Spider-Man

Sam Raimi shows that what makes a film good is not an orgy of visual effects, but an interesting story. Tobey Maguire is perfect, he’s incredible, there is currently no one more suited to the role of Peter Parker and who could play it so well. I applaud Sam Raimi for sticking it to the film company. Kirsten Dunst is also alright, she’s no fragile beauty, but there is something to her, and she can act. My favourite Willem Dafoe was a bit of a disappointment, though, he plays naturally, but when Mr. Hyde awakens in him, his grins are rather laughable. But that's a small blemish on an otherwise excellent film. (15.07.2002)

I remember how, after the first viewing, I remained sitting very disappointed. I was expecting a ride full of intricate relationships, grand action scenes, and deep emotions. And what I saw was a simple fairy tale about good and evil, and at the same time, the drama of an individual rejected by society. And the second time, I stayed sitting again. But this time, for the opposite reason. What I wanted to have but didn't on the first go, was suddenly there. Just more intimate, pleasant, and appropriate. Raimi's approach may ignore the details of the comic, but it works more than well. However, the following two parts are a bit further away. (02.07.2005)

This comic book adaptation didn't turn out badly, but it lacks atmosphere and more developed characters. Its major advantage is the casting of Tobey Maguire, who comes across as very natural, elegant, and likable. He is simply an outstanding actor. Overall impression: 60%. (23.06.2006)

Tim Burton (Batman) and Bryan Singer (X-Men) had it easier. Their comic-book movies were interesting because of their production design, atmosphere and the related ability to draw us into “other worlds”. Raimi’s Spider-Man has none of that. After it ended, I couldn't remember a single scene that had put me in a state of ecstasy as a viewer. Tobey Maguire portrayed the character’s transformation flawlessly, but Kirsten Dunst is too ordinary for this kind of movie. And the Green Goblin character isn’t a scary villain, but an unfortunate wreck with a bigger problem with his own identity than he has with Spider-Man himself. The film has either a distinctive visual concept nor well-developed characters. What it does have is a predictable story, worthy of a 40-minute episode of a TV series, stretched out to two hours. Spider-Man is filmed elegantly and doesn’t suffer from popcorn silliness. But it’s just an overblown bubble that, when it bursts, dissipates like a puff, leaving nothing behind. (02.06.2002)

Actually, the same thing applies that I wrote about the second film. The first film is a comic book remake with a relatively unique spirit, good actors and a well-written characters. If I take away the sometimes somewhat affected dialogues and given predictability, the first Spider-Man is an excellent fun that makes sense where one expects it to. It has good tricks, decent tension, and a solid (though not captivating) Danny Elfman soundtrack. The second film is dominated by the presence and charisma of William Dafoe in civilian life, but he loses it as soon as he puts on the green mask, which simply removes his civilian demonic aspects. Even the effects are somewhat outdated and the subsequent film is certainly more impressive in terms of visuals. The first Spider-Man is also a bit "non-binding", more pubescent, more playful, and the real dilemma of the super-hero happens in the second part. However, this cannot be considered a negative. I give it an honest 4 stars for being watchable fun. (15.04.2006)