Spider-Man

Some of you guys have seen this and aren't posting a review on it...COME ON..

Of course, we all know it's good, but you can just delve into that a little deeper.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I sawd it and went to sleep.
Sorry Spud. You're waiting for a peice of crap to web its way into your life...

Everything you've ever believed in. Crudtacular in practice.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Look, have fun okay, Spud?
I really do mean that. Have a ball...

I saw the midnight showing of it last night! Neener-neener!

I saw it. I liked it a lot... I think it was tough to have so much action in it, since they had to put the entire origin of Spidey in. They did a hell of a good job though, keeping it pretty much consistent with the comic book.

The guy who played J. Jonah Jameson was awesome... Tobey was great. My only complaints about the casting is that Kirsten Dunst looks nothing like an 18 year old high school graduate... (wow, I just looked up her age on IMDB, and she's only 19! But she looks old.)

Dafoe was the bomb... his portrayal of Norman Osborn was awesome.

The only thing I think can be complained about is the lack of crazy action scenes, but without making the movie into a 3 hour monster, it isn't possible.

Two thumbs up!

__________________
<--junger-->

"Chances are, if your parents didn't have any kids, then you won't either."

I just came home from the theater.

Classic good hero, bad villan story and some flying around buildings. That's it. But it's cool.

__________________

Good flick. Very good. Not too many surprises unfortunately, though, so I was rarely genuinely thrilled. Just digging how cool some of the scenes were. LOTS of lulls, though...not action-packed by any means...re-watch value is a little low, but I'll probably see it a second time anyway. Good film, though, for sure.

I'm skipping this movie today, but I do wanna see it sometime. Tonight, I'm having a Hollywood Ending.

Silver mentioned Eberts rating of very low marks, and I read somewhere that Ebert also gave X-MEN a low mark as well, so Silver's hopes of knocking my joy out of it's really really high pedestal were shot down..

Ebert can find one tiny flaw with something, and then will ride it to death. He said that Spider-man looked *too* fluid. So I don't know.

You like it Spudly?
Or have you still not seen it?

I thought Spider-Man was a great movie except for the differences between the comic and the movie. Things like SM shooting webs out of his wrists instead of having to make a contraption that does it for him. Also, the entire MJ story is completely screwed up. Supposedly he's liked her since the fourth grade? CRAP! He met her on a blind date! Fox has single-handedly beat the hell out of one of the best lines in spidey-dom, "Face it tiger, you just hit the jackpot!" The plot of Spider-man is basically the Gwen Stacy story told with MJ taking Gwen's place and her NOT dying at the end. Aren't they gonna have a sequel or two? If they had just used Gwen instead of MJ it would have made a hell of a lot more sense and it would have impacted people much more because of her death. It would have left SO much room for a great sequel. Plus, the whole MJ blind date thing would have made a great story.

__________________
:::NUKEZ2K:::

Oh yeah, and the action sequences are awesome and very, VERY, very true to the comic spidey. A great movie, despite the wannabe Gwen Stacey story that was less-than-tragic...

Welcome to Movie Forums, nukez.

I don't agree at all, sorry to say. It wouldn't have made "more sense" to use Gwen Stacy, because Gwen Stacy doesn't have to exist at all. The goal here was not to recreate the comic book completely, but rather, just to tell the basic story. They HAD to change some things. Personally I think the organic webshooters are a LOT more believable. I don't see a high school kid inventing something like that, even if he is a science whiz. The feel of the movie early on was perfect: stuff just happens to him...he's wary, but he gets used to it. Wouldn't have worked as well, in my opinion, if he'd been ambitious enough about it to go building something advanced like that.

The MJ thing doesn't matter to me much...I'm much more concerned with how they handle Parker's side of things...and besides, she used the word "tiger." It's close enough. It's not going to be a direct translation, obviously.

Gwen Stacy was not, from what I've read, a very interesting character. She garners interest only because she dies...which tells me the character holds very little actual weight. Besides...


Anyway, there was one part/theme I really, really liked...


And, for the record, I thought Dunst was decent most of the time, but very good when crying/distraught...each time she cried, It was completely believable to me. My symbolic hat is off.

Too bad Fox didn't have this move, Sony did.

Well, I'm getting ready to post my review on the main site, when I have that done, I'll link to it on here.

BTW, can someone please tell me what the surprise was? I stayed through the entire ending credits and saw nothing. Just answer in a PM please.

And yes, Willem was awesomely creepy. What a snarl...borderline Grinchish, even. That raised-eyebrow/skeptical look he gave MJ midway through the film was perfect. Very, very good casting.

The whole movie screams sequel.

I posted a review, too. Just threw it together, so it's a little haphazard. Ah well.

Saw this today. I'd probably give it 3 outta 4 stars. It was a good superhero film, but I liked X-Men better, and Batman much better. I liked the whole aspect in Spider-Man that Peter and Oswald were good friends but their alter-ego's were enemies.