I was surprised how good this film was. Really high-quality effects, nothing like Evil Dead with webs, and Raimi's silly sense of humor and typical camera direction made for a great comic book feel that fit the subject matter perfectly. Besides, it had stand-ins by Bruce Campbell and Lucy Lawless, so what else could you wish for? Very good throughout, only the commentary by Raimi (who apparently didn't want to be there) was a bit of a letdown.
A lot of crappy films and TV shows have featured those two actors, so I'd have to wish for more... like originality, exciting action, and something interesting to say about life. None of those were present in this film. It sucked.Originally Posted by Christoph Nahr
I'm a Raimi fan, by the way. If you want good non-Evil Dead Raimi, I would suggest A SIMPLE PLAN, which is about 300% more exciting, suspenseful, and emotionally involving than the cardboard-thin SPIDER-MAN.
I guess you missed the point that Spider-Man was supposed to be a comic-book adaptation...
Actually, Lucy Lawless has been in like.. one or two movies, a long time ago. And for the record, Xena was good for at least four seasons (1-3 and 6, to be specific).A lot of crappy films and TV shows have featured those two actors, so I'd have to wish for more... like originality, exciting action, and something interesting to say about life. None of those were present in this film. It sucked.
And Brisco County Jr. and Jack of All Trades is TEH FUNNY.
Seen Spidey twice now - 1st run I walked out saying - good flick. 2nd time I was asking what was so good that I thought I had seen the first go run - 3 out of 5 stars for me.
Clemson shows newly released (on DVD) movies on the campus TV station* and for the past month it's been Spider-man almost non-stop. It was for two viewings, but it doesn't age marvelously. I was gonna pick up the DVD but I've really lost all interest at this point.
*I'm certain it's not quite legal
I think it's great. You guys are tools.
I can't really argue with that. You win this round...
Yeah, Spider-Man the movie was just OK. I think X-Men was actually somewhat better. Of course, my standards are low for these kinds of superhero movies-- if they don't suck, I'm impressed.
And lord knows comic-book adaptations can't be held up to standards of good storytelling...
Huh?
I'm reading some old Chris Claremont X-Men comics I checked out from the library at the moment and I'm enjoying 'em more than that Spider-Man movie.
Besides the writing, the whole CGI Spider-Man schtick didn't work for me. I didn't feel any excitement during the web-slinging scenes because they moved by so fast and didn't feel real -- the Spider-Man model landed too easily, didn't seem to possess real weight. I never felt that Spider-Man was in danger, which is required to be excited when you see him defying that danger by flying through the air. "The Matrix" showed real people falling from helicopters in the sky and made it feel real; this film should have been able to do it without resorting to CGI actors as well.
I thought the CGI of Spidey zipping around town was actually one of the best parts of the movie. Spider-man isn't a real person, he's, well, he's a spider-man. The weightlessness and fluid movement were exactly how I imagined he'd move. Maybe you could argue he should've been clumsier at this point in his "career", but I liked it.
And he was really clumsy in the beggining. His swinging technique got better and better as the movie went on.
CHUD, I think your storytelling complaints are completely unfounded. If you can't enjoy a well made, fun movie when you see it, well, I guess that's your problem.
"If you can't enjoy a well made, fun movie when you see it, well, I guess that's your problem."
Well, that's obviously the issue under debate; I didn't find the movie fun. When I left the theater I was lightly depressed, because I had come there wanting to be blown away by some mindless fun, but found that fun weighed down by a lot of supposedly exciting scenes that didn't work for me and lead actors I didn't find exciting to watch.
I thought Spider-man was a decent flick, but also didn't like the extensive use of cartoonish CGI. Some of the scenes showing his dexterity looked great - including most of the web-swinging scenes in the end of the movie, but much of the rest looked really unfinished to me -- as if it was the first cut of the CGI demo, before they added depth/weight, coordinated the timing better with non-CGI events onscreen.
I much preferred X-men as well, although its action scenes were pretty limited because of its small budget.
Still, if every superhero movie was as good as Spider-man was, all would be merry. I'm kind of dreading Daredevil next February, but have high hopes for X-men 2 and the Hulk (especially).
"I'm kind of dreading Daredevil next February,"
yeah, i don't know who thought it would look cooler for bullseye to have a lame bullseye tattooed on his forehead than to wear a mask is an asshole
Actually, that's just what I liked best about the movie. In my opinion, Spider-Man isn't supposed to look realistic. The action scenes looked much like an animated comic book, which was just great!
I found X-Men rather dull. It was okay, but it didn't have enough action to work as a "cinema comic" (like Spider-Man) nor enough depth to work as a character film with funny costumes. Besides, I found the story appallingly stupid -- I mean, who would want to save the world's top politicians from annihilation?I much preferred X-men as well, although its action scenes were pretty limited because of its small budget.
I agree. Even though they did some major rearrangements on the timeline, the characters in the X-Men movie (except Storm) were pretty true to the comic (I mean, for a Hollywood adaptation and all). To me, Toby was more like the Incredible Stalker-Man. That scene in the hospital where he's telling MJ what Spidey said about her is painful. Plus, I though Willem Dafoe was kinda lame.
J. Jonah ruled, though.
I loved the web-swinging scenes. I'm not the big fan of the comic books that some of you are, but even I remembered a lot of the "classic comic poses" that were so well re-created in the movie. And I don't remember ever thinking that he looked weightless, either -- but maybe I'm just not as critical.
I really enjoyed X-Men, too. I don't know if you're allowed to participate in this thread if you liked both of those movies, but I'm gonna try.
All of you, just stop it.
I've been very impressed with what has been done over the past 5 years with CGI techniques. As for the movie...
It was OK, but focusing almost exclusively on the psychology of Peter Parker forced an odd alteration to the comic-book routine of "subtle fucked up 'superheroes' and hidden sublimations" into something to beat over the heads of the audience. Apparently not enough beating for Ebert though... he professed to NOT UNDERSTAND why Parker could not have a sexual relationship with Mary Jane, expressed by Peter in the closing scene.
I liked the unpolished nature of Spider-Man's web swinging actually. But probably for the same reason I still like Ray Harryhausen stop/motion special effects. I guess I don't mind using my brain to fill in the blanks so long as the acrobatics/style/etc., are worth making that leap.
I hate the fakey CGI in most movies, but that's because the FX artists don't have their creations doing anything, um, amazing enough. The whole time he was web swinging I was thinking "Looks like fun."
Go web go!
I though the web swinging was fine.. There was just one combat scene (a gang, I think? don't have the DVD yet) where he was doing some spider-acrobatics in the middle of the group that looked terribly fake.
I know the scene you're talking about, and you're absolutely right. I mean, it was so fake looking, 20 years ago and you would have seen the wires -- like Condorman --- but ...
I LIKED that scene because if it doesn't follow an exact early Spidey fight scene (panel by panel) from the comic books, it does a good enough job to make me *think* it follows an exact early Spidey fight scene from the comic books.
One thing SpiderMan got right, was the posing, so I don't mind the CGI fakery if it makes me think of how fakey early Romita or Ditko art always looked. If they couldn't refine it better than that, I'm glad they left it in.
Oh you did NOT just bag on Condorman...
The movie needed more J. Jonah Jameson. I enjoyed the movie but I wasn't impressed by it. As wumpus said, it's a good superhero movie if it doesn't suck. I felt the same way about X-Men.
I like the Daredevil trailer too.
I enjoyed X-Men a lot more than the average super-hero flick. Maybe I just hadn't seen one in a while when it was released.
You know what movie sucked was that damned Spawn. WHy has the HBO toon version popped up anywhere?
BTW, Futurama is moving to the Cartoon Network. Does anyone know if they are going to be airing any new stuff?
I liked J Jonah, BUT once I knew who was playing the role, it was tough seeing him without thinking of 'the bastard skinhead in Oz'. I don't normally get weighed down with these prejudices, but these are about the only two roles I've seen him in and it made it distracting.
Dafoe, however, rocked as normal. His best villanous role since Shadow of the Vampire (though whether he was a villain there can be argued).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote