Hey folks, Harry here.... As with all films, there are always two sides to the story. Those that love and those that don't. So far the story of SPIDER-MAN has been a fairly simple tale of triumph and success. Of dreams and expectations met and surpassed. However, there is the possibility it seems that there is another side of disappointment and fault. A film flawed for those that can see those flaws. Here we have two reviewers... Pike Bishop and OUTATIME. So where does all of this leave us... the ones that have yet to see SPIDER-MAN? For me, I know that going into this that CGI was used to create SPIDER-MAN, and I know that CGI is not perfect. I know that Danny Elfman dropped the ball musically, creating an incidental score as opposed to one that helps your heart soar as high as the webslinger himself. Well, technically, I don't know these things... I suspect. However, I know if I walk into this film hoping to see a SPIDER-MAN movie... Not the comic book... not ink and paint, but flesh and blood. I suspect that I'm going to have a helluva time at the film, I don't know that, but let's say I'm optimistic. Right now I'm willing to hope and look forward to the screening of SPIDER-MAN that I will someday be blessed enough to have a seat from which to hopefully... MARVEL.
I suppose what I'm telling you folks is this... You have a reason to be cautiously optimistic. So far the majority of viewers, from die-hards to novices have thoroughly enjoyed and even been thrilled by the webslingers first A-picture Hollywood treatment. It seems that this is a film to let go during. We'll see, I certainly hope so. I know good and well that as with all things there will be people that HATE STAR WARS EPISODE 2, why? I can't imagine why, I loved it, but I imagine there will be those that will say they could tell that there was CGI throughout the film. I'm sure some will say the romance was silly, aren't most that you are not a part of? Some will hate it for not being better than the original STAR WARS or EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, as if all the movies that are not as good as those two movies are terrible. Some will hate CG Yoda because he doesn't look like Yoda the puppet, and they'll say they can tell he's CG... Shock... You mean you don't believe that a fluid moving Yoda isn't a real 800 year old green pointy eared Jedi from a galaxy far far away?
Personally, I only concern myself with my opinion on film. I read others... try to understand them. Try to understand why someone would hate something that I love or love something that I hate. I don't get angry at them. I just marvel and reflect upon how two seemingly like people could reach altogether different opinions of the same work. Of course a movie is never the $7.50 you pay to see it. It isn't a measurable thing. An exact thing of ordained value and type. A movie is exactly that and how we react to that is our own thing, measurable only by what it is we bring with us on that journey in that theater... wherever it may be. I just hope I don't come away disappointed. I wouldn't like that very much...
Harry:
I have seen SPIDER MAN here in L.A. at the beautiful Pacific Grove Theaters. And, well...I waited to report in because I needed it to sink in.
Could I really be this disappointed in the film? And if so why?
Well -- first off let me just say - yes. I was disappointed...but it seems I'm the only one. My girlfriend enjoyed the hell out of it....the crowd was totally into it. I think I'm the only one who found it ridiculous at times.
Here's the problem: Sam Raimi was both the best and worst choice to direct this film. His cartoonesque style that we have all grown up with and loved was sometimes the damaging blow to a script that was just terrible. There are scenes in this film that are just absolutely ludicrous even by comic book film standards. I don't want to give anything away, but really the problem is missed opportunites, too many easy plotline coincidences that "dumb" the film down. If a writer who understood comic books, as Koepp clearly doesn't, had written this -- it would have been great.
And let's talk about the Goblin suit. Jesus H. Christmas, this thing is right out of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, right down to the voice. Dafoe must have been embarrassed to be photographed in this thing. You can't see his mouth move, and when there are close-ups of him in it, all you can see are his eyes, and it just looks ridiculous.
Spidey, on the other hand, goes from stiff to smooth to well done CGI-wise by the time the film is over. They finally seem to get it under control by the end. But the problem here is that the CGI and the live action don't match flawlessly and that hinders the film, especially at the World Festival fight, which, honestly,and I hate to say this - - looked like some staged fight show at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. It was hokey and even the balcony looked like a set. It was lame.
As for the actors - Maguire is really good, Dunst is better. Franco thinks he's still in that JAMES DEAN biopic, and Dafoe is enjoying what parts of his role have any integrity.
Now don't get me wrong, there are some great moments in this film -- Peter discovering all of his powers at school, esp. the fight with Flash; the way he learns how to crawl; pretty much a lot of the first hour with Peter and MJ. But all of the Oscorp stuff is a yawner...I SO wish they'd put some effort into making us care about all of this. Update it a little. It's very bland.
Dunst does a great job with MJ, and in some ways, the film is hers: the girl who just can't get it right, who finally falls in love with the one man who was/and is always there for her. She has really grown into a beautiful and talented actress. Just see CAT'S MEOW, and you'll get it.
But as for SPIDEY - - I'm going to get roasted here - but it's a 4 on a scale of 10. I expected more.
With regrets,
Pike Bishop
And then there is OUTATIME's contrary review as well...
Dear Harry--
It's with a heavy heart that I must stand up as the lone voice of reason in a sea of over-spoken Spider-hype. I too managed to somehow get into Saturday's press screening at the Grove, and what I saw didn't exactly leave my Spider sense tingling.
First off--I love Sam Raimi's work. I can quote "Army of Darkness" with the best of them. I'm also not some comic-book purist who's just looking to pick apart the film. I'm a film fan who was looking forward to this as much as the rest of you. An hour drive to the theater, and an hour and a half wait in line should be proof enough of that.
Now, there were a lot of decent things about the movie. Tobey Maguire was fine. So was Dafoe. J.K. Simmons was FLAWLESS as J. Jonah Jameson. Of course, the movie had the standard Raimi cameos, which are always good for a laugh. But Macy Gray??? I hope she gives good head, Sam. That's the only reason I can imagine you put her in this movie.
Then, there's the script. There are just too many plot holes, too many things that are convenient. You don't think they'd have a single video camera at a TOP SECRET weapons research facility? Oh, Peter's only friend is the son of the Green Goblin--how convenient! Uncle Ben just happens to be outside the wrestling arena--Convenient! Oscorp's entire Board of Directors are killed, but nobody suspects the only surviving member? Please.
"But it's a based on a comic book!" I know, I know. But that's no excuse for bad storytelling. For comparison, I picked up the "Ultimate Spider-Man" comic. I hate to say it--but the comic book is less 'comic-booky' than the movie. Why they didn't just keep to that story, I'll never know.
The CG effects are obviously the weakest part of the movie. Spidey looks fake. The Green Goblin looks like a Power Ranger on acid. And the shots of Spidey swinging through NY will leave you begging for your Dramamine. Raimi's camera work has always been innovative, but the confuse-o-vision style he uses here just proves that he knew the effects were weak, and tried to cover them.
Some have argued that this is the "Best Comic Book Adaptation" ever. Hardly. These are probably the same people who said "Episode 1" was the best Star Wars movie. I'm not trying to put our favorite web-slinger down, but how can you compare this to the sheer amazement we felt seeing Superman's home planet for the first time? Or the twisted pleasure we got watching Jack Nicholson evolve into the Joker? Those directors had enough confidence in their material to put it front and center. To let us get a good look at it, and judge it for ourselves. They had fantastic actors, memorable scenes, and unforgettable soundtracks. (I challenge any of you to recall one single piece of music from Spider-Man!)
"Spider-Man" will no doubt make a ton of money. It's a great character and has fantastic sequel potential. But by the time "Spider-Man 2" rolls around, Spidey's effects will have already lost their gee-whiz factor, much like the dinos from "Jurassic Park". I just hope Sam finds something more substantial to replace them with. After all--I'd hate to see Joel Schumacher screw this franchise up too.
Sincerely,
OUTATIME
