of criminal elements.
In 2002, the famous American director, producer and screenwriter Sam Raimi began a new trilogy in his film career, the main basis of which was the popular comic book Spider-Man by Stan Lee. Released in 2002, the film of the same name instantly paid off at the box office, at the moment rightfully becoming if not the best, then one of the best adaptations of comics in general. Bright, spectacular and beautiful film amazes the imagination with unprecedented realistic special effects and unforgettable camera work of Don Burgess, who filled the film with dynamics, not forgetting about the dramatic part of the tape. Many key scenes from this picture became classics, quoted in other similar films. However, do not forget that behind the entertaining shell of the film lies the themes of gaining strength, loss and disappointment and screenwriter David Koepp brilliantly managed to create a film with a strong lyrical accent.
For Tobey Maguire, the role of Peter Parker was a real breakthrough in Hollywood and he coped with it magnificently, showing the gradual internal and external metamorphosis of his character. Convincing as Mary Jane and Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco as Harry Osborne is charismatic and interesting. It is impossible not to mention the magnificent play of Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn aka Green Goblin.
Composer Danny Elfman wrote a memorable and monumental soundtrack for the film, which decorated it to its dignity.
To all fans of comic books and just quality movies, I highly recommend this amazing film.
9 out of 10
The first two parts of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy were watched by me at the age of 12 and 14 at the time of the release of these films respectively, and revised a couple of times soon after. Therefore, before the recent revision, the impressions about these parts were blurred due to the passage of time (I remember only that I liked the second part), the more I realized that with age, the impressions may be slightly different, since the taste for cinematography of the best quality was formed in me after adulthood. To review, I was summed up by acquaintance with the recently released DVD of the first part of the restart of the trilogy - "Amazing Spider-Man." Mark Webb's Spider-Man really surprised and left a very pleasant impression, despite the fact that the film itself is far from perfect. But he has not a few positive qualities, one of which is a new meaningful vision of the popular hero from the comics. Of course, this was largely due to the fact that the creators of the new version sought to avoid as much as possible of what could be a reference to an earlier version from Raimi. Even the look of Peter Parker’s costume was carefully but tastefully changed, which in some ways distinguishes the new suit from the more canonical red-blue tights version of Raimi, but does not kill the spirit of Spider-Man as such. Almost everything. And what was appropriate for Raimi would not fit Webb's style, and vice versa. Therefore, by and large, comparing these pictures (if we take, of course, only the first “Spider-Man” in 2002 and “Amazing Spider-Man” in 2012) is a very sensitive matter, when the principle of this comparison Webb and his team sought to avoid. It’s like comparing Van Gogh and Picasso’s paintings from the same nature (hypothetically, of course).
The very presentation of the comic in the film “Spider-Man” directed by Sam Raimi seemed to me interesting in its naivety, which conceptually brings the film closer to the original source. There is a certain cinematography in itself, if I may say so. But it looks good in the heroic, in the fantastic component of the film, when in the dramatic and, say, everyday part it looks more like a kind of playfulness, that on the pages of the comic looks natural, and in the cinema it is a little off track. Peter Parker himself, played by Tobey Maguire, is too naive about everything, even for a teenager. What is the naivety of Peter, who decided to win a girl with a car? Or, for example, take the scene with the death of Uncle Ben: Peter Parker unnaturally quickly grief turned into anger, which made him immediately want revenge. In comics, all this would look normal and functional for dynamics, but when you see real people, you want their behavior to be closer to reality. When you don’t see real people in real people, you lose interest in their daily lives. I noticed a great liveliness in the characters from the version of Mark Webb. Although, I probably find fault, because the peculiarity of the genre is constrained, so you can not do without pathos. Or it's my personal perception. But such nuances did not greatly affect the moderate positivity of the overall impression, caused by the vigor of the narrative itself, the really magnificent musical accompaniment of Denny Elfman, and the atmosphere that favors it; warmth is felt both in colors and in emotional tonality. Very vividly (even poisonously) some dramatic or melodramatic moments stand out, almost forcing the viewer to give in to sentimentality (this was sometimes annoying). What is happening is perceived somehow too frivolously, but still interest is not lost, it is held, most likely, by the fact of the importance of the superhero and his appearance - this plays a significant role in a positive opinion about this film. The plot is set in such a way that you are waiting for this hero and you are happy with him, in principle, because for his correct disclosure in the film there is an appropriate dynamic. Disclosure of the hero is, but the execution of this disclosure moments is not very successful: the image of Peter Parker sometimes becomes pathetic, I thought. This is not accidental, because it is clear that Raimi wanted to play on this contrast, that is, the botanist-loser had the abilities that made him a hero, on such duality and put one of the main emphasis, albeit too much. It is still clearly shown that the main engine of the plot is the relationship of the protagonist with Mary Jane. I liked a couple of interesting images, like J. Jonah Jameson and Norman Osborn himself, the villain played very well. Yes, and all the characters are quite cute, personally no one caused me irritation, like many.
I can’t say that I didn’t like Spider-Man or liked it very much, I just had a good, warm attitude to the film, warmed up as a child and not cooled down now. But I can say that the recent “Amazing Spider-Man” turned out to be more relevant to me, closer, although it has its drawbacks, but they are noticeable on detailed examination and lost when I see the whole picture with all the pluses. Just more like it. Some people like Van Gogh or Picasso, but that doesn’t mean one’s style is worse than the other. Both styles have their own characteristics, they have their fans. It's the same thing about Spider-Man, but the artists in this situation share the same nature. It turned out that the clearest perception of the film Raimi was able to form after watching a new movie version of the famous comic book. Therefore, there was an inevitability of comparison, given that the appearance of both versions is not so much time.
If we turn to a purely subjective assessment, of course, then for the entire Raimi trilogy as a whole I would put 7 out of 10. And for the first part I put
I've seen this movie many times. I watched it every time with great interest.
Spider-Man is definitely one of the best comic book movies. And this is an explanation. Just the creators of this film could not better convey to the screen the story of Peter Parker. They were able to very successfully show the formation of Peter as Spider-Man, as well as the period of time when Parker was already Spider-Man.
Of course, the film is strong and the cast. In my opinion, Tobey Maguire was able to perfectly create the image of Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Also, Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe, James Franco performed their roles perfectly. Not to mention Cliff Robertson, J.K. Simmons, Rosemary Harris.
Very qualitatively in the film made spectacular scenes. There aren't many. But the ones that do look really good. For example, a fight between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin in a burning house.
I also liked the music in this movie.
“Spider-Man” is a very high-quality and exciting film. Sam Raimi created a very interesting film.
I don't know why I didn't write about my favorite superhero movie before. It was obvious to me that this movie was the best!
I was very disappointed to learn that the sequel to the series will be filmed with other actors and in a new script. After watching The New Spider-Man, I had to revisit the old one to see if it was worth it or not. Turns out not. The new film, despite all the technical possibilities and in a sweep, is not suitable for the 2002 film! Even the physics of spider-man movements in flight was better.
The movie still looks in one breath. The musical accompaniment, in my opinion, is simply magnificent, as well as the acting. The selection of actors is above all praise, everything fit perfectly. How you could recruit other actors – I don’t understand, just in my head does not fit. Tobey Maguire is the perfect Spider-Man: humble, honest, responsible, strong-willed real hero! The plot, in addition to the action, is filled with the relationships of friends and their love experiences, which undoubtedly make the film even deeper and more natural.
Conclusion:
If you haven’t seen this great movie yet, don’t put it off. Despite the age, the film looks no worse than modern blockbusters, special effects at the level. In addition, a rather touching love story of a botanist-photographer and class queen will not leave your girlfriend indifferent.
Peter Parker is an ordinary schoolboy, in love with a terribly dyed red Mary Jane. While visiting a scientific exhibition, he is bitten by a radioactive spider. And he becomes Spider-Man. Opposing him will be the Green Goblin, under whose mask the father of his best friend hides.
“Spider-Man” in 2002 was a real success. The film is about a superhero who cut down an excellent box office and became loved by many. Tobey Maguire plays the spider more authentically and more in line with the comic book image than Andrew Garfield in the new interpretation. The death of the uncle here is made precisely to comprehend the hero of his confession and what he will have to do. After the bite, he remains, without a mask, an ordinary person, who, unlike Garfield, does not hang beauties. But in the image of a spider, he is capable of many things: climbing walls, flying on webs, kissing upside down. Willem Dafoe plays Norman Osborne, who, due to an accident, turns into the Green Goblin and begins to suffer from a personality disorder. It is a pity, however, that this disorder is not shown here, as in the 1994 animated series, where he sometimes began to argue with himself during the fight. Kirsten Dunst plays Mary Jane, who loves both. The action in the film, after 10 years, still looks hurried and in most even better than in the new film. Very well done the main theme of Denny Elfman, giving the film heroism. Also at the end plays a great song Nickelback "Hero", which in its own words can approach any movie about a superhero.
Verdict: The movie must be watched. If some subsidence of the plot in the middle of some individual moments of the film, like how the Green Goblin finds out who Spider-Man is, the film would deserve a lot of credit.
7 out of 10
The adaptation of comics has long become an independent genre of the world film industry. Since the middle of the last century, when such characters of illustrated magazines as Superman and Batman began to appear on the big screens, embodying the childhood dreams of American youth, the world was overwhelmed by comic book mania. In our time, this fascination of film industry figures has already reached a peak: every month in the rental comes from two or more films, which are based on “picture books”.
In this case, we will talk about the adaptation of probably one of the most favorite comics in the United States, and probably all over the world - "Spider-Man."
I love this movie. I like how it is performed, how the plot is worked out, how the actors are selected. But everything in order.
Comics, I have not read, but the animated series saw, and the transfer of the original to the screen was satisfied. In the film, everything is in its place: the main character Peter Parker is a shy nerd, who by chance acquires “great strength with which great responsibility comes”, his girlfriend is a classmate Mary Jane Watson, so close and so inaccessible, Harry Osborn’s friend is the son of a millionaire. And, of course, the eternal love triangle: he, she and his alter-ego. The film tells about the school and student years of Parker and his formation in the image of Spider-Man.
These stages of the life of the main character in the film are episodic, that is, they do not flow into one another, but rather look like acts in a play: a single whole consisting of several parts. This is a positive point, since such a construction of the narrative just resembles a comic book, as if you were flipping through the pages.
There are many lyrical digressions in the film, however, they are temporary in nature and do not burden, but rather facilitate the dynamically developing plot. The tape also has a lot of action scenes, beautiful special effects and computer graphics. Anyway, I'm not bored.
As for the shooting, it is made in the classical traditions of the genre in question: there is a certain theatricality and exaggeration of the action, especially during the first meeting of the Goblin and Spider-Man: a lot of staged footage, close-ups of the main characters, excessive emotionality, which is visible in the facial expressions and gestures of the actors, sharp movements of the camera, the collapse of sham scenery with such a thrash effect ... In all this there is irony and satire inherent in comics, a kind of drive – and funny and spectacular at the same time. But, despite this style, technically the film is executed qualitatively and beautifully, there are many scenes in it, from which goosebumps run. Such a skillful combination of old techniques and modern technologies that allowed Spider-Man to fly virtuoso and truthfully over the city, administering justice, made the film very atmospheric and exciting.
The cast is perfectly selected, the very fact that the main roles were performed by famous actors is already a big "+".
Tobey Maguire with his appearance as a pye boy fit perfectly into the image of Peter Parker. His character was touching, funny and intriguing at the same time. The actor was not afraid of situations in which his character looked stupid and ridiculous, rather, on the contrary, laid out 100%, showing excellent command of facial expressions that reflect the entire emotional spectrum on the actor's face. Maguire turned out well both a love novel and a drama - in lyrical episodes he played deeply, soulfully, openly.
Kirsten Dunst turned out to be a gorgeous Mary Jane, a kind of neighborhood girl that many guys sigh about, but not spoiled by popularity, but rather, taught not to live a sweet life, to stay strong and not lose yourself. The actress has an interesting appearance, she is both annoying and attractive - this combination is very appropriate for her heroine, who appears to be a multifaceted interesting person. Among other things, Dunst perfectly played panic, fear in the relevant episodes, so theatrical and realistic at the same time, which was very consistent with the mood of the film.
James Franco is another example of a good game. His hero Harry is a real rich dad's son slightly arrogant and with a fee, trying to prove his father his worthiness, but at the same time having a kind heart and sensitive soul. And of course, Willem Dafoe in the role of the Green Goblin, part-time Norman Osborn - this is the height of villainy, with his character's inherent sophistication and cunning, a real mannered genius of evil. One smile from an actor is worth it, brr. ! .
In general, all the characters turned out to be very alive, real, they do not have one-sidedness and exaggeration, rather, on the contrary, a good combination of black, white and all the colors of the rainbow, which is so inherent in human nature.
As a result, Spider-Man is an interesting, beautiful and spectacular film that will appeal to people of all ages, regardless of gender. This picture has everything: comedy, and drama, and love, and action, and of course a great costume show!
8 out of 10
The greater the power, the greater the responsibility (c)
I’m ashamed to say that, but the first time I started watching Spider-Man was in March of this year, when it was on TV and then I couldn’t watch it. Not because of the painting, it just happened. But since I was waiting for the premiere of The New Spider-Man, I decided to meet this one. More specifically, these. I was very interested.
The film was directed by Sam Raimi. “Spider-Man” was the first picture I saw. I can't say it's the best of the three I've seen. But I will say that it turned out very interesting. I really like the Marvel comic book adaptations, and the Spider-Man films, in my opinion, are some of the best adaptations. Sam Raimi did a great job. He got an interesting, exciting and exceptional picture. Thank you.
Peter Parker was an ordinary schoolboy, whom everyone around considered a loser, a bore and therefore constantly laughed at him. Peter was secretly in love with his neighbor Mary Jane. One day, during a tour, he is bitten by a spider. The next morning, Peter was not like the others. He noticed changes in himself: his senses work better, so he hears better and doesn’t need glasses anymore. It has also become incredibly agile and fast, and can produce webs. After Peter acquires these powers, his uncle dies. After the incident, Peter decides to start a new life as the unknown Spider-Man.
Whoever I am, whatever I do, my loved ones will always suffer. (c)
Turning to the cast, I want to say that he was selected perfectly. Tobey Maguire plays Peter Parker. And he did it brilliantly. He showed his character from different angles, so that the image of Peter was not fake. It was real.
When you look her in the eyes and she looks at yours, things don't go the way they always do. You feel a surge of strength and weaken at the same time. You seem to be happy, and at the same time, you're scared. You don’t know how you feel, but you know what kind of person you want to be. It's like you've reached the impossible. (c)
Kirsten Dunst played Mary Jane. As actress Kirsten, I never liked it. But in this picture I cannot imagine anyone else in her place. Kirsten played well. I believed her. When I saw James Franco in the picture, I was pleasantly surprised. I like James as an actor. In this film, he played Harry, Peter’s friend. James did a great job in his role. Willem Defoe also brilliantly played the role of the Green Goblin.
The composer of this picture was Danny Elfman. I like Danny as a composer. In my opinion, he is one of the best composers in modern cinema. The music Danny picked up suited the picture perfectly. This made it even more interesting and dynamic. Thank you.
Spider-Man is one of the most successful adaptations of Marvel comics. A movie that really surprised me. With her story and her beauty. This is a movie that I will definitely revisit more than once. So I would recommend watching it. You won't regret it. Enjoy your visit!
It used to be that grass was greener, ice cream was tastier, and Peter Parker was prettier. His story was simple and clear to everyone, for it was about love. It began, as is often the case, on a school bus, where the most beautiful girl in school was hugging the first guy in the village. And our hero had only to drool and look at the object of adoration through thick glasses. And everything would have ended before it started if Peter had not accidentally been bitten by a spider.
Yes, the first hour is boring (by today’s standards) teenage soap, which not so much reveals the characters of the main characters, but emphasizes the geometry of their relationship. But since the heart of a successful blockbuster is a conflict of interest (no matter how trivial the interests themselves may be), the story looks hurried, and the stencils of the characters acquire shine in the eyes. Despite the fact that McGuire, Franco, Dunst and Defoe create only the effect of presence in the film, you can not blame them for a spoiled evening. More psychologically developed heroes would drag the action into the quicksand of personal showdowns, and the viewer would not wait for enchanting acrobatics and exciting action scenes.
Do you feel the age of the picture, ten years after its release? Definitely not being filmed so consistently and smoothly now. In 2002, cameramen were able to hold the camera firmly in their hands and position their characters clearly in the center of what was happening. Maybe there is no great art in this, but there is a big plus: the eye during viewing really rests, and the brain enjoys the harmony of the plot. The film flies in the blink of an eye, not wanting to end in the credits and promising a sequel. But that’s another story...
Peter Parker is an ordinary excellent student of the American school, who was bitten on an excursion in the scientific center by a rare species of spider that caused a mutation in the guy’s body, giving him strength, agility, flair and the ability to weave a web. Not paying much attention to new abilities, Peter tries to earn some money for a car, but one day because of the death of his uncle, he decides to get on the path of the war on crime, and at the same time and just help all people in trouble. And I had to earn photos of myself, that is, Spider-Man.
Spider-Man in general caused a revolution in superhero cinema, setting a great rhythm for subsequent films: both his sequels and other similar films like the Fantastic Four and the Incredible Hulk. And the main feature of all these tapes is a great script and a huge budget.
But “Spider-Man” was the luckiest, it was shot by the great director who gave us the crazy “Evil Dead”, Sam Raimi, so among the dramatic line and flawless action there is appropriate humor, for which the picture is plus. Otherwise, I will say for myself that I really liked the film, I watched it back in 2002 in the cinema and I am happy to periodically review it.
Excellent entertaining movie for all fans of fiction, comics, and just fans of Spider-Man.
9 out of 10
No matter what you say, Spider-Man is a very important milestone in the history of comic books. You can argue a lot about the quality of the picture, reproach for shortcomings and some frivolity, but Toby Maguire will forever remain in my mind as a humble nerd and failed romantic who suddenly discovered new hitherto unseen abilities. The most important advantage of the first picture, which later became the general tone of the entire franchise is its genuine romance, which you will not see in any other comic book. Yes, it is naive, somewhat pretentious, but spiritually, damn it!
Spider-Man is nostalgia for childhood. Hell knows how many times I saw this film on a VHS cassette in my time and each time I watched with great pleasure, time after time admiring the not Heppian ending, excellent acting work, memorable music of the wizard Denny Elfman and a simple presentation of material so understandable that in Europe, in the United States, in Antarctica. And the villain... an opponent who has already become classic, with strong charisma, mad and explosive character and unpredictable disposition. This is more interesting than any green lizards, a character suitable only for secondary roles and not a gram more!
Cinema is not perfect for many reasons, ranging from the already outdated computer effects and ending with hard and clearly visible films, but these are all small things, compared to how much the attitude to comics has changed since then, which in society ceased to be perceived only as dumb pictures for the youngest.
I want to say a few words about the so-called “reset” of the franchise. All the nuances that have been named and that supposedly caused us to start all over again are terribly ridiculous. There is only one explanation: money. The authors wanted to make money on the already filmed material, changing the director, style and actors (in the Batman franchise this was justified at least by the fact that the original pictures were terrible, which looked ridiculous), but in general it is all the same story. And by promising not to spend money on things that I can watch at home (meaning the original trilogy), I will keep that promise. I don’t like to feel used, do you?
9.5 out of 10
Sorry for my compassion, but this is my favorite childhood movie!
P.s. Song of the Day: Nickelback – Hero
Currently, comic book adaptation is one of the most basic types of films. The only problem is that not all superheroes suit the viewer. Some screen adaptations are large-scale, but absolutely incomprehensible ("Guardians"), others give hope at the beginning ("Daredevil", "Electra"), but by the end they cool down and are quickly forgotten. Only a small part of the film adaptations turns out to be beautiful, interesting, powerful and exciting, as Christopher Nolan did with Batman, and Sam Raimi with Spider-Man.
Ordinary loser Peter Parker does not stand out in his native school, he is crazy in love with his neighbor Mary Jane, but he lacks the courage to even talk to her. Once on a tour of Peter bites a spider, after the hero formed the ability to climb walls, weave webs, and has spider flair. To attract attention, Parker decides to participate in fights without rules and earn money, but by tragic accident, Uncle Peter is killed, and the hero understands that his vocation is to save others.
Sam Raimi has added enough dramatic moments to the film that can tire viewers of respecting the action rather than chatter. But these moments are very important in the film, because we are not just a guy who likes to jump on rooftops, but a guy who refused for everything to help others. Guilt is forever stuck in Peter Parker, and there is no escape from him, the more power, the more responsibility.
Among other things, the film is not without action, incredible adventures of Spider-Man around the city, virtuoso tricks, and most importantly, a great villain. Green Goblin performed by Willem Defoe is simply inimitable, cruel, domineering and uncontrollable.
“Spider-Man” is a great example of a good adaptation of a comic book, a great director’s work and an acting team.
9 out of 10
Spider-Man was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, who worked for Marvel Comics. Spider-Man first appeared in the 1962 comic book. The popularity of this character grew rapidly and after a while he equaled such characters as Batman and Superman.
It should have been assumed that with such popularity, Spider-Man could not be on the pages of comic books all the time. And the introduction of "Spider-Man" began in different types of entertainment - television, animated series, video games, etc. Everything was gradual, because in the 60s there were no video games. The series did not appear until 1978. This series had little to do with the atmosphere of the comic book, apart from some of the names of the main characters, and the fact that there was the main character of Spider-Man. The first series appeared in 1967. And from time to time there were other animated series. But the full-length film has not yet been...
The 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s are over. The full-length film has not yet been... Why hasn’t there been a movie about such a popular comic book character? I think it's about special effects. Of course, it could be removed in the 70s and 80s and 90s. But I don’t think anything good would have happened... Although it may have been the rights to the film.
While there was no full-length film about “Spider-Man”, on the screens of cinemas managed to release films about other popular superheroes:
1978 Superman. The film was a huge success;
1989 Batman. The film was also a huge success.
In 2002, the film Spider-Man was released.
The beginning of the project began in 1986. The rights were transferred from one studio to another until they were acquired by Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. During this time, the director of the future picture has changed many times. Among them was James Cameron. Writer, creator and director of films such as Terminator and Terminator 2.
As a child, I watched, like many of my age, Spider-Man. This series was at a very high level. Interesting storylines, there was dynamics. The series was a great success with the audience. And that was an alternative before the full-length film came along. In fact, the series was a movie experience.
And before watching the film, I assumed that it would probably focus on the familiar animated series. Or something different will be created. But as I thought, the film tried to make close to the atmosphere of the animated series. In any case, I had this feeling during the viewing and after viewing.
Comic books stand out from ordinary movies. You need to create an original world. There are not some moments from ordinary cinema. Therefore, to evaluate the film “Spider-Man” I approached from this point of view.
Do not forget that all the following is written about the first part of the filmed trilogy.
Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man was not a bad movie. Yes, the movie is long and boring, but this is just the beginning of how Peter Parker became Spider-Man. The next Spider-Man 2 was more dynamic and interesting. To some extent, she developed the characters of the characters.
From the cast, I liked Tobey Maguire, Willem Dafoe, Kirsten Dunst, J.K. Simmons as John James and Cliff Robertson. Tobey Maguire played well. I think he's fit for the role. Kirsten Dunst is not bad as Mary Jane. But I don’t think she fits into the movie. I really liked J.K. Simmons as John James. Almost, thanks to the image of John James, the film has a cool humor.
In general, the first part is a good start to the adventures of Spider-Man. Comic books usually have predictable moments. Do not expect anything supernatural from watching. Of course there are exceptions. There are film adaptations that differ from the original (comic) unusual staging, script and plot. “Spider-Man” is made very close to the original.
5 out of 10
Once a hundred years ago, I watched this movie in a theater, but even with the effect of a big screen and a powerful stereo, I could not capture the positive. It didn't, it didn't. The second part was conscientiously missed, and the third was dragged with a fight. Dragged with a fight, and with the same battle were forced to evacuate, because she refused to leave categorically: delight. Puppy, even awkward. Took her next session. I immediately bought a disk and turned to the beginning. Like all stories that deserve attention, this is a story about a girl. First comes the girl. Then Peter Parker himself. Then my best friend. And finally, the villain.
Peter Parker: a loser, a nerd running after a school bus, one in one Elijah Wood from the “Faculty”, only that, presenting to the viewer, was hit by a metal pole, and this fish dived into the floor thanks to the “careful” bandwagon. As you can see, all losers are the same. Only here it has a very trump friend, handsome and millionaire, only that brought them together is unclear. He, by the way, despite the social status and appearance of the playboy, was not considered a star in his native college for some reason, and beat him no less than Peter’s glasses. That must be a change. It's kind of weird, okay.
Mary-Jane Watson: Of course, in every average college, there must be stars that make everyone run. Cool boys ride them in cool cars with all the ensuing consequences, and modest nerds look at them with longing, snatching a broken heart. M.J. seems to be one of those. This is confirmed by her romance with the last classmate, as well as the paralysis of a representative of the botanical party, that is, Parker. And then the handsome millionaire, it turns out, not exactly breathing! The star must die, not rise. What about it? Let's face it, it's not a fountain. Poisonous red hair looks cheap, clothes are nowhere easier, and the habits of the chick are not observed. The average girl like that from the neighborhood yard, why do you have to suffer and stay up at night? Apparently, the college was not rich in stars, or the casting for the film was conducted by phone. It's kind of weird, okay.
Harry Osbourne: in the first part of the special semantic load does not bear, apparently, was taken with an eye on the sequels. Even their brief affair with MJ ended in nothing for no clear reason, but pretty tarnished the reputation of both.
"...and the Spider came": Parker's discovery of changes in his own appearance and behavior is an extremely amusing scene. After the bite of an infected insect, I feared transformations and mutations in the style of "Fly" Cronenberg, and in fact: a pleasant body, a well-made blow, and a web flying out of the wrist. At the last moment, by the way, a big thank you to the creators: if they wanted to bring a little more biological realism, and the genre of the canvas could be safely changed to horror. And so, without specifying, it flies out of the wrist - and please, however, the load associated with the weight of Peter's lean body (the one hangs on it, and even in the jump!) should lead to serious injuries and at least torn hands. Well, God be with him, it's a comic.
Goblin: the main enemy who exposed Parker, well at least not in public. Harry's dad, another mad scientist who decided to run an experiment on his beloved. I did, turned into a miracle judo, and let's kill our enemies. At first, only those with whom there were personal accounts, and then dispersed to fame. Why was he so angry with Spiderman? No objective reason. Just one is good and the other is evil, but nothing personal, pure business. You want a monopoly, you know?
Peter was, of course, an extremely frozen type, and even the black and red suit did not give him courage or determination. The language doesn’t turn to accuse Harry of betrayal when he screwed up with MJ, since the argument: “You didn’t do anything” is not without reason. Of course, Spiderman saved her, not once, but Peter could not appear in the eyes of the girl in his usual guise, and it did not go beyond soapy glances. And Mary Jane at the same time was a rather illegible girl: she walks with a school bully, then with Harry, then falls in love with a faceless hero. Inconspicuous Parker must have held an honorable place on the list of her possible boyfriends, and therefore it is difficult to believe in her love for me, for example. But the cheapest deal would have been if she had fallen in love with Peter after finding out he was Spider. I would totally disrespect her, but... With tension, but rolling, accepted.
Wrapper: tricks, special effects and other beautiful nonsense on the level. After 2.3 parts, of course, it does not seem too impressive, but for seeding it is better and not necessary, let everything go on increasing. And as for the abundance of conversations, experiences, moralizing, etc., because of which many consider the film to be protracted-boring, I do not find them superfluous. On the contrary, they give the picture in the genre of “comic” humanity, which is not observed in similar products on the theme of superheroes. Spiderman, despite masks, costumes, exploits and battles, is a film with a human face, and Peter Parker (to me at least) is a simple guy, not a defender of townspeople in colorful rags. This is a nerd who has lifelong troubles, no money, no job, and no girlfriend.
Actors: Maguire looks great in the role of a simple, kind, nice guy who loves his aunt-uncle, Mary Jane and in general, by nature positive. True, the expression on his face is sometimes too simple, almost stupid, so it was not necessary to strain so much. Actually, he's pretty. And to be like that, he doesn't have to wear a red and black suit. Objectively, James Franco is much more attractive, but it's a matter of taste. I seem to have a bad one. Kirsten Dunst isn't pretty enough, that's obvious, but in a number of episodes I'd call her cute. The third class is not marriage, the main thing is to behave decently.
Bottom line: a worthy start to an interesting, exciting epic. It wouldn't be too much. The third Shrek clearly showed how successful ideas become obsolete and disappear, and to continue out of greed – to destroy the already filmed and beloved first parts. Chad Krueger's song "Hero" is fantastic, and an equally stunning clip.
9 out of 10