SPIDER MAN 1 MOVIE

It took 17 years to get Spider-ManВ made.Д«efore superhero mania took over Hollywood, it was a 17-year journey just to get the character onto the big screen the first time. The original film, which saw Tobey Maguire in the title role, was a massive cinematic endeavor that required 17 years, multiple screenplays, a costume theft, and a very convincing CGI performance to complete. Today it seems like weвЂ™ll never stop seeing Spider-Man at the movies, but back in 2002-when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was released-it seemed amazing that we ever saw him there in the first place. In a way, some of the dated qualities actually end up making it even more charming.Later this year, Tom Holland will don his spidey suit for the sixth time when Spider-Man: No Way Home arrives in theaters. Overall, Spider-Man is clearly a dated film in many areas upon re-watch, but it's hard not to overlook them based on pure nostalgic alone.

every MCU film), but luckily that's not the case with Green Goblin. In today's age of setting up future films way too far in advance, there usually isn't enough time given to developing villains (i.e. Significant time is spent developing him as a forceful antagonist, but also a troubled man with misplaced intentions. But he isn't just a one-note villain either.

He was terrifying as Norman Osborn a child, and he still sends a few chills down my spine when I see him talking to himself through a mirror in the Osborn mansion. With that said, someone who undoubtedly does sell their scenes is Willem Dafoe. I'm all for Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, but their relationship isn't always sold well enough in the various scenes they have together. The same goes for the dull dialogue between MJ and Peter, and the unquestionably awkward line delivery at times. My 8-year-old mind can push aside the damsel in distress moments, but 15 years later it becomes increasingly more difficult. This doesn't necessarily change throughout the trilogy, but it's overtly clear with the first Spider-Man. Those being the fact that Kirsten Dunst's 'Mary Jane' is essentially a useless plot device for the entire film. However, some dated qualities manage to shine through some of the better moments. This all gives the film a very nostalgic vibe to me. You can clearly see how influenced Sam Raimi was to those films, specifically with his choice of bringing in Danny Elfman to do the music. For those reasons, I'm always keen on re-watching this one.Д«efore the golden age of superhero film, Spider-Man came out at a time when being inspired by Donner's 1978 Superman and Burton's 1989 Batman was the norm. I specifically remember where I saw it, who I was with, where I sat, and how terrified I was at the 3D images of the Green Goblin's face. This is largely due to the fact that it was the first superhero film I ever saw in a theater. Fun movie, and it spawned the 2007 Spider-Man pinball machine, which I now own!ДЄs dated as some of the dialogue, acting, effects shots, and plot points are, there will always be a special place in my heart for the original Spider-Man film (I'm not going to count those 70's features). No depth, not nearly as funny and the super-vivid supporting characters are fantastic here. I enjoyed the Sam Raimi franchise much more than the newer versions, which are boring by comparison. Both are terrific, fun action/adventure movies. There is a bit more action in 2, and some cool scenes (the train, battles wtih Doc Ock). Most people give Spider-man 2 the nod over the first movie.

SPIDER MAN 1 MOVIE

I really enjoyed the sequel, and I enjoyed this movie just as much. I actually saw Spider-man II first in the theater 2 years later in 2004. Vivid colors, a fun backstory and plenty of plot to keep the film busy between action scenes.

The acting is decent, casting is good (although I don't love Tobey Maguire, he is the right amount of nerdy for Peter Parker, who isn't supposed to be cool). Terrific 'modern' superhero movie is the best since Superman I and II.

Spider man 1