IMDb user comments for
Spider-Man (2002)

Werbung

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Spoiler verstecken:

Seite 1 von 193:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Übersicht

1930 Nutzerkommentare insgesamt

---

58 out of 81 people found the following comment useful :-
Amazingly Spectacularly Great, 26. Juni 2002
Author: to_kill_better von United Kingdom

Having seen the trailers for this film I have to say that I didn't walk into the cinema with high hopes. The computer effects looked badly integrated, the Green Goblin's costume looked awful and comic book adaptations usually have such painful scripting and plotting. Thankfully I was wrong on most counts (The Goblin still looks rubbish).

As it turns out, this is probably the best super-hero film I've yet seen - certainly up there with Superman and Batman. People seem to automatically comment that the script and acting was bad because they expect it to be the case in these films; and indeed it usually is. But if you go into Spider-man without this prejudicial attitude you'll be pleasently suprised. The acting is generally great - there is never a time when anyone is not believable as their character and you think "Hey, that's an actor, not Peter Parker". The effects do look artificial but the pace of the movie means you don't have time to dwell on this and the script is fine! What do people want, Shakespearian soliloquies? That would sound incredibly out-of-place in modern day New York. There are few of the painful cliches or dreadful dialogue that plague films like The Phantom Menace and the catchphrases like "friendly neighbourhood spider-man" are fully in-keeping with the character.

The comic turns from J.J. Jameson hit the mark, the snarling facial contortions of Willem Defoe were suitably evil-looking (and the conversation with his mirror-image was a great touch). My only gripe was with the Green Goblin's costume. Very monotone green and not very scary.

All-in-all a great film that I wouldn't hesitate for a second in recommending.

---

53 out of 72 people found the following comment useful :-
Amazing!, 2. Mai 2002
Author: sdjones-1 von United States

I thoroughly enjoyed "Spider-Man," which I saw in a screening. I thought the movie was very engrossing. Director Sam Raimi kept the action quotient high, but also emphasized the human element of the story. Tobey Maguire was very believable as the gawky teenager in the early part of the film and then, after his run-in with the radioactive, genetically engineered spider, as the athletic, acrobatic superhero of the title. His boyish glee at discovering his new superpowers was infectious and got a lot of laughs. I also didn't mind the changes to the "Peter Parker: The Amazing Spider-Man" comic book story that the film's writers made, e.g., having Spider-Man's web come out of glands in his wrists rather than being an invention of Peter Parker's. Especially good were Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson as Aunt May and Uncle Ben Parker, Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn/the Green Goblin, James Franco as Harry Osborn, and Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. And in a small but memorable role, J.K. Simmons ("Oz," Law & Order") as newspaper publisher J. Jonah Jameson was hilarious. Perfect casting. I also thought the special effects were very good. Although I could easily tell when Spidey was a computer-generated image (or a stunt double for that matter), it didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie. However, I saw the movie with a six-year-old, who found the villainous Green Goblin -- superbly personified by Willem Dafoe -- very, very frightening, so I would advise against taking children younger than 10 years of age to this movie. "The Amazing Spider-Man" comic book was a childhood favorite of mine, and I can honestly say that Sam Raimi has done it justice! I'm going to go see this movie again (sans terrified six-year-old).

---

40 out of 51 people found the following comment useful :-
~ Web-Slinging Fun ~, 6. Januar 2005

Author: Aysen08 von Lincoln, NE

Normally I can't stand movies derived from comics, for example the duds that were the Hulk & Daredevil, but this one surprised me.

An excellent take on the comic book character created by Stan Lee. Next to the X-Men movies that came out about the same time, and Superman with Christopher Reeve, it is definitely one of the better Comic to Movie films put out.

The cast is well chosen. McGuire is Spiderman/Peter Parker to me. I don't think they could have chosen better. Kirsten Dunst makes a decent Mary Jane Watson, wasn't ever fond of her to begin with, but it's pulled off well. Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin is sheer genius.

The story is well written and keeps you along for the entire ride, coupled with action that's explosive and thrilling. Definitely fun for all, even die hard Spidey fans won't be disappointed! Fun for all! 9/10.

---

34 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
Poignant, fun and a faithful adaptation to the original comic book, 1. Mai 2002

Author: managreen von Santa Rosa, CA

Poignant, fun and a faithful adaptation to the original comic book. I am very critical of comic book movies since I am a huge fan of the medium and was tremendously disappointed in the Superman and Batman movies (all of them, some greatly!). This film however has again demonstrated that an adaptation of a comic book story can be fun and faithful to the story, yet be a film for all ages and those who may not have ever even read a comic book. The Crow was the only other good comic book movie in my opinion, but it was not an all ages fun ride as this is!

I had the privilege of seeing the film last night, 4-30-02, in SF with the press and 300+ other folks for its "Bay Area Premiere".

The acting is the finest portion of the film with the leads giving us depth that I was unsure would be allowed by the style of story chosen. Maguire was outstanding at being a guy who can rarely catch a break, but attract difficulty with ease and aplomb. He is awkward with the woman he loves, but eloquent when dealing with the familiar, just as most teenagers are even today. He gave us wonderful joy at the prospect of "web swinging" and kicking some much deserved ass! Dafoe is wonderfully scary as the man who has succumbed to the power games of the corporate world that drives a decent man mad striving for perfection in himself while trying to hard to please all the wrong people to no avail and then being consumed by guilt that has built over the years of family neglect which finally helps to push him over the edge when an opportunity to make a huge mistake presents itself.

The rest of cast is nearly as spectacular with the J.K. Simmons turning in the best performance in the film as J. Jonah Jamason. When he appeared on screen things lite up even more and he was on fire making everyone in the audience laugh and myself nearly p** my pants. Harris as Aunt May and Robertson as Uncle Ben were excellent choices and gave the film a great deal of its credibility and finesse. Letting what happens to Ben and Peter (I am not telling) was wonderful and the best punctuation to what makes Peter do what he does and brings complete credibility to the story. I am not a huge Dunst fan, but she was just fine as the love of Peter Parker's life and a person much like Peter only neither was conscious of the fact. This to me is a more real version of "true love".

The script was far stronger than I expected with some wonderful dialog; verbal exchanges, solid plot points and pacing. Many a good parenting lesson can be found in this film as well as interesting thoughts about the choices that we make in life that we might think are no big deal when in the heat of passion, but may well come back to haunt us if we don't think before we act/speak: which is the trust of the film in my humble opinion.

The direction from Raimi was also much better than I anticipated coming from someone who is known (and loved) for his over the top camp and action. Many of the fight and action sequences where more "over done" than I like, but they were solid and much like a comic of the Silver Age from whence the story comes so it fit the film fine. Nice cinematography without the CGI taking over and detracting from the realism, in fact it made much of the web swinging truly believable. A few points made things a bit hard to "believe", but over all I think most folks will be able to suspend their disbelief.

Danny Elfman. Need I say more? He is the man when it comes to "super hero" music and is the closest thing to John Willams and the late great Bernard Herman there is today. He subtly sets the mood and most of the audience probably doesn't even realize it. Tomorrow is my day off and I will be purchasing the score to add to my collection!

---

32 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
DVD review - yep, definitely a fun movie, and a great DVD to own., 1. November 2002
Author: TxMike von Houston, Tx, USA, Earth

Breaking with usual tradition, the "Spider-Man" DVD was released today, a Friday. At around $15 almost everywhere, for the 2 disk set, it was too good a bargain to pass up. I hadn't seen the film in theaters so this was my first viewing. Definitely entertaining, with a good mix of action and budding romance, the film of the beginnings of Spider-Man. Although I was a bigger fan of Superman as a kid, I also have good memories of the Spider-Man comics, and this film is very faithful.

no SPOILERS here - The 2 disk DVD set is one of the better ones. The picture itself is extremely sharp, and very colorful, with a very clear and dynamic Dolby 5.1 sound track. Surround sound complements the picture masterfully, so that the viewer seems right in the middle of the action. **POINT** - As I have explained in other reviews, anyone still watching movies at home on VHS needs to get rid of it now! It is a different movie on DVD, the quality of the picture, the quality of the sound, not to mention all the extras. With a widescreen TV it is almost like being in a theater.

The EXTRAS - In addition to the movie, disk one has a feature that pops up a spider icon at certain spots that, when "clicked", jumps you to a brief "making of" segment for that scene, then jumps you back to the movie. Plus there are two different, selectable commentaries for anyone who likes the re-watch a movie and hear what went into its making.

Disk two is completely devoted to "extras", like screen tests, an HBO special, and other aspects of making "Spider-Man." Also included is an archive of Spider-Man comics covers from the 1960s to now, grouped by decade, and written script to summarize the basic story of each issue. A "must have" for all Spider Man comics fans.

There have been a few user reviews on IMDb, usually very short, which trash this movie, and may even say something like "avoid this movie". Be certain those are "bogus" reviews, written for some deceptive purpose, I know not why. For anyone who enjoys any kind of fantasy action movie with a good message, "Spider-Man" is a definite "must-see."

---

23 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
A really great comic book adaptation, 8. Oktober 2005

Author: Max_cinefilo89 von Italy

"With great power comes great responsibility".These words, spoken by Peter Parker's uncle Ben(Cliff Robertson)during their last conversation and which have become Spider-Man's motto, also perfectly represent the challenge Sam Raimi was facing when asked to bring one of America's most loved superheroes to the screen.

You can relax, fellas: Raimi's movie is definitely worth a look.Loosely based on the origin story and the Stan Lee/John Romita Sr. run, it's a fascinating mix of spectacular action and powerful drama, as it chronicles Peter Parker's(Tobey Maguire) transformation into a superhuman and the responsibilities deriving from said metamorphosis: while fighting crime to avenge his uncle's death, he also has to deal with his feelings for Mary Jane Watson(Kirsten Dunst) and his friendship with Harry Osborn(James Franco); add Harry's father Norman(Willem Dafoe), who's become schizophrenic psycho Green Goblin, and you've got a quite complicated situation.

Raimi's excellent at showing us the hero's pain, as well as the one he causes to others, and he gets terrific performances from the entire cast, particularly Maguire, Dafoe and Robertson.

On its own, it's a very good superhero flick, alongside the sequel, it's an absolute masterpiece.

Recommended even if you don't care about the comics.

---

18 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Raimi and Maguire weave a magical web in this excellent comic adaptation, 9. April 2004

Author: Joseph Riesenbeck (eazyguy62) von United States

Studios lately have been known to spend almost $200 million dollars bringing a comic book super hero to life on the silver screen. With $200 million dollars you can buy many state of the art special effects for the director to full around with to his hearts content. If in the process, though, he decides to fore-go an entertaining story and script, characters that we can get to know and sympathize with, and good actors to bring those characters to life, all the special effects in the world isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. Fortunately for us, in bringing Marvel Comic's Spiderman to life, Sam Raimi did care about those little details and the audience is richly rewarded because of it.

One of the trickier tasks when transferring a film such as Spiderman to film is in giving us enough background story. If a writer and director spend too much time on the origins of the character, it has a tendency to bog the rest of the film down. Likewise, if it is given short thrift, we never have a chance to become involved emotionally with the super-hero. In Spiderman, Raimi, aided immeasurably by Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spiderman strikes just the right note. Maguire is such an accomplished actor, that he immediately establishes Peter Parker as someone we will care about throughout the film. He has a crush on the beautiful girl next door, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), is constantly harassed by the school jerk, and has a best friend, Harry (James Franco), who's relationship with his father Norman (Willem Dafoe)is far from perfect. As for Peter, he has an exceptional home life with his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) which is probably one of the reasons Harry develops an early kinship with him. That and the fact that Harry's father seems to think more of Peter than he does of his own son at times.

After having been bitten by a mutated spider, Peter awakens one morning to find himself with some exceptional super powers. He develops muscles that he didn't have before, has reflexes Michael Jordan would be proud of, and can shoot a web like nobody's business. It is during these early scenes of discovery by Peter that the film truly excels. Maguire is like a child whom after taking his first steps, learns he can motor about the house quite nicely, thank you very much. We can't help but have as much fun watching Peter Parker hone his skills as he seems to have in being able to do these magnificent feats.

Another fine aspect of Spiderman is the love story that develops between Parker and Mary Jane. As Peter Parker, he is never able to quite overcome his inability to tell Mary Jane of his true feelings. Later, as Spiderman, there is a wonderful scene between him and Mary Jane in a drenching downpour that any romantic film would envy.

Whereas some have not been too enamored of Dafoe's portrayal as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin, I found both to be right on the mark. As Norman, we see how his continuous drive to control his company alienates and spoils the relationship he has with his son Harry. It's not that Norman is an evil person, his quest for power has led him to more or less take his son for granted. Later, when after a lab accident, it is the schizophrenic battle between the normal Harry and the Evil Harry that brings the Green Goblin to life. It would have been easy for Raimi to have the lab accident just turn Harry instantly into the Green Goblin, but instead we get a richer more dramatic story that we wouldn't have had otherwise.

Likewise James Franco, who looks enough like Dafoe that they could be father and son, is a youth who seems tormented by the fact that no matter what success he achieves, his father never gives him his just due. Kirsten Dunst is also beautiful and charming as Mary Jane. Her romantic scenes with Spiderman are wonderfully played, and she has an especially moving scene with Peter Parker as the film draws to a close.

As for the special effects, they are indeed spectacular. As Spiderman swoops between buildings on his web, you won't think once that it's not really him doing so. When reading IMDB reviews of this film or any other film that depends heavily on special effects, one must keep in mind that it has become more or less a hobby among some to downgrade the effects of any film so my advice is to just ignore the criticism in that regard. The effects here are fine.

Two years ago, it was with quite a bit of eagerness that I anticipated Raimi's Spiderman film and it lived up to my hopes in every aspect. If the impending sequel comes even close to being as good as the original, it'll be a job well done. And if a film such as Spiderman can have me counting the days until Spiderman II, than I have no choice but to give it my grade, which for Spiderman is an A.

---

21 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
What I was hoping for and more., 2. September 2005

Author: Aaron1375 von Alabama

Usually when there is a big summer movie I am looking forward to, I wait and wait and then the movie comes out and it is a big disappointment. I really looked forward to the American Godzilla movie and by golly it was a huge disappointment. Then I really looked forward to Star Wars episode 1 and although it was not the disappointment Godzilla was, it was still a disappointment. Spider-man however was everything I was hoping it to be. In fact, it has to be considered one of the best comic book adaptations ever. It actually took parts of the comic book and incorporated it into the movie. Unlike most comic book movies where the story doesn't come from any of the comic books. Sure there are some departures such as the organic web shooters, but this is acceptable seeing as how watching Peter Parker learning he has them makes for some humorous scenes. The entire cast did a great job capturing the characters they were playing and there are some great fights as well. This is also a departure from most comic book movies where there is really no good fight at all between the heroes and villains.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Not great, 3. Februar 2003

Author: cougar18 von Ireland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Okay, first let me say, that I have not got a problem with the changes made to the film, in fact they kinda made the film cooler. But here's where I lost interest. Tobey McGuire is not very good as Peter, in fact, he seems bored, which is never very good for a leading man to be. And he has impressed me, especially in films such as the Cider House Rules, so I don't hate him. Kirsten Dunst is pretty good as Mary Jane, Uncle Ben should have been allowed appear for longer, as he is integral to Spider-man's origin, ***possible spoiler*** his death is like a key scene in a play, but it is brushed over very quickly, which seems lazy.*** The relationship between Norman and Harry, is very interesting, much more so than the main story, and is the one really developed portion of the film. But back to Tobey. Well, in my opinion, Tobey is not able to convey the sense of responsibility which, look at the spoiler, taught him. That speech he makes to MJ at the hospital, about what he told Spider-man, was cringe inducing, really over the top sappy. He is also not physical at all. Like Keaton in Batman, Tobey is rarely in the suit, and so all of Spidey's stunts are by stuntmen. These include even the basic, like where Spidey webs down before kissing MJ and the simplest fights (all classic poses are assumed by stuntmen) and so Dafoe was right about him being a wimp. I know this might seem like nit-picking, but actors who do all or most of their stunts seem to absorb the idea of the character more, and get into the role better. Some don't like Dafoe, or the Goblin outfit, but I think the suit works in the film and is really cool, and also Dafoe outclasses McGuire. The only good thing for me was the the costume, which was great. Some scenes of CGI were poor, but the last 2 minutes of it was the best part of the movie for me. Many will say that it's only a summer blockbuster, but if they have read a comic of Spider-man, and I don't mean the issues included with the DVD (which were not the best, to be honest), then they'll be able to see where the filmmakers failed.

Overall, 6/10, the movie really caves halfway thru.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Do not understand the hype, 16. November 2007

Author: Doc_Gibbons84 von Champaign, Illinois

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This movie, as well as the whole Spider-Man franchise, has to be one of the most over-hyped in recent memory. From the perspective of a casual theater-goer, I can perhaps see how it can be so popular. After all, the action scenes are very well done and quite numerous. But from the perspective of a movie-lover who is very critical of things like story, character, acting, and plot devices, it fails on many levels.

I'll start with story problems. One of the biggest failings of this movie is that the story is so contrived, and the villain's motives are so unexplained, that it leaves you wondering how a movie can be so successful when it's filled with amateur mistakes. The Green Goblin is a good example. At first, his motives are understandable – he wants to eliminate his firm's competition and then, in a rage, he murders the board of directors after they betray him by selling the company out from under him. After this, however, his motives become vague. Why is he interested in bringing further mayhem to the city? The fan-boy's answer will most likely be, "He's insane." And yet, for a supposedly insane character, he thinks and behaves pretty rationally when it suits the plot for him to do so. At any rate, justifying a bad guy's random actions by labeling him insane is simply lazy story-telling, because it eliminates the need to develop a multi-dimensional villain with motives that make sense.

Another problem with the movie is that things happen for no other reason than because the plot demands it, which is also lazy story-telling. For instance, the screenwriters obviously wanted a climax where the Green Goblin forces Spider-Man to choose between saving the woman he loves or a bus full of children. Unable to think of a plausible way that this could happen, they write a scene where the Green Goblin decides to destroy Spider-Man by using what he loves as bait. By this point, Goblin had learned Spider-Man's true identity, so it begs the question of why the Goblin didn't simply break into Peter Parker's house and slit his throat while he was sleeping. Obviously, this wouldn't work in a super-hero movie, but the screenwriters never should have left such a loose thread dangling. A good remedy to this would have been for the Goblin not to learn Spider-Man's identity at all.

On to the acting. Most of the actors do the best job they can, given the material, but one actor stands out as a perfect example of bad casting: James Franco. Franco plays Peter's buddy Harry Osborn, whose father is the Green Goblin. He can best be recognized by his perpetually mopey face and whiny voice. I think he must have gone to the Hayden Christensen school of acting, where they teach you to emphasize the wrong syllables, whine and cry a lot, and put a permanent scowl on your face whenever you have to display emotion. Also, J.K. Simmons chews the scenery as the fast-talking newspaper editor who seems to be channeling the spirit of Jackie Cooper as Perry White in the Superman movies. Sporting a ridiculous-looking flattop toupee, Simmons spews his dialog with the pace and tempo of a narrator from a 1940's radio serial. Simmons is a fine actor ordinarily, so I can only assume he was simply acting as directed.

But what I disliked the most about this movie is the distinct feeling I got, especially towards the end, that I was watching an overlong episode of "Power Rangers." The over-the-top villain spews corny lines like, "Time to die!", and the hero responds in kind with equally corny hero lines. I can understand why this kind of movie would appeal to children; when I was a kid I lived for movies like this. But what I really can't understand is the huge adult following that these films have. At a certain point in your life, it just becomes hard to enjoy campy, over-the-top cartoony movies like this.

---

---

Seite 1 von 193:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Weitere Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Nutzerbewertungen
Filmpreise	Newsgroup reviews	Externe Kritiken
Parents Guide	Offizielle Website	Plot keywords
Hauptübersicht	Your user comments	Your vote history