Rating: 
Summary: Drivel
Review: Worthless big-screen updating of the classic character suffers from lousy plotting and boring execution. This waste of time has all the depth of a comic book, and succeeds only in trashing a famous character's legacy and blowing a lot of stuff up. The ending is particularly ludicrous. Count me as one who will not be in line for the sequel to this stinker.
Rating: 
Summary: Spider-Man
Review: It doesnt take a damn genious to know that this would be a smash hit. The movie is much more than some give it credit for. the action scenes in this movie are enough to keep anyone in their seats. The acting, could be improved but in overall it was fairly decent. The directing was done beautifully with the web-shots. The love stroy between Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) would satisfy the movie-goers that expect it to be extravagant. The film is very well developed although, the movie is screaming for a sequel.
With the expectations of the comic series the movie did accordingly well.
Rating: 
Summary: Ruined by miscasting, creaky plotting, and bad CGI.
Review: Not too long ago, I was a rather avid fan of the Spider-Man comics, always anxiously awaiting each month to see what new catastrophe our webbed hero would have to face. I stopped keeping track of the stories after the "clone saga" mess, which is simply one of the worst cases of "overblown" I've ever read. Then I heard news about a Spider-Man movie, which quickly became reality. It was an event I was neither looking forward to nor dreading. Unsurprisingly, it's a movie that I felt neither unbridled enthusiasm for nor utter disdain. It's as middling as mediocre gets.High school student Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is a nerdy amateur photographer who's bitten by a radioactive spider, consquently being endowed with arachnid-like powers. He has super-strength, can jump great distances, and maybe best of all, he's got a spider-sense that warns him of danger. With these new abilities, his first acts are only thinking of himself, generally trying to make as much money as possible with his strength and agility. But when Peter's uncle is killed by a robber, he realizes that "with great power comes great responsiblity." Haunted by his uncle's death, he goes about as a crimefighter, dressed in a red and blue costume, calling himself Spider-Man. A new, even more powerful foe called the Green Goblin arrives on the NYC scene, causing a lot of destruction in hopes of...well, that's not really clear. Meanwhile, Peter has to balance out his crimefighting with his personal lives, particularly with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), a redhead he's got a crush on. The very core of Spider-Man's biggest problem is its casting. While Willem Dafoe is terrific as Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin and J.K. Simmons is a wonderful J. Jonah Jameson, almost every major character is miscast. Tobey Maguire is a mixed bag as Peter Parker. When he concentrates on the dilemma of the mixed lives he has to juggle on-screen alone (or with Dafoe), he's very good, but comes across totally flat when he actually interacts with his co-stars, particularly James Franco and Kirsten Dunst. Speaking of Franco and Dunst, how can these two be so charmless and without emotion? Franco does little more than brood, making one wonder why the more chipper Parker would even hang out with such a guy in the first place (Harry Osbourne was different personality-wise in the comics). Kirsten Dunst is the worst bit of comic book-to-film miscasting since George Clooney as Batman. Mary Jane Watson, arguably the most important character in Parker's life, is now little more than a grating redhead who lacks a discernable personality beyond constant superhero doting. For all that's wrong with the portrayal of those major characters, the origin story is really rather well done. Truth be told, I actually enjoyed this movie quite a bit until Parker suited up as Spider-Man. The character's first CGI appearance is just a total distraction. Perhaps it was unavoidable, but the action scenes look more like cartoons than physical, death-defying showdowns. Unconvincing CGI was probably inevitble, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it. The movie also blows it in regards to the Green Goblin's motives. True, he initially wanted revenge against the board members that voted against him, but what about after that? Maybe the Goblin aspect of Osbourne's personality is power-hungry, but then again, all the Goblin ever does is blow stuff up. Maybe he just likes to see stuff blow up. If so, that's one of the laziest and lousiest villainous motives I've heard to date. Truthfully, not every aspect of the movie's central story or the action is as bad as I make it out to be. (moderate spoiler in this sentence) The dichotomy of the hero and villain is fairly interesting and their final mano-a-mano to the death is rather rousing, even if it ends on an idiotic note (was the Goblin trying to intentionally kill himself in the process of killing Spider-Man?)(he didn't have to get up like he did). But damn, those goofy CGI stuntmen and half-bad acting really put a downer on what should have been an exciting and touching summer blockbuster.
** 1/2 out of *****
Rating:
Summary: A nice blockbuster that delivers
Review: I am generally not one to stand in line for movies based on comic books as I've seen my share of duds in the genre, but I was told to give this one a chance and I am really glad that I did. The story is your basic boy meets girl and has to deal with becoming a superhero, What I really liked about this movie was that both the heroes and villains were human and did not involve the hero saving the world from some underdeveloped charicature who for some unknown reason always seem to want to destry/rule said world. In this story both Spider-Man and his nemesis are victims of circumstance and they are both driven by forces that are not out of the world but based on the effects of what made them who they are. All characters are well cast and those who doubted Tobey Maguire's ability to play Spider-Man are proven wrong as he brings great enthusiasm and believability to a role that could have been played just for laughs or much too seriously. I particularly liked Willem Defoe's work as he played a man who seemed to be suffering rather than enjoying being evil. He chews some serious scenary but it never feels too over the top. The movie's director has a great eye for scope and makes both Manhattan and small town life feel real. He also handles his actors well as they walk the thin line between charicature and high drama with almost unparalled success. The movies only flaw is a biggie as it suffers from the same special effects problem as both of the most recent "Star Wars" movies and the first sequel to "The Matrix". In all these movies you never feel that anyone is in true danger as they at times have a video game look and in this movie it is most evident as Spider-Man weaves his way much too easily through New York. It's too sleek and at times looks like animation rather than an action hero. Unlike the aforementioned movies, Spider-Man supercedes it's special effects limitations by developing a story that makes sense and tells it with zest with characters that appear to be true to the comics and are not all interchangeable. Like I said before, I usually have problems when the villains are villains for no reason, but here everyone has a reason for their actions. There are some cheesy moments involving Peter Parker and his gal Mary Jane, but they were all within the spirit of this joyful movie. The same applies to Peter's scenes with his aunt and uncle. While I usually like smaller scale movies, I wish that there were more well made blockbusters as I would go see more of them too as all I ask is to be entertained. Here's to the sequel!
Rating: 
Summary: OK
Review: The movie is loud, boring, awesome and breathtaking at the same time. The Movie is OK though I really hate the green goblin actor he annoys the crap out of me, if he wasnt in it, it'll e a different story. The movie is a dullishly ok version of the comic. THE DVD features are amazing though! It is absolutely awesome! The E! Documentary is a highlight
Overall
Movie : 3 / 5
Special Features: 5+++/ 5
Rating:
Summary: Preposterous Drivel
Review: It was, I suppose, inevitable, that 'Spider-Man', one of Marvel Comics' best-established and longest-running comic books, would eventually be given a Magic Of The Movies Makeover. Like the X-Men, Batman and Superman before it, 'Spider-Man' is a loud, adrenilane-fuelled romp through over sixty years of characterisation and carefully developed characters. Put simply, it is a cut-down version of a Pop-Culture Legend, dumbed severely down for the benefit of the moviegoing masses. Taking the lead as peter Parker is Toby Maguire, an actor, whose career, if this original is anything to judge the impending two sequels by, has taken a severe turn in the direction of 'Typecast'. As Peter Parker he is suitably weedy and nervy, but as Spiderman lacks any of the believability or sense of Cool that has made the character a comic Titan. He is grating, immature and whiney. The truly abysmal quality of the 'special' effects does not help this. Spider-Man in action is mostly a computer animation, and is noticably poorly-realised. Put simply, the character does not come across in the least way believable. Runnung a close second to Maguire in terms of pointlessness is Willem DaFoe in the role of the Green Goblin. Both as Norman Osborne and the Goblin himself, DaFoe's total lack of sympathy and understanding for his role leaves us with a villain as unconvincing as his costume - which, in this day and age of astounding creative design, is unacceptably boring. Kirsten Dunst is relatively good as the winsome Mary Jane Watson, ditto Rosemary Harris as Aunt May. Direction is run-of-the-mill fare for this sort of blockbuster, but thanks to truly lousy special effects and a huge sense of the pedestrian impregnating the whole picture, the visual impact made by 'Spider-Man' is not enormous. A real missed opportunity for director Sam Raimi. Boring script (nothing unexpected, very little character development), boring visuals and uninspired performances team with lousy characterisation to make 'Spider-Man' a huge waste of glorious potential and excellent source material, and a total exercise in mundanity. Avoid!
Rating:
Summary: With a great budget comes great irresponsibility.
Review: A hokey script doesn't help matters either. This movie is tired, poor, boring, BADLY acted and VERY BADLY written. Can you believe the cheezy dialogue here? "I swear Spider Man will pay... thank God for YOU, Peter." It's like, why not throw in a wink too, there, Harry. And let's not forget Peter's tired "sense of humor". What does he say? Stupid 5h!+ like "Hehe! Sure beats the subway!" and "nice outfit, did your husband buy it for you?" This movie is TERRIBLE! The CGI is horrid as well. Spider Man hasn't looked THIS cartoony since the 1960 series. Green Goblin looks like an overgrown action-figure. Willem's acting reaches low camp. Kirstin Dunst is neither stunning nor talented. She is not Mary Jane. Just as Tobey is not Peter Parker. Comatose b@5+@rd. Let's hope this stupid 5h!t picks up in sequels like X-Men. What a stupid boring movie this is.
Rating:
Summary: So/So Outing For Spider-Man
Review: I'm reviewing both the movie and the DVD here. Let's start with the movie. MOVIE - It seems like the story of Spiderman would have been played better dark, and with Sam Raimi at the helm I was expecting a much darker story, but it almost seemed too cartoonish. A lot of the critics liked it and don't get me wrong, I like it too. I was just expecting a darker version of the story. Willem Dafoe is just loony, and Green Goblin should not be played like the Joker or the Riddler. The casting there was iffy, but everything else was on par. An enjoyable Saturday night rental is the best I can give the movie. The DVD - Well, first things first, the video and the sound are top notch. I won't knock it on the A/V quality. The picture has a 3d look to it and it's very vibrant and the soundfield comes alive in many places of the movie. However, the extras are lacking. This whole DVD (much like the actual movie) feels very rushed. You get some fluff material and some music videos, but nothing of real value. Overall, I'd only reccomend a buy on this if you're a die hard comic book fan or spiderman fan. Other than that, it makes a great rental, but not a great buy.
Rating:
Summary: great
Review: it's awesome. toby mcguire did a great job in it.i personally love all the action and i think the goblin was great too, altho he's the bad guy. also...i love that kiss...so sweet and romantic.anywayzzzzz...i recommend this to any1 of u.;)
Rating:
Summary: Should have been better, but still fun
Review: SPIDER-MAN was the the #1 film of 2002; it was a blockbuster liked by critics and loved by audiences (especially kids). But after repeated viewings, the movie becomes a bit stale for me after awhile. The film's good points though are Tobey Maguire's solid potrayal of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Kirsten Dunst as the lovely MJ. The bad points were the wearisome Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe was good though) and the pathetic dialogue this film has, especially by the villian. It was a bit long as well. I'm giving it four stars though because of the way it looked like when I first saw it. It was fun, somewhat exciting, and the performances were grand. And also because I like Sam Raimi, the director, because he made a favorite movie of mine before. It was DARKMAN. It was way better then SPIDER-MAN, but Raimi did a good job at building a comic-book atmosphere for this movie. Every kid in this world has flocked around this movie, which is a bit annoying for me. It's not better then the more plausible X-MEN 2, but it was good enough for a viewing.
| 
