Spider-Man

Tim Burton (Batman) ou Bryan Singer (X-Men) l'avaient plus facile. Leurs bandes dessinées étaient intéressantes par leur décor, leur atmosphère et leur capacité à nous plonger dans d'autres mondes. Spider-Man de Raimi ne dispose d'aucun de ces éléments. Après sa fin, je ne me souvenais d'aucune scène qui m'aurait captivé en tant que spectateur. Tobey Maguire incarnait le personnage à la perfection, mais Kirsten Dunst est trop banale pour ce type de film. Et le personnage de Green Goblin n'est pas un méchant effrayant, mais un pauvre malheureux avec plus de problèmes d'identité que Spider-Man lui-même. Ni la mise en scène originale, ni les personnages bien développés. Et une histoire prévisible, digne d'un épisode de série TV de 40 minutes, étalée sur deux heures. Spider-Man est filmé avec élégance et n'est pas une bêtise de pop-corn. Mais il n'est qu'une bulle gonflée qui éclate et disparaît comme un nuage, ne laissant rien derrière elle. (02/06/2002)

Sam Raimi shows that what makes a film good is not an orgy of visual effects, but an interesting story. Tobey Maguire is perfect, he’s incredible, there is currently no one more suited to the role of Peter Parker and who could play it so well. I applaud Sam Raimi for sticking it to the film company. Kirsten Dunst is also alright, she’s no fragile beauty, but there is something to her, and she can act. My favourite Willem Dafoe was a bit of a disappointment, though, he plays naturally, but when Mr. Hyde awakens in him, his grins are rather laughable. But that's a small blemish on an otherwise excellent film. (15/07/2002)

Actually, the same thing applies that I wrote about the second film. The first film is a comic book remake with a relatively unique spirit, good actors and a well-written characters. If I take away the sometimes somewhat affected dialogues and given predictability, the first Spider-Man is an excellent fun that makes sense where one expects it to. It has good tricks, decent tension, and a solid (though not captivating) Danny Elfman soundtrack. The second film is dominated by the presence and charisma of William Dafoe in civilian life, but he loses it as soon as he puts on the green mask, which simply removes his civilian demonic aspects. Even the effects are somewhat outdated and the subsequent film is certainly more impressive in terms of visuals. The first Spider-Man is also a bit "non-binding", more pubescent, more playful, and the real dilemma of the super-hero happens in the second part. However, this cannot be considered a negative. I give it an honest 4 stars for being watchable fun. (15/04/2006)

I remember how, after the first viewing, I remained sitting very disappointed. I was expecting a ride full of intricate relationships, grand action scenes, and deep emotions. And what I saw was a simple fairy tale about good and evil, and at the same time, the drama of an individual rejected by society. And the second time, I stayed sitting again. But this time, for the opposite reason. What I wanted to have but didn't on the first go, was suddenly there. Just more intimate, pleasant, and appropriate. Raimi's approach may ignore the details of the comic, but it works more than well. However, the following two parts are a bit further away. (02/07/2005)

This comic adaptation didn't turn out badly, but it lacks atmosphere and more developed characters. If it has any great advantage, it is in the engagement of T. Maguire, who appears very natural, elegant and likeable. He is simply a great actor. Overall impression 60%. (23/06/2006)

An enjoyable Raimi coloring book, graced by Kirsten Dunst in the lead role and Lucy Lawless in a cameo. However, Kirsten later went through purgatory thanks to them and paid too high a price for her blockbuster baptism. (13/02/2011)

From today's perspective, Spider-Man's greatest value lies in its sincere reference to the celebrated subject matter. In an era that ushered in the era of "dark" comic book treatments, Spider-Man has no shame in mining the color spectrum to such an extreme that even a fleeing car thief in a car chase knocks over a gumball machine instead of anything else. It's not the only thing that harkens back to the infantile source material. The story itself, the villain, the dialogue (perhaps most of all), and the action scenes are all drawn like a comic book penciler. The film features perhaps all manner of clichés, and indeed the most ancient ones, starting with the main villain's catchphrases and ending with the absolute goodness of Spider-Man. And that's what makes it so much fun. I laughed like a fool at the first fight scene between the Green Goblin and the main character, and I squealed with laughter at the poignant final declaration of love, it's worth it for the perspective. The premise is mega infantile and is practically made for ten-year-old boys, so I have no problem acknowledging this film when, despite all the clichés and kitsch, it winks at the mature viewer that they're kind of there on purpose. And it's still gifted with Kirsten Dunst's nipples. (11/03/2011)

I will never forget what it was like to see the movie "Spider-Man" in the cinema. It had a huge impact on me and it is one of the reasons why I started getting into comics. It's true that superhero comics or movies don't excite me as much anymore, but I still won't miss them. Even though "Spider-Man" has flaws, especially in the special effects aspect, it is sometimes naive, very naive, but it is still a wonderful piece where Willem Dafoe absolutely excels. (31/03/2014)