Today the rebooted Spidey debuts, but I probably won't get to see it until the weekend. Here in Canada we have today off because of the Canada Day long weekend, but my local cinema isn't showing the movie until the evening and I have to work tomorrow.
In the meantime I thought I'd revisit the previous Spidey films which I haven't seen in some years. Unlike the previous Batman films the previous Spideys aren't connected to the new movie. But for a while now I've been hearing some sniping about the Raimi/McGuire films that I've felt might be a bit unfair.
Spider-Man (2002) *****
Peter Parker's life takes a dramatic turn when he's bitten by a genetically modified spider.
Firstly, I was juiced with anticipation for this film when I heard it was finally going to see the light of day. I had no real interest in The X-Men, but after seeing how that was treated I was hopeful the new Spidey on the big screen could work. Certainly I felt the resources were finally in place to do a like-action Spidey in a credible way.
Before the film was released there was a lot of debate about some changes Sam Raimi was making to our hero's origins and world. Some accepted the updates while others were opposed. Today we know that a radioactive spider would probably be dead rather than be able to infect someone (but in the '60s radioactivity could do all sorts of weird stuff). So the idea of Peter Parker being infected by a genetically engineered spider sounded somewhat less improbable.
The idea of Peter's web shooting ability being organic rather than mechanical also fit in with the genetically altered idea. It certainly side-stepped the question of how Peter's web shooters could hold such a copious amount of web fluid in such small wrist-strapped canisters. Of course this was a point that irked quite a few long time fans.
What made those ideas work for me is that they weren't belaboured in the film. They were just there.
The other change that some found controversial (including me) was making Mary Jane as Peter's first love rather than the original Gwen Stacy (which the reboot has reverted to). This wasn't helped by some folks not taking to Kirsten Dunst and her portrayal of MJ. I have to include myself as one of those initially. MJ in the comics was pretty much supermodel materiel and Kirsten Dunst isn't, at least not in my eyes. But upon rewatching this I reconsidered my earlier disappointment. Raimi doesn't portray MJ as a supermodel, but rather as the pretty girl next door who aspires to be an actress. And if I look at MJ in regard to how Peter Parker sees her rather than how I expected her to be then I have to say Kirsten Dunst's portrayal works just fine.
I think Toby McGuire as Peter Parker was an inspired choice in most respects. He strikes me as ideal in the role of a generally quiet and awkward young man. He really did seem like Peter Parker brought to life. That said, though, he is very much like the Peter of the original comics and perhaps not so much like a similar teenager of today.
When the film was released I was elated with it to the point of seeing it twice in the theatre, which is something I rarely do. I liked it better the second time around and I had only minor quibbles. Today I still feel much the same way.
I could go into a long drawn out analysis, but suffice to say that I found myself grinning all over again---and I mean that in a good way. I was laughing with the film rather than at it. I loved the updating of the classic Spidey costume to make it work live-action. I certainly loved seeing Spidey in action and there were scenes that still gave me a touch of vertigo seeing Spidey in action amongst the skyscrapers.
In terms of characters I really can't fault any of them. I think Aunt May was bang on and J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson was inspired.
Is the film perfect? No. But my quibbles are minor ones and they're mostly in terms of production.
When Peter first starts discovering his new powers the first scenes of him running and leaping over rooftops doesn't look right. It looks like they really should have taken another pass or two to get them right. They don't look at all natural (and this in a film showing a guy swinging effortlessly between skyscrapers). You suspend disbelief when watching a superhero film, but you still expect things to look at least realistic and those first scenes don't. After that, though, I was fine with everything else.
My second quibble is in regard to the Green Goblin's suit. Yeah, it's a superhero film, but I thought the Goblin's outfit was just too outlandish. And I really didn't care for the helmet headpiece. I can understand not going with the green and purple original comics' design, but I still think something better could have been done with the Goblin's outfit.
My final reservation is one of continuity. I still would have preferred seeing Gwen Stacy rather than MJ. It isn't a deal breaker, but I still would have liked to see it. It also would have been quite dramatic if they had followed that storyline a bit more closely. In the original (for those not familiar) it was Gwen Stacy held atop the Brooklyn Bridge and in that story she died even as Spidey tried to save her. That would have been more gutsy than what they did here.
Today we're inundated with superhero films, but in the early 2000s the pickings were a lot slimmer. Prior to Spider-Man we had the X-Men and the clutch of Batman and Superman films. Measured against those I thought Spider-Man was head-and-shoulders above them all. Spider-Man also managed what the previous Batman and Superman outings hadn't: it managed humour and light camp without going over-the-top. I still think that.
With my reservations then why a five rating rather than a four? Because even with my quibbles I still felt juiced watching this film. For me it still works.
In the meantime I thought I'd revisit the previous Spidey films which I haven't seen in some years. Unlike the previous Batman films the previous Spideys aren't connected to the new movie. But for a while now I've been hearing some sniping about the Raimi/McGuire films that I've felt might be a bit unfair.
Spider-Man (2002) *****
Peter Parker's life takes a dramatic turn when he's bitten by a genetically modified spider.
Firstly, I was juiced with anticipation for this film when I heard it was finally going to see the light of day. I had no real interest in The X-Men, but after seeing how that was treated I was hopeful the new Spidey on the big screen could work. Certainly I felt the resources were finally in place to do a like-action Spidey in a credible way.
Before the film was released there was a lot of debate about some changes Sam Raimi was making to our hero's origins and world. Some accepted the updates while others were opposed. Today we know that a radioactive spider would probably be dead rather than be able to infect someone (but in the '60s radioactivity could do all sorts of weird stuff). So the idea of Peter Parker being infected by a genetically engineered spider sounded somewhat less improbable.
The idea of Peter's web shooting ability being organic rather than mechanical also fit in with the genetically altered idea. It certainly side-stepped the question of how Peter's web shooters could hold such a copious amount of web fluid in such small wrist-strapped canisters. Of course this was a point that irked quite a few long time fans.
What made those ideas work for me is that they weren't belaboured in the film. They were just there.
The other change that some found controversial (including me) was making Mary Jane as Peter's first love rather than the original Gwen Stacy (which the reboot has reverted to). This wasn't helped by some folks not taking to Kirsten Dunst and her portrayal of MJ. I have to include myself as one of those initially. MJ in the comics was pretty much supermodel materiel and Kirsten Dunst isn't, at least not in my eyes. But upon rewatching this I reconsidered my earlier disappointment. Raimi doesn't portray MJ as a supermodel, but rather as the pretty girl next door who aspires to be an actress. And if I look at MJ in regard to how Peter Parker sees her rather than how I expected her to be then I have to say Kirsten Dunst's portrayal works just fine.
I think Toby McGuire as Peter Parker was an inspired choice in most respects. He strikes me as ideal in the role of a generally quiet and awkward young man. He really did seem like Peter Parker brought to life. That said, though, he is very much like the Peter of the original comics and perhaps not so much like a similar teenager of today.
When the film was released I was elated with it to the point of seeing it twice in the theatre, which is something I rarely do. I liked it better the second time around and I had only minor quibbles. Today I still feel much the same way.
I could go into a long drawn out analysis, but suffice to say that I found myself grinning all over again---and I mean that in a good way. I was laughing with the film rather than at it. I loved the updating of the classic Spidey costume to make it work live-action. I certainly loved seeing Spidey in action and there were scenes that still gave me a touch of vertigo seeing Spidey in action amongst the skyscrapers.
In terms of characters I really can't fault any of them. I think Aunt May was bang on and J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson was inspired.
Is the film perfect? No. But my quibbles are minor ones and they're mostly in terms of production.
When Peter first starts discovering his new powers the first scenes of him running and leaping over rooftops doesn't look right. It looks like they really should have taken another pass or two to get them right. They don't look at all natural (and this in a film showing a guy swinging effortlessly between skyscrapers). You suspend disbelief when watching a superhero film, but you still expect things to look at least realistic and those first scenes don't. After that, though, I was fine with everything else.
My second quibble is in regard to the Green Goblin's suit. Yeah, it's a superhero film, but I thought the Goblin's outfit was just too outlandish. And I really didn't care for the helmet headpiece. I can understand not going with the green and purple original comics' design, but I still think something better could have been done with the Goblin's outfit.
My final reservation is one of continuity. I still would have preferred seeing Gwen Stacy rather than MJ. It isn't a deal breaker, but I still would have liked to see it. It also would have been quite dramatic if they had followed that storyline a bit more closely. In the original (for those not familiar) it was Gwen Stacy held atop the Brooklyn Bridge and in that story she died even as Spidey tried to save her. That would have been more gutsy than what they did here.
Today we're inundated with superhero films, but in the early 2000s the pickings were a lot slimmer. Prior to Spider-Man we had the X-Men and the clutch of Batman and Superman films. Measured against those I thought Spider-Man was head-and-shoulders above them all. Spider-Man also managed what the previous Batman and Superman outings hadn't: it managed humour and light camp without going over-the-top. I still think that.
With my reservations then why a five rating rather than a four? Because even with my quibbles I still felt juiced watching this film. For me it still works.
Last edited:
