It's finally here. Most of us hardcore fans have already seen it at least twice. We've spent the last two years visiting our favorite movie sites daily, devouring all of the latest "updates". We've debated even the most minute details in chat rooms and on message boards like these.
But after the credits roll, after we come down from the initial high of seeing our favorite web-slinger finally swing across the silver screen, How does "Spider-Man" measure up? Is it the great comic book adaption we've been waiting for?
"Spider-Man" is quite enjoyable, to be sure. One of the more enjoyable "summer blockbusters" I've seen in sometime. While it delivers quite well in terms of sheer entertainment value, it's not without it's flaws. I'm guessing it will be about as popular as the first "Batman" at the Box-office, and will probably inspire just as much debate.
In Sam Riami, we have a director who is not only Knowledgeable about the mythology of the title character, but who is more than suited for this type of material.
Sam directs from a script by David Keopp that is surprisingly faithful to the origins of the character. Sam and David make an interesting choice in that they don't take the subject matter deadly seriously, as Tim Burton did with Batman. They approach spidey with a sense of the absurd, allowing moments of slapstick to find their way into some of the films key action set-pieces (Peter's outrageous wrestling costume was a particularly nice touch). This is sometimes to the detriment of the fight scenes in terms of believability. Sam brings a 50's B-movie sensibility to the material that makes the proceedings a little more fun than they might have been, had Sam and company taken the ever-trendy "Dark" approach that is so prevelent with films of this type.
It is obvious that this is a film crafted by people who adore this character. During the scenes where spidey swings through the canyon's of Manhatten, the film itself seems almost in awe of him. If the films CGI effects weren't so obvious, maybe that feeling would've translated a little better, but no matter. The scenes are basically what they should be.
We also get a very sympathetic Peter Parker in Tobey Maguire. Could someone else have done better? Maybe, but I'm more than content with the version of Peter presented here. I only wish that Spidey himself were a little more interesting. We never get any insight as to the change Peter undergoes when he puts on the mask.
One of the more disappointing aspects of the film is that it has no distinct visual look of it's own. Compared to "Blade 2", "Spider-Man" feels rather subdued and generic. Even more so when you consider that this was directed by the same man who made "The Evil Dead" films.
As an adaption, Spider-Man gets an 8 out of 10. As a film, I give it a 7. Is it what we've been waiting for? Yes and no. Is it that best adaption ever? No. Richard Donner's Superman still holds that distinction, but's a damn sight better than any of the Batman films.
But after the credits roll, after we come down from the initial high of seeing our favorite web-slinger finally swing across the silver screen, How does "Spider-Man" measure up? Is it the great comic book adaption we've been waiting for?
"Spider-Man" is quite enjoyable, to be sure. One of the more enjoyable "summer blockbusters" I've seen in sometime. While it delivers quite well in terms of sheer entertainment value, it's not without it's flaws. I'm guessing it will be about as popular as the first "Batman" at the Box-office, and will probably inspire just as much debate.
In Sam Riami, we have a director who is not only Knowledgeable about the mythology of the title character, but who is more than suited for this type of material.
Sam directs from a script by David Keopp that is surprisingly faithful to the origins of the character. Sam and David make an interesting choice in that they don't take the subject matter deadly seriously, as Tim Burton did with Batman. They approach spidey with a sense of the absurd, allowing moments of slapstick to find their way into some of the films key action set-pieces (Peter's outrageous wrestling costume was a particularly nice touch). This is sometimes to the detriment of the fight scenes in terms of believability. Sam brings a 50's B-movie sensibility to the material that makes the proceedings a little more fun than they might have been, had Sam and company taken the ever-trendy "Dark" approach that is so prevelent with films of this type.
It is obvious that this is a film crafted by people who adore this character. During the scenes where spidey swings through the canyon's of Manhatten, the film itself seems almost in awe of him. If the films CGI effects weren't so obvious, maybe that feeling would've translated a little better, but no matter. The scenes are basically what they should be.
We also get a very sympathetic Peter Parker in Tobey Maguire. Could someone else have done better? Maybe, but I'm more than content with the version of Peter presented here. I only wish that Spidey himself were a little more interesting. We never get any insight as to the change Peter undergoes when he puts on the mask.
One of the more disappointing aspects of the film is that it has no distinct visual look of it's own. Compared to "Blade 2", "Spider-Man" feels rather subdued and generic. Even more so when you consider that this was directed by the same man who made "The Evil Dead" films.
As an adaption, Spider-Man gets an 8 out of 10. As a film, I give it a 7. Is it what we've been waiting for? Yes and no. Is it that best adaption ever? No. Richard Donner's Superman still holds that distinction, but's a damn sight better than any of the Batman films.
Tell Your Friends