Latest Movie News Headlines

Flashback Review: Spider-Man (2002)

Jun. 26, 2012by: Chris Bumbray

In anticipation of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN's July 4th opening, here at JoBlo.com, we've decided to take a look back at the original SPIDER-MAN trilogy; a franchise that came to illustrate just how good a superhero film could be (SPIDER-MAN 2), and how badly a series could go awry (SPIDER-MAN 3).


A SPIDER-MAN movie had been in the making for years. In the eighties, the schlockmeisters at Cannon Films threatened to make a low-budget feature film (which at one time was rumoured to star Bob Hoskins as Doc Ock) before the company went under. Considering what they did with SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE, and what Menahem Golan did with CAPTAIN AMERICA & THE FANTASTIC FOUR, we should be grateful this project never came to fruition.

Throughout the nineties, James Cameron was attached to direct a big-budget version, with Leonardo Di Caprio rumoured to star. For one reason or another, this never happened. In 2000, Bryan Singer's X-MEN demonstrated that a credible, non-cartoony superhero film could be made, and would have crossover appeal beyond comic-book fans, opening the floodgates, from which the SPIDER-MAN series emerged.

Thus, in 2002, a SPIDER-MAN film finally hit the big-screen. Sam Raimi, director of THE EVIL DEAD series (not to mention DARKMAN- a nifty superhero film in it's own right) was on-board to direct, and Tobey Maguire, a low-key actor known for his work in films like THE CIDER HOUSE RULES and WONDER BOYS was signed to play the title role. At the time, he casting was ridiculed in the same way Michael Keaton being signed for BATMAN was over a decade earlier. Like BATMAN, a trailer was enough to change peoples' minds, and SPIDER-MAN opened amid a white-hot fury of hype, broke box-office records, and was well-received by fans and critics.

Ten years later, the first SPIDER-MAN holds up relatively well, although I'd wager that it loses some of it's luster in hindsight only due to the fact that later superhero entries (X2, BATMAN BEGINS, THE DARK KNIGHT, IRON MAN, THE AVENGERS and SPIDER-MAN 2) proved just how good a superhero film really could be.


In a way, the first SPIDER-MAN is like a rough draft for all the superhero films to follow. A good deal of time is spent establishing the character of Peter Parker, and Tobey Maguire absolutely anchors the film with a role he seems to have been born to play. In fact, Maguire is so good both in and out of the Spidey suit that he's still struggling to emerge from the typecasting that's linked him so closely to the part. The first section of the film is really good, establishing his sweet relationship with Aunt May, and Uncle Ben (beautifully played by Cliff Robertson in one of his final roles). Once he gets bitten, Maguire's (real) physical transformation is startling, as the usually gangly and weak-seeming Maguire was able to pack on pounds of muscle and instantly transform himself into a big-screen hero.

For me, the weaker parts of SPIDER-MAN mostly have to do with his relationship with Mary-Jane. I always liked Kirsten Dunst in the part, but other than the steamy rain-soaked upside-down kiss, I always felt the relationship came across as shallow. Sure, Parker is in love with her, but why? Because she's hot- that's why. And of course, Mary-Jane won't give him the time of day until he's absolutely ripped after the mid-way point, and her final confession of love to Parker seems unearned and phony, although Raimi takes the unusual step of ending the film without them together. Of course, that would all change later in the franchise, and the second film does indeed make the relationship a little more credible.


As Parker's best pal, we get James Franco, who was just coming off the amazing FREAKS & GEEKS. Franco's always been the kind of actor who can either knock your socks off or be as boring as watching paint dry. I always thought he was phoning it in as Harry Osborn, and this would actually get worse in each film.

But back to what works. The CGI, for the time, was truly-groundbreaking, and the FX still hold up pretty well, making the web-slinging look convincing, a considerable feat ten years ago (just look at how bad THE HULK looks in a film that was made a year later). Most importantly, SPIDER-MAN feels like a real “A-picture” meaning that all involved took it seriously, and didn't turn it into a campy ride, like what happened with the nineties post-Burton Batman movies. There's a reason SPIDER-MAN was a smash and crossed-over to a mainstream audience, and it's that- warts and all, it's quite a good film.

SPIDEY: In his first outing as Spider-Man, Tobey Maguire is just great. Obviously he knew this role had the potential to make him a star, and he clearly threw himself into the role, giving a performance that compares favourably to the parts that helped him break-out in the nineties. He's terrific, but over time, Maguire would obviously lose the enthusiasm for the part that he shows here, and by the time SPIDEY 3 came around, he would be downright toxic in the role.


VILLAIN: Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn/ The Green Goblin. With the Goblin's suit is a bit dumb, Dafoe is excellent, striking exactly the right balance between the relatively sympathetic, weak Norman, and the evil incarnate of Green Goblin. The final moment, before he dies, when he says “Peter” in Norman's voice is one of the more affecting moments of the series. Dafoe is one of the best villains we've ever gotten in superhero films, coming in just under Heath Ledger in THE DARK KNIGHT, standing side by side (in my opinion) with Brian Cox in X2, and Tom Hiddleston in THE AVENGERS/THOR.

MUSIC: Now THIS is what I really didn't care for. Danny Elfman, a brilliant composer, seems like he was shackled a bit in the films, either by Raimi, the studio, or whoever, as these are serviceable scores, but lack the OOMPH, or a heroic main theme (such as his BATMAN theme) that would have made the films even more memorable. As for the pop rock part of the soundtrack- Chad Kroger of Nickelback (BARF!!!!) sings the title track. Must have seemed like a good idea at the time...

RECEPTION: SPIDER-MAN was a hugely successful film, grossing $403 million domestically, and another $418 million overseas, making for an $821 million global cume. That's real money folks, and it paved the way for the first wave of Marvel superhero films, including DAREDEVIL, THE HULK, and others.

Extra Tidbit: Ten years later, how does SPIDER-MAN sit with ya?
Source: JoBlo.com

Related Articles

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

1:16AM on 06/26/2012
You're too kind. I'd have given this a four.
You're too kind. I'd have given this a four.
Your Reply:



2:10AM on 06/26/2012
I agree on almost all counts. For its time, this was an excellent film, just when superhero flicks were coming into their own again with X-Men and Blade. I'm glad they went with a maverick like Raimi instead of a safer big-name Hollywood director, because he really gave something to it. In hindsight however, there are many bits of this film that do seem at least a tad silly, and in comparison the reboot handles the relationship between Peter and his love interest quite a lot better. Also, James
I agree on almost all counts. For its time, this was an excellent film, just when superhero flicks were coming into their own again with X-Men and Blade. I'm glad they went with a maverick like Raimi instead of a safer big-name Hollywood director, because he really gave something to it. In hindsight however, there are many bits of this film that do seem at least a tad silly, and in comparison the reboot handles the relationship between Peter and his love interest quite a lot better. Also, James Horner's score is rocking and is better than Danny Elfman's effort.
Your Reply:



3:05AM on 06/26/2012
3/10. Dafoe is wasted. The web coming out of the wrists. Bad set pieces. Weakly told story.
3/10. Dafoe is wasted. The web coming out of the wrists. Bad set pieces. Weakly told story.
Your Reply:



6:06AM on 06/26/2012
It gets a solid 8 from me as it did way back when I was reviewing movies at 13 or however old I was. It was fun, it hit the emotions and had a great cast. A great summer movie. And still is.
It gets a solid 8 from me as it did way back when I was reviewing movies at 13 or however old I was. It was fun, it hit the emotions and had a great cast. A great summer movie. And still is.
Your Reply:



8:59AM on 06/26/2012
I still give Spider-Man 8/10 like the first time I watched it. I remember that, at the time, X-Men gave us a solid actor as a villain. In that case, it's Ian McKellen. But with Spider-Man, Willem Dafoe gave it all as creepy and yet enigmatic Norman Osborn. At the same time, a raging lunatic Green Goblin. The final battle between him and Spider-Man was thrilling.
I still give Spider-Man 8/10 like the first time I watched it. I remember that, at the time, X-Men gave us a solid actor as a villain. In that case, it's Ian McKellen. But with Spider-Man, Willem Dafoe gave it all as creepy and yet enigmatic Norman Osborn. At the same time, a raging lunatic Green Goblin. The final battle between him and Spider-Man was thrilling.
Your Reply:



3:47PM on 06/26/2012

Great

I'd say it's a solid 8/10 for me. The movie does have some dumb moments, like the confrontation between Spidey and the Goblin on that rooftop but it's nothing deal breaking and it never gets too campy or over the top i.e. cartoonish. That being said, I hace to admit that I was never a huge fan of the Green Goblin's look and costume. Also, I disagree with the CGI holding up pretty good today, some scenes, especially the web slinging sequence during the end of the movie that ends with Spidey
I'd say it's a solid 8/10 for me. The movie does have some dumb moments, like the confrontation between Spidey and the Goblin on that rooftop but it's nothing deal breaking and it never gets too campy or over the top i.e. cartoonish. That being said, I hace to admit that I was never a huge fan of the Green Goblin's look and costume. Also, I disagree with the CGI holding up pretty good today, some scenes, especially the web slinging sequence during the end of the movie that ends with Spidey posing on that American flag, look like video game cutscenes. All in all, it is a very fun to watch movie, I loved it back then and I still love it now. Granted it's not as deep or well made as some of the super hero movies that followed, but it's still a fun ride, especially considering that comic book movies weren't exactly a thing back then and studios and directors were still trying to discover a succesful formula. Just look at how awful the Fantastic Four movies and The Hulk turned out and they came out years after the first Spidey movie!
Your Reply:



7:11PM on 06/26/2012
The only true weakness in the spiderman movies (aside from pretty much all of part 3 which was an all out abortion) will always be Kirsten Dunst...She ranks right alongside Katie Holmes(complete bore in Batman begins) and Maggie Gyllenhall (who is a fine actress but It never felt like she was into her (albeit) minuscule role in The Dark Knight)...8.5/10
The only true weakness in the spiderman movies (aside from pretty much all of part 3 which was an all out abortion) will always be Kirsten Dunst...She ranks right alongside Katie Holmes(complete bore in Batman begins) and Maggie Gyllenhall (who is a fine actress but It never felt like she was into her (albeit) minuscule role in The Dark Knight)...8.5/10
Your Reply:



7:33PM on 06/26/2012
I just re-watched this a few nights ago. It's aged a little, but still holds up well. I like the cast and music. I'd give it a 9/10, a high rank but deserving since it got me interested in Spider-man as a kid.
I just re-watched this a few nights ago. It's aged a little, but still holds up well. I like the cast and music. I'd give it a 9/10, a high rank but deserving since it got me interested in Spider-man as a kid.
Your Reply:



1:26PM on 06/27/2012

A solid 8/10 for me...

The only thing I didn't care for is the over-the-top cartoony costume of Green Goblin, even worse the mask totally covered the wonderfully psychotic performance of Dafoe (mask should've open atleast from the lower half, all the better to vsualize his facial expressions). Otherwise, a really great fun superhero film with very little negative points. THE AMAGING SPIDER-MAN gets to have a big shoe to fill.
The only thing I didn't care for is the over-the-top cartoony costume of Green Goblin, even worse the mask totally covered the wonderfully psychotic performance of Dafoe (mask should've open atleast from the lower half, all the better to vsualize his facial expressions). Otherwise, a really great fun superhero film with very little negative points. THE AMAGING SPIDER-MAN gets to have a big shoe to fill.
Your Reply:



3:26PM on 06/27/2012

A solid 8/10 for me...

The only thing I didn't care for is the over-the-top cartoony costume of Green Goblin, even worse the mask totally covered the wonderfully psychotic performance of Dafoe (mask should've open atleast from the lower half, all the better to vsualize his facial expressions). Otherwise, a really great fun superhero film with very little negative points. THE AMAGING SPIDER-MAN gets to have a big shoe to fill.
The only thing I didn't care for is the over-the-top cartoony costume of Green Goblin, even worse the mask totally covered the wonderfully psychotic performance of Dafoe (mask should've open atleast from the lower half, all the better to vsualize his facial expressions). Otherwise, a really great fun superhero film with very little negative points. THE AMAGING SPIDER-MAN gets to have a big shoe to fill.
Your Reply: