Peter Parker is supposed to be -- at least pre-spider bite -- a nerdy wallflower with little personality. That being the case Tobey McGuire was casting genius.
I wanted very much to like the big-screen adaptation of the Marvel Comics hero `Spider-Man.' I'm not sure why but I was disappointed.
The score by Danny Elfman was good -- but only in places.
The script was entertaining -- but not consistently so.
The photography was sometimes great -- but again, only at times.
I believe that is why `Spider-Man' didn't win me over: It was inconsistent.
The action scenes -- particularly when Spidey was flying through the air with the help of his self-generated webs -- moved too fast, taking away some of the Gee-Whiz factor.
James Franco -- the son of the Green Goblin/Norman Osborn, played by Willem Dafoe -- though up to the part was probably cast because of his cheekbones, making him actually look like he could be Mr. Dafoe's progeny.
Kirsten Dunst was the best thing in the movie. Not to put too fine a point on things but especially for the scene in the rain and that sweater.
There was lots of violence with a message that violence, in and of itself, can solve problems; not something I would want to teach a child.
The movie seemed longer than its official run time of 121 minutes -- not a good sign.
Not everything about this movie was bad. Watching Peter Parker discover his new body and how he fumbled with learning to use his new powers was entertaining and the nice update of a genetically enhanced spider (from a radioactive spider in the comic book) was a good touch. The animation sequences were wonderful with the touch of the genius that is Stan Lee.
If you are going to see this movie you should probably see it on the big screen -- or in the very least on a widescreen DVD -- the action is not going to fit on a small television set.
I wanted very much to like the big-screen adaptation of the Marvel Comics hero `Spider-Man.' I'm not sure why but I was disappointed.
The score by Danny Elfman was good -- but only in places.
The script was entertaining -- but not consistently so.
The photography was sometimes great -- but again, only at times.
I believe that is why `Spider-Man' didn't win me over: It was inconsistent.
The action scenes -- particularly when Spidey was flying through the air with the help of his self-generated webs -- moved too fast, taking away some of the Gee-Whiz factor.
James Franco -- the son of the Green Goblin/Norman Osborn, played by Willem Dafoe -- though up to the part was probably cast because of his cheekbones, making him actually look like he could be Mr. Dafoe's progeny.
Kirsten Dunst was the best thing in the movie. Not to put too fine a point on things but especially for the scene in the rain and that sweater.
There was lots of violence with a message that violence, in and of itself, can solve problems; not something I would want to teach a child.
The movie seemed longer than its official run time of 121 minutes -- not a good sign.
Not everything about this movie was bad. Watching Peter Parker discover his new body and how he fumbled with learning to use his new powers was entertaining and the nice update of a genetically enhanced spider (from a radioactive spider in the comic book) was a good touch. The animation sequences were wonderful with the touch of the genius that is Stan Lee.
If you are going to see this movie you should probably see it on the big screen -- or in the very least on a widescreen DVD -- the action is not going to fit on a small television set.