I just finished seeing the movie three hours ago, and I think a great job was done on it. It wasn't perfect (what movie is?), but the origin of Spider-Man was handled very well (some nice humor there), the effects looked really good (except for a spot or two), the plot was good enough, and the characters (Spider-Man/Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Green Goblin/Norman Osborn, Harry Osborn, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, J. Jonah Jameson, etc.) were well portrayed by all actors.

I usually agree with Roger Ebert's movie reviews, but I think he missed the boat in his review of "Spider-Man". He had significant problems with the portrayals of Spider-Man (Peter Parker's alter-ego) and the Green Goblin (Norman Osborn's alter-ego). He found neither to be very interesting, or sufficiently evocative of the humanity of the characters. He also had major problems with the special effects, which he thought made the characters seem more like video game characters than actual people. For example, he had problems with how fast Spider-Man swung through the air, and with how light on his feet he was as he ran, leaped, and landed on various surfaces (he also had problems with how fast and easily the Green Goblin flew through the air on his glider). Ebert appears to me to have wanted Spider-Man to move a bit more like Indiana Jones or John McClaine (from the "Die Hard" trilogy), two characters who were basically physically ordinary guys who did physically extraordinary things. I think Ebert wanted Spider-Man to land on a rooftop with a thud and a grunt, rather than like a superb acrobat, landing steadily and softly. The point I think Ebert misses is that Spider-Man is SPIDER-MAN. He's not just a guy who's in great physical shape, is pretty strong, and is pretty good at swinging through the air hanging on to ropes and grappling hooks (kind of like Batman). According to the comic books, Spider-Man has superhuman strength and flexibility. He's supposed to have "the proportionate strength of a spider" (he's able to lift up to 10 tons in the comic books). And as far as the web-slinging goes, though different in origin in the comic books, in short time, it's supposed to be second nature for Spider-Man to use his web-shooting abilities in a variety of ways, such as swinging through the city at fast speeds, without going splat against the side of a building or missing the next webline and falling to his death. It seems to me that the movie got this stuff right, which wouldn't have been possible 15 years ago.

Just got back from the movie, and it was excellent! I agree with Ryan that the movie got it right.

There were some nits from the comic book origin though:

WARNING!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!


This is no secret to those who have been following on the web (get it?), but this Spider-Man has organic web shooters that come out of his wrists.

Peter was not bitten by a radioactive spider, but a genetically enhanced "Super Spider". This actually wasn't too bad because it explains more about how Spider-Man can do so many things.

Uncle Ben was killed in a carjacking, not a robbery at his house.

Spider-Man has a cheapo first costume in his wrestling match, not the costume we know and love. I didn't mind this so much as it was a pretty humorous scene.


The lovlies:

Bruce Campbell as the wrestling announcer. Always a pleasure to see him.

A quick cameo by Stan Lee in the fair fight scene with the Green Goblin.

And, for those of us who remember the 1960's cartoon, the Spider-Man theme song is the last song of the credits, so be sure to stay. Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does whatever a spider can...

Ryan: Ebert appears to me to have wanted Spider-Man to move a bit more like Indiana Jones or John McClaine (from the "Die Hard" trilogy), two characters who were basically physically ordinary guys who did physically extraordinary things.

Not quite. What he was more getting at is summed up nicely in this paragraph:

Remember the first time you saw the characters defy gravity in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"? They transcended gravity, but they didn't dismiss it: They seemed to possess weight, dimension and presence. Spider-Man as he leaps across the rooftops is landing too lightly, rebounding too much like a bouncing ball. He looks like a video game figure, not like a person having an amazing experience.

In other words: Spider-Man may be uniquely strong and flexible - definitely something more than the human Jones or McClane - but there is still a human presence underneath the costume, and viewers should be able to sense that he's there.

Kerriam,

I think that as far as audience perception of the human presence under the Spider-Man costume goes, the audience should take it for granted that it's Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) under the costume (although we know that much of Spider-Man's onscreen appearance is CGI). However, I don't think the movie would work if it were visually evident to the audience that every time we're looking at Spider-Man, we're actually looking at Tobey Maguire in a Spider-Man costume. For the movie to work within its reality, Spider-Man should be a mysterious figure, not just from the standpoint of the identity of the person underneath the costume, but from the standpoint of whether or not it's even a human being underneath the costume. The mystery adds to his effectiveness as a superhero, and it allows him to more easily maintain his dual identity. Villains, the press, the police, and ordinary Manhattan citizens shouldn't look upon Spider-Man and think, "I bet Spider-Man probably goes around New York City like an ordinary guy in his spare time. I wonder if I know him." They should be thinking, "What is he? Is he a man? Is he an alien? Where did he come from? Is he for real? What are the limits of his powers?" He is, after all, "The Amazing Spider-Man." When the audience sees Spider-Man swinging through Manhattan in the closing scene of the movie, striking many of the familiar poses from the comic books, it's clear that this is done with computer generated images, not so much because it looks phony, but because intellectually, we know it has to be phony. However, if Spider-Man actually existed, with his speed, strength, agility, and web-shooting abilities, wouldn't he look and move in real life pretty much the way he does in the movie? I think he would.

I saw the movie today, and it was great! But it kinda left ya hangin'. Other than that, it was really good. I espscially liked the way Spidey maneuvered in the air with his webbing.

I have body odor.

Anyone know if there would be a possible spiderman 2?
AND when Peter says that Dr. Conners fired him, was he talking about Dr.Kurt Conners-The Lizard?
Or did I mishear?
I only saw it once and sometimes I need a second look before I catch something.

There will, Uno. It's coming out in 2004.

Harvey Kitzman: Spider-Man has a cheapo first costume in his wrestling match, not the costume we know and love.
Luigi Novi: Same as in the comics.

I'd like to see Doc Ock be the villian in the sequel. He's the most famous Spidey villian apart from the Goblin.

I thought the Kingpin was the big villain?

"Big" as in "most heavy set".

Kingpin is one of Spidey's recurring villains, but not an arch-villain. He's actually an arch villain to Daredevil, and will be played by Michael Clarke Duncan (The Green Mile, The Scorpion King) in next year's Daredevil film.

I saw this movie this weekend and loved it. I really appreciated the 2 hours in length, so we could see everything we wanted to, and was really pleased that the NINE Spider-Man commercials and trailers I've seen, didn't give away the only good scenes. I re-read some old issues, namely Amazing Spider-Man 38 to 45, and my mouth dropped in the theater when Osbourn's partner was referred to as Stromm, just like in that long-ago issue!
One of my few gripes is how Peter runs around showing off his spider powers without a mask, before becoming Spider-Man, so wouldn't some of these witnesses know that Peter is Spider-Man? And it's too bad that he doesn't have a signature theme like Batman and Superman, but that's just nit-picking, since the story counts for more.
I've been waiting for this movie to be made for so long, and the wait was worth it, if it meant that we get such fantastic special effects to make Spider-Man the way it should.
For Spider-Man II I'd like to see Doc Ock the most, because his tentacles would be amazing to watch using CGI, but my friend thinks it'll be Hobgoblin, because Harry said Spidey would pay for what he did to his father, and he might yet find Norman's equipment, like he did in the comics. Heck, Peter and Harry are living together, so how long will it be before he finds the spider suit?
The throwaway line about Dr.Conners may be a clue that we'll see the Lizard, but who knows?
Somewhere down the line I can see Kingpin, Mysterio, and Sandman, and maybe even Venom showing up, but I kinda doubt we'll see a big-screen Electro. As Luigi pointed out, why would there be two Kingpin movies with Daredevil grabbing him first?
I don't know how they'll do it, but there's no question that the producers are going to have to turn it up a notch and outdo this masterpiece for the sequel.

Regarding the villain in the sequel to "Spider-Man", I have some thoughts on this. First, I hope that the producers stick to one major villain per movie. I always thought it was really a waste how the "Batman" sequels each had two major villains. The Joker was killed off in "Batman" (1989). The Penguin and Catwoman were used in "Batman Returns" (1992), and the Penguin was killed off in that one. The Riddler and Two-Face were used in "Batman Forever" (1995), and Two-Face was killed off, while the Riddler was left deformed and brain-damaged. Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze were used in "Batman and Robin" (1997). Neither was killed off, but it was a shame that by only the fourth movie in the series, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze were at the top of the list of good not-previously-used villains. Had the series stuck to one major villain per movie, the fourth movie could have highlighted either solely The Riddler or solely Catwoman, with Two Face, Poison Ivy, and Mr. Freeze still left for future movies in the series.

Going back to the fact that The Joker, Penguin, and Two Face were killed off in the "Batman" movies, that's another thing I hope not to see in "Spider-Man" sequels -- killing off major villains. With the Green Goblin, it's fine that he was killed off in "Spider-Man", because if my memory is correct, Green Goblin dies in the Spider-Man comics. [Side note: Norman Osborn's son, Harry, later becomes Green Goblin II, although I think Green Goblin II just calls himself "Green Goblin" (the Hobgoblin is a different fellow, if I recall correctly).] As for any other major Spider-Man villain who doesn't die after a short while in the comics, he or she should not die at the end of a "Spider-Man" movie. The movie "X-Men" rightly did not kill off Magneto, Sabertooth, Toad, or Mystique, all of whom saw plenty of action over the years in Marvel Comics after their first introductions. Whoever the next "Spider-Man" villain is, at the end of the movie, he or she should probably either escape beaten, or face prison.

As for who that next villain should be, I don't have a preference. I don't think it should be The Kingpin, because an upcoming Daredevil movie will use The Kingpin (plus The Kingpin is more a Daredevil archnemesis than a Spider-Man archnemesis). Dr. Octopus is certainly a major Spider-Man villain, but he's another "scientist victim of an experiment gone wrong". The producers would also probably have to ditch the premise that Dr. Octopus (Dr. Otto Octavius) had four mechanical arms become grafted to his torso during an accident, so now he can control them as if they are part of his own body. Like Dr. Octopus, The Vulture also suffers from plausability problems. For sci-fi/fantasy movies, I can go along with mutants, wacky DNA changes, mysticism, and stuff like that, but I just can't buy the science of The Vulture's wings. Kraven the Hunter might not be so bad, but the costume (with the lion motif) would have to go, and then Kraven just becomes a guy with guns and nets out to get Spider-Man. Electro, The Shocker, Sandman, and The Lizard have decent possibilities. However, one villain I'd like to see down the line is Venom. And if Venom is used, I'd like Spider-Man to get the costume first, just like in the comics, and then later in the movie, after Spider-Man gets rid of it, Eddie Brock gets the costume and becomes Venom.

The problem there is that it would take a two hour movie just to go thru the story of Spiderman getting the black costume and then getting rid of it. The whole 'black costume' thing is atleast three movies.

No there will be no more Batman movies (thank God.) Not because they used to many characters. Not because they used them to quick. There will be no more Batman movies because they used the wrong director. Lets be honest, once Tim Burton stopped doing them they suxed. Insert any number of villians or heroes you want. Change Batman as many times as you want. Still sux.

Roger Ebert is a child. He wouldn't know a good movie if it bit him in the butt!

Adam: No there will be no more Batman movies (thank God.)
Luigi Novi: Yes, there will. Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) is going to make Frank Miller's Year One into a movie.

I've always felt that Patrick Stewart would make an interesting Vulture.
As for Kraven, how about Tom Selleck? In his heyday, Burt Reynolds might have been good in this role.
As for the Black Cat, Angelique Jolie would be pretty hot.

If the "Spider-Man" movies ever got into the "black costume" thing, it would have to be done much differently than it was done in the comics. The origin of the costume, where and how Spider-Man acquired the costume, and how long Spider-Man used the costume before getting rid of it, would all have to be changed for movie purposes. It may be too difficult to craft a good story in which (1) Spider-Man acquires and then ditches the costume, and (2) Eddie Brock (Venom) acquires the costume and becomes a villain, all in one movie. Also, regarding the black costume, in the comics, a major reason Peter Parker liked the costume so much at first was that the costume generated its own unlimited webbing, which made it unnecessary for Peter Parker to use his self-designed, limited fluid web cartridges as Spider-Man. However, since in the movie "Spider-Man", Peter Parker's webs are biological in nature, making web fluid supply a non-issue, the web generation ability of the black costume loses its significance.

Regarding the Batman movies (1989-1997), I have over the years become increasingly disappointed with the entire series. I think the series got off on the wrong foot conceptually by placing Batman in a Gotham City that was part 1940s, part late 80s/early 90s, and part "The Nightmare Before Christmas" all at once. The setting was so unbelievable that it made every person associated with it too unbelievable for me to care much about. I contrast this with the settings in "Superman: The Movie" (1978) and "Superman II" (1980). Lest anyone say, "Well, Batman's world was like that in the comics," it actually wasn't. In DC Comics' "Batman" and "Detective Comics" in the late 1980s, Gotham City looked and seemed not much unlike modern-day New York City.

Regarding Roger Ebert's ability to correctly identify a good movie, I still agree with Roger Ebert's general opinion of a given movie around 80 percent of the time. I just think he really missed the ball on "Spider-Man".

Lastly, it's Angelina Jolie.

That's what I said. Angela Jolly. M-m m-m, good!

At the carnival thing, the green goblin shoots one of his things at people. one of the special effects was to see their skeletons, and then see them disinigrate. Its pretty unrealistic but still really cool. Another unrealistic thing is when a drop of blood falls off of peter parker. It was very over-exagerated. Not even the green goblin would be able to hear a tiny tiny splash.
P.S. Sconeu hasn't seen this movie yet. I went with a friend. I think he wants to see it though. I wonder if the HULK movie is going to be any good.

SOrry, Its ScottN
not Sconeu
I nitted myself

I loved the movie, and the way it didn't take itself too seriously. I did have to wonder though, where he got that costume from. I mean, I can (barely) accept that he made the wrestling number himself, but I remember in the film when he said he was going to New York, I turned to my friend and I siad, I bet he's just going to miraculously have this amazing costume now, and hey presto, in the very next scene, there he was in all his spidy-splendor. He can't have just left his plans (and by the way I loved the scene where he designed them!!)with a seemstress, and said away you go, now could he? And somehow I doubt he's that good at sewing. Spandex outfits are hard to sew you know!

And while I'm on the subject, why on earth did the Green Goblin not take off Spidy's mask when he captured him the first time? It baffled me!

One final nit, and forgive me if it's been mentioned before, but does he just wear the boots under his shoes, or does he carry them around with him (I could ask the same question about Superman) - and the gloves and hat for that matter.

Having said all that, I thought the film was fantastic, and personally, thought the fly through the air scenes were exilerating to watch - kinda like being on a roller-coaster.

I loved the movie. All the differences were well done. Sometimes these things ruin a movie, but it worked to the advantage here.

My only nitpick is that it took more than onetime seeing it for the potrayl of the Mary jane and Peter relationship to start to convince me it was there. I just didn't see it.

Other than that, very well done.

I'd like to see Ben Reilly in one of the movies, but that's just me. :D

I dunno if anyone else saw this site before or mentioned it on NC elsewhere (please forgive me if they have) but I found tons of nits for this film at Movie-Mistakes.com.

Yep. I have.

Btw, why is there still this separate board? Shouldn't it be combined with the one under Movies, or something?

I was wondering the same thing cuz I wasn't sure just where to post my above message. And one thing I'd've liked Movie-Mistakes.com to do would be to sort all of the Spider-Man nits for this or that scene in the order that they happened, instead of them being scattered all over the 8 pages of them.