FWIW I really enjoyed the movie

Rating: Null/10 (29 April 2004)

***WARNING! Contains spoilers***
I've been a Spider-man comic fan for years and I was not at all disappointed with the movie, despite all the (dare I say "necessary") changes from the original.
It was certainly a vast improvement of the 1978 travesty "The Amazing Spider-man" with Nicolas Hammond (I mean, he's supposed to have the *proportionate* strength of a spider and nearly rips an arm out of its socket falling four floors - oh, pu-leeese! And he nearly got wasted by wholly *human* adversaries!)
Our modern spidey is more at home in the air - later in the movie when he's had a bit of practice. It's more like the comics - the leaping and bounding, diving off high buildings *secure* in the knowledge he has the ability to catch himself. And he can take the rigors of his unique modes of transport without straining himself.
He also had a worthy villain, a real menace with strength and speed fit to challenge Spidey's own.
To me, that's how Spiderman should be: strong, agile, confident, fast and totally in his element - and battling supervillains.
Raimi did a great job with this movie. He captured the essence of Spiderman.
Parker/Spiderman progresses well from the gawky, geeky nerd to the budding hero intent on catching his Uncle's killer - excellent *ungainly* web-slinging as he's rapidly trying to learn how to swing through the streets whilst in hot pursuit - to the polished acrobatic leaps, swings and fighting of the fully-fledged and airborne hero.
I loved the casting. Maguire was excellent as both Peter Parker and Spiderman, both pre- and post-transformation; Dafoe was a good strong villain (vitally important in any movie, c.f. the Penguin in Batman 2 who was so weak I felt Batman was mean to pick on him - no slur on DeVito's acting ability, I think the way the Penguin was written was inadequate for a major villain), and he was delightfully tragic when he learned Spidey's true identity; Dunst was great as MJ, she even looked like some of the artists portrayed her in the comics; Simmons was a world-class choice for J. Jonah Jamieson, right down to the hair-style (JJJ was reputedly voted as having the worst hairstyle in comicdom - hard to believe considering the original Doc Ock's "bowl-cut"), loved the "I trust my barber" line; Harris made a delightful and believable Aunt May and Franco was an excellent Harry Osborn - he even *looked* like he could be Dafoe's son.
Now to the changes: The original Spiderman was bitten by a radioactive spider. I recall an interview with Stan Lee in which he said he chose radioactivity as it was the big fear in the 60's when Spiderman was created. GE is the bugbear of the 90's/00's and the modern Parker is bitten by a GE spider - a nice bit of modernising to make the "threat" more appropriate to this era and it better explains the mixed spider abilities than radioactivity can - three very different spiders had a part in Spiderman's creation.
The web glands in the wrist, a la "Spiderman 2099" (for those who read the comics), are more believable than the manufactured web shooters of the original comics - I always wondered how those tiny wristlets could hold enough fluid for Spidey to do all that web-slinging. Spiders manufacture their silk from the proteins they consume; in the movie, so does Spiderman. It also helps explain the variable properties of the web strands - he can make and deploy to order.
Gobby's outfit: Not as flexible in the face as the original but easily explained - the armoured suit goes with the prototype military glider and it's established by Norman's decor that he collects masks - the suit looks like something he put together out of what he had.
Spidey's updated outfit looks cool. I also loved the way he at first made do with a hastily constructed outfit and only made the proper suit when he decided to embark on his crime-fighting career.
I was worried that they would go too "comicky" and animate the eyes of the mask but they didn't (the one thing that bugs me in comics is that the artists tend to "morph" the costume to display emotion)
The scene with the robber: In the comics, Spiderman was raking in the dough on TV in wrestling bouts and then acts like a pompous tosser (sorry, Stan) when the crook robs the place.
In the movie, we have Parker getting stiffed by the fight's organiser and so he has scant sympathy when the robber takes the dough - his motives in letting the robber go are more understandable. Hell, I'd let the crook get away!
Big Ticks: The way they got most of the classic Spiderman poses - there are shots straight out of a comic panel.
The way they set up Harry to be the Goblin in a later movie - he now has the requisite hatred of Spiderman; all set to take up the mantle of the Goblin. I hope they bring Franco back for it. Good to see he's in Spider-man 2.
Gobby's delightfully honest self-assessment on the bridge - "You never know when some lunatic's going to come along and present you with a sadistic choice..."
Minuses: The CGI bits were a bit obvious, but so it goes with current technology - they will improve no doubt. They are certainly an improvement over earlier special effects. Perhaps more use could have been made of acrobats and wire-work but you can't have everything.
All those who thought the CGI bits sucked should track down the 1978 movie and watch it - they'd soon appreciate the progress that has been made.
Some of the comments criticise the characterisations - "MJ was too weak, screaming alla time, not assertive enough", "Parker wasn't angry enough at Uncle Ben's killer and the Goblin" etc.
FYI (as clearly shown in the movie) MJ lives in an abusive household from which she wishes to escape (become a star of the stage) or be rescued. Suddenly she is atop a tall bridge being abused yet again by a powerful and terrifying adversary. You can't expect her to suddenly become "Ms Rambo" or "Arlene Schwarznegger" against the Goblin when she's terrified of her own father.
Parker's a "bottler". He's been abused by his peers for years and now blames himself, not the robber/car-jacker, for his Uncle's death. His anger and blame are bottled up inside him. I suspect he fears to release his anger - especially now he has all those powers.
Aunt May says "You're not Superman." And he's not Batman, either. Spiderman is an insecure teen suddenly invested with immense power that he dares not abuse. Batman is a psychotic, anger-driven, vengeful man who trained himself over the years to make criminals pay for what happened to his parents.
I enjoyed the portrayals of the characters - they weren't 100% faithful to the comics, but no movie adaptation of another medium is ever 100% faithful. Raimi's respect for the subject matter ensured that the spirit was there and that the subject was treated as faithfully as possible within the constraints of the medium of motion picture.
On the whole, I give the movie full marks and look forward to Spiderman 2 (I note they've improved Doc Ock's hairstyle - but then, even a JJJ-style flat-top would do that).
I was entertained and it was more than I thought it would be (I did have reservations, especially after the '78 movie, about how it would be treated.) I wanted a powerful Spiderman facing a powerful foe, and I got it - along with the bonus of believable characterisations, some great in-jokes and some great classic Spidey stuff straight out of the comic books.
Allowing for the requisite amount of "willing suspension of disbelief" that accompanies any movie, especially those with fantasy or superhero elements, there was a "realism" about the movie I particularly enjoyed.