What I Think Of The First Spider-Man Movie.

Post Reply New Topic

Although I'm not a huge comic lover I do love superheroes like in animated tv shows and movies and the Spider-Man movie was what probably drove me to all that. I watched this movie quite alot back in the day and sometimes I still watch it today but not as much as some other movies. But I was watching it today because I wanna watch all the Spidey movies in a row and I'll be watching Spider-Man 2 tomorrow and I gotta say it's alot more cheesier than I thought. I mean at some point in my life I knew the movie wasn't perfect and was a little cheesy but I didn't really care because I still loved this movie but after watching it today it did raise a few eyebrows. The dialouge is a little silly at times, the special effects are a little cartoony and what probably was the most strangest to me was the romance. It was a little corney and kinda really strange. In the film Peter Parker mentions that Mary Jane was "the woman he loves before he even liked girls" and his Aunt May told him when he was six years that when MJ and her family moved in next door he grabbed her and asked "Aunt May Aunt May, is that an angel?", yeah kinda really corny huh and the scene where Peter met MJ outside the theatre just before he was gonna save her from thoses thugs and have the upside down kiss is kind of a head scratcher because he mentions that "he was just in the neighborhood and that he took a cab and bus to get to the neighborhood". I don't get it was he just really passing by or did he literately go all the way to see her because it sounds to me like he's stalking her. The romance was what probably was the big flaw of the movie especially when Danny Elfman puts in that lame romantic score. To be honest I think I know the reason why I'm nit picking so much on this movie I've always liked and it's because of the new Spider-Man film. It's actually alot better than the original. It's got better acting, a better plot and even the romance is more simple, boy meets girl not boy meets girl at age 6 and is literately in love with her. I guess I just find this movie a little more flawed than I usually did but I still like it. Maybe it's not a great movie but it's a good one and I would definately watch it again mostly because I like Spider-Man 2 more and if I ever wanted to watch Spider-Man 2 I would always watch the first movie first followed by Spider-Man 3 which I don't think is that bad of a movie. But The Amazing Spider-Man beats them all.

I thought The Amazing Spider-Man was garbage personally. They turned Peter Parker into an emo hipster outcast, he never finds Uncle Ben's killer and has zero character development from it, he simply gives up and the movie moves on without any resolution of a major part of Spider-Man's origin story. There were things in the trailer a couple months before release that they didn't even include in the movie because of a last minute editing job which resulted in one character disappearing from the film because all his later scenes were cut. They also teases something totally cool in the climax that should have happened, and never went anywhere with it, regarding the gas The Lizard was spreading, it doesn't end up doing what you think it would and its boring and disappointing because of it. There are also far too many conveniently placed construction cranes in the movie. The movie was a mess.

Plus Andrew Garfield has horrible hair, someone should buy him a comb.

It's been a while since I have watched Sam Raimi Spider-Man films, but the first two to me are still far superior to the reboot. The reboot was actually worse than Spider-Man 3, which had a host of problems itself.

The reboot was worse. I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that Peter Parker makes a web throwing device like in the comics. What's wrong with that? In the Sam Raimi movies he naturally developed web throwing abilities from the radioactive spider bite. I actually thought this idea was an improvement over the creation motif, but what do I know...

The first spider man film was silly but had some good moments. I liked the way he let the robber escape from the fighting tournament but then he ended up killing his uncle so peter parker turned to help get criminals.

His Aunt was a stereotypical character and made me sick at times.

But Willem Defoe was great as the bad guy.

At least Andrew Garfield didn't sport an emo fringe and dance to a wankish jazz song in number 3.

For me, I love this movie. I watch it a lot as a kid and I have some merchandise for the film like action figures, the video game, a magazine discussing about the film, and a Spider-man pillow case and blanket. For my thoughts on the new one that came out, I like that one as well.

Even fans of the Sam Raimi films will admit that the third one sucked, but that doesnt change that 1 and 2 were superior to the most recent movie.

also Honest Trailers is the best thing on YouTube right now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KSPiTOMR8[/youtube]

After watching the reboot - more than once - I have come to the conclusion that it can't hold a candle to the Sam Raimi trilogy - even to the much criticized Spiderman III.
Watching the Andrew Garfield version, I found myself nitpicking how it had strayed further from the comic book canon much more than the Tobey McGuire version. I mean, how can you have Spiderman without the "With great power comes great responsibility" speech in the reboot? Instead, Uncle Ben gives Peter a rather longer winded talk, rather than the simple, concise, iconic advise.
Aunt May in the original three movies actually looked like Aunt May - whereas Sally Field simply does not.
Where the hell was thorn in Spidey's side, J. Jonah Jameson in the New movie? Dennis Leary as Gwen's father was a poor replacement.
And speaking of Gwen - she became Peter's girlfriend only after he broke up the first time with his high school crush, Mary Jane. Again, drifting too far away from comic book canon for my Aspie spider sense.
And while the Lizard/Dr. Conners was one of Spiderman's most memorable enemies, the Andrew Garfield movie unforgivably slights him. In the theatrical release, there is no mention of Conner's family, especially his son; but it's his connection to his son which provides his only remaining life line to his humanity.
The Raimi/McGauire movies hardly kept one hundred percent to the comic book canon, it hardly strayed nearly as far from the source material as the reboot.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

everything after this is irrelevant.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUcktiQxC9Q[/youtube]

one thing i never understood about spiderman, if his wall climbing ability is attributed to the microscopic fibres in his fingers and feet how come he can still climb walls wearing gloves and boots?

I used to watch that goofy thing as a kid! Back then, I used to think it was the coolest thing ever.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'm sorry but the new one while it has a few changes is much better than the Raimi ones. The first one I like but when I look at it now it is kinda a little silly and over the top and has a lot of weird dialouge. The second one is better though but has one or two plot holes and like the first one has a few cheesy moments. The third one...well let's just leave it at that. The reboot is more dramatic and the sarcasism is definately much better as is the typical love story. I dunno now that I look at it closely the love story between Peter and MJ is kinda creepy at times but the Peter and Gwen love story. Perfect.

I was never a huge fan of the first Spiderman movie and did prefer the reboot. The acting and writing felt a bit more grounded to me, and the main character more compelling. The first one felt a bit silly and camp in comparison. I did really love the second movie in the original trilogy though, but the third movie was really poor. Hopefully the reboot will keep the quality consistent.

I think part of my problem with the recent one was the overall tone of the film, it just didnt feel like Spider-Man. Why is it that every major action sequence has to take place at night? This isn't Batman, quit trying to be Batman. The overall brighter color palette and actually having some action scenes during the daytime in the Raimi films felt more like a Spider-Man film should feel.

I actually like the new movie far more than the Raimi movies. Overall its less corny and artificial compared to the first one. The old one felt it was trying waaay too hard to be faithful to the comic and people like Aunt May were too hokey to be taken seriously (she also looks 80 years old too, like she should be his grandmother). It felt like a comic book from the sixties than a movie form 2000.

The new one on the other hand improves alot, like how Peter gets his mask from an abandoned wrestling arena instead of going through a '90s-esque WWE fight, May looked to be about 40 or so, Uncle Ben was funny instead of just an old wise man, Peter didn't look kinda creepy (I blame Toby McGuire more on that) and Raimi is a very B-Movie styled director, Marc Webb was more modern. Also the movie felt like a bio-horror movie too, with all the unsettling transformations (I felt numb watch Connors grow another arm).

But I admit, the film has its flaws. The storylnes of Peter looking for what happened to his parents, finding Uncle Ben's killer, The Lizard's grand plan felt underdeveloped, Peter's skateboarding was kinda lame and I found Gwen to be a bit of a b***h.

Here's a video summation of the Raimi films I find accurate;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqiQokkPMWY[/youtube]