[zbuddah]

I just got back from the theatres and all I can say is that I love that movie! its going to be on my buy list when it hits the DVD's

Trying not spoil it but i got sooooo pulled into his life and this movie. Awesome

I'd give it 4 stars just cuz I liked it soo much

even though they changed some of the stuff its still all good.

Kirsten Dunst was pretty hot in that movie too!

Go watch it! If you haven't

 

[RMSzero]

I expected this to suck, I expected not to like it. I'm pleasantly surprised that it's getting nothing but good reviews. It's nice to see a studio put in the extra effort not to screw up an anticipated movie (cough, ep1, cough, and the list doesn't end there).

Only thing is, I'm kind of indifferent about kirsten dunst's work, although i saw the preview, I know about the rain scene, hooray for that. I really don't like Tobey Maguire though, and he doesn't seem like an action hero type guy to me. I'll probably go check out the movie sometime next week to see though.

 

[CaptBubba]

I saw it last night. I thought some of it was corney, but then I remembered "hey, its based on a comic book!" I really enjoyed it, I recommend it.

The best part of the movie experience though was walking up to the counter where everyone wa bummed out about it being sold out. The looks on their faces when we got tickets was worth the extra $0.75 that fandango charges.

 

[FlurkingShnit]

I also really really enjoyed the movie. I had some minor quibbles going into it like the absence of Gwen Stacy and those organic web shooters, but any movie adaption of a book whether it be X-men or Lord of the Rings or what have you is never a perfect translation.

The important things were all captured nicely here. Peter's guilt and burden of responsibility, his powers, his web slinging, etc. It all turned out nicely and it was one of the few comic adaptions, save for Superman, that did not disappoint me at all.

In the sequel, I hope they develop Spider-man a bit more in terms of the funny slapstick dialogue he has during fights and such. That was a little present in this movie but not that much.

Go see it if you haven't already.

 

[kelly]

(WARNING: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)

I saw the 10AM showing and I thought it was good for a Hollywood movie, but...

It sucks when you're a fan of a comic or book or whatever a movie is based on and the movie is so utterly unfaithful to that book.

Some of my quibbles, as a comic fan:
* organic webshooters -- the reason this sucks is because back in the day, Spidey (being a scientist and all) developed new formulas all the time, this was something that developed gradually and was the real symbolism of Peter's intelligent side
* chronology of events -- in the comics, Spidey didn't really "meet" MJ until a blind date, despite her being his next door neighbor as a kid.. at this point, she became Pete's fifth girlfriend, I think
* lack of comedy -- someone else said this one too, but if you were to summarize Spidey in a 5 minute film, you'd make him deliver a cheesy one liner... Spidey is practically where cheesy one liners originated but I gotta tell you, it's a very odd thing to have to complain about being missing in a Hollywood film -- I counted one oneliner in this film, just one
* MJ and Pete's relationship -- I don't want to spoil here, but I really don't like the way the movie handled this
* the spider that bit Peter lived -- obviously this is some ploy to create a villain in a sequel, but it annoys me
* Spidey and Green Goblin's relationship -- without spoiling too much, I didn't like the whole join me bit, too Biblical for me
* Pete & Uncle Ben -- I didn't like how Pete gets into an argument with Uncle Ben before he well, you know.. in the comic, it's Aunt May that got into an argument with him that day and (as recently revealed) is a reason May and Pete both share some guilt about that day
* Not enough interaction/character development of minor characters. I'm sure that was supposed to be Gwen and Robbie at the Bugle, but the audience didn't even get an introduction -- it felt like minor characters had been cut which caused...
* Pacing was too fast -- the entire movie flew by without any real chance for development, it moved scene to scene based only on action, not on content
* Pete became buff as soon as the Spider bit him--in the comic he remains a scrawny geek and slowly builds muscle mass over his years of climbing and swinging around New York

I liked a lot of other things, though--I liked the warehouse scene a lot. I loved the visual effects, though I have mixed feelings about the 3Dness of his costume. The characterization for the characters there weren't bad. The dialog was, for the most part, great. And although Kirsten may not be a super model, the acting for all of the characters was at least acceptable, so the opportunity cost there was probably worth it.

*shrug* It could have been better but it certainly could have been worse. Maybe I'd be less critical if I hadn't been waiting for 13 years for it.

 

[jpelg]

thanks for the updates guys. Especially kelly's list - very helpful. you sound like a fellow comic-book fan, so I am sure I would agree with you once I see the movie. I don't want to see it with a big crowd so I probably will have to check out a late-nite showing next week.

Spiderman definitely ought to have awesome dialogue as well as action. I would have hoped for something along the lines of Josh Whedon's "BTVS" television adaptation (seasons #1 & 2 primarily). Maybe he can have a hand in a Spiderman sequel, if there is one.

 

[RickG]

[edited]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...spider03f.html

 

[kelly]

I agree with all of Ebert's review except for the last paragraph.

It's funny to me how astute Ebert can be about minutia and yet he can manage to utterly overlook the obvious when it comes to his questioning social circumstance. I suspect the guy doesn't get out much.

 

[coolvij]

That whole review is pretty funny......he's makin a comic-book based action-flik seem not quite super because it's not.....actiony enough?

 

[RickG]

Quote:

Originally posted by coolvij That whole review is pretty funny......he's makin a comic-book based action-flik seem not quite super because it's not.....actiony enough?

No, he's just saying that the action sucks!

 

[KR...]

check this out :

Quote:

Spider-Man grossed a whopping $41.4 million on Friday, according to estimates. That's by far the biggest day ever in Hollywood history, shattering Harry Potter's $32.3 million opening day record and Potter's $33.5 million single day record. Spidey is now on course to top Potter's $90.3 million to have the biggest opening weekend ever, likely becoming the first movie to top $100 million in a single weekend.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com

 

[coolvij]

RickG: semantics....BAH!

I stick by what i said - the scenes weren't actiony enough.

Go look up "actiony" and then tell me I'm wrong....

 

[MacDEF]

RickG:

Sorry, but I had to delete that review -- it's a copyright violation to paste the entire review here, and we don't want to cause any trouble for Head-Fi. If you'd like to edit your post by including the link to the review, that would be great!

 

[MacDEF]

Moderator duties out of the way, back to the thread

Kelly, while your complaints are logical, keep in mind that this film had to do in 2 hours what the comic books did over years and years. Something happens when you spend a whole movie "building" characters and explaining history -- it's called "The Phantom Menace"

I agree that some of the artistic licenses taken weren't completely accurate, but I think for the purposes of the film, they work well -- probably much better than following the original story line would have (especially his building muscle, his "organic" webshooters, his relationship with MJ).

In fact, my conclusion was the opposite of yours -- that if you were a fan of the comic books and even the old TV cartoon, you'll appreciate the movie much more than someone seeing the movie with no knowledge or history of the comic.

I thought it was entertaining, a bit cheesy (which Spiderman is), and accurate enough to keep me involved while still being a Hollywood movie that anyone could enjoy.

I give it 3.5 out of 5.

P.S. Kelly, I agree with you about Ebert's cluelessness with respect to that last scene. I thought it was so obvious as to be cheesy!

 

[kelly]

MacDef,

It never comes as a surprise to find your opinion opposite mine.

I've seen films before and I'm well aware of the two hour time constraint. My comments and complaints were given a standard Hollywood movie time constraint. Given the time constraints, the character development and interaction could have been better and the web shotoers and muscular development could have easily made a better story.

For an example of this, read Michael Bendis' run of Ultimate Spider-man (available commonly in trade paperback form). Ultimate Spider-man is a title launched last year with the premise that Peter Parker is a high school kid living in the present, meeting MJ in high school, etc. In other words, it's an adaptation of the original Spider-man series with modern sensibilities. The origin story involves the Green Goblin and takes place over only a few 22 page graphics-filled stories with great dialogue. It is practically what you'd call a storyboard for a good film. In a few articles, I'd heard they altered the script slightly because of the success of Ultimate, but I really think they could have followed it faithfully and made a much better film.

And incidentally, the original Spider-man was good 40 years ago, too. That is to say--long before they had a good solid 400 issue run of continuity, it was still good. To say that they had to condense 400 issues into a two hour movie is silly because the first handful of comics were a good read.