Amazingly mediocre!

Rating: 1/10 (26 September 2009)

All right, I am going to try to give a fair and balanced view of this film as best I can. Although, I must say it won't be easy. You see, I grew up on comic books, and although I realize anytime a work is adapted to another medium it may retain certain characteristics while losing others, I know this. However, I think this film took too many liberties with the source material, which in my opinion only ending up hurting the final product.
Where to begin? Hmm, that's a tough one. I guess I'll start with casting. It's not that I dislike Tobey Maguire, but I don't consider myself to be a fan of his necessarily either. I have seen other movies he's appeared in and have liked some of them, but he was not right for the lead in this picture. Who do I think would have been better suited for the part? Almost anyone.
Then there's Kirsten Dunst, who I also found unsatisfactory in her role as Mary Jane Watson. Before I critique her performance, let me just start by saying I'm not sure why they included Mary Jane in the first film anyway. I think it would have made a lot more sense for the love interest to have been Gwen Stacy, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Kirsten Dunst just didn't capture the feisty, wily attitude of her comic book counterpart. Maybe this wasn't entirely her fault, as she did not write the script which would ultimately determine what lines she'd say, but her lack of "punch" to lines she did have was her fault alone.
James Franco was one actor whose performance I actually enjoyed in the movie. I think he was terrific as Harry Osborn and was quite likable, despite being positioned as Peter's rival of sorts for the affection of Mary Jane. He didn't play a large part in the movie, but he steals all the scenes he's in. I just wish they would have utilized him better in the film's sequels, but I'll save that for my reviews of "Spider-Man 2" and "3" yet to come.
I think the choice to give Peter Parker organic webbing was a sacrilege. It was a cop out is what it was, a way to eliminate a few extra minutes of screen time by not having to show Peter create his trusty web-shooters, but for all the time spent mentioning how smart Peter is, they never show him make anything! No web-shooters, no tracers, nothing! Why no gadgets? Come on!
I think the scene in which Peter discovers his newly improved body was OK, except for the thinly veiled penis joke they threw in. Why do this? Do we really need to know that the spider bite made Peter's dick bigger? No, we do not. For those of you who don't remember the scene in which I'm referring toI suggest you take another look at the film. Peter glances downward at his body and speaks of his "big" changes.
Although in the comics, Peter had been romantically involved with Betty Brant before Gwen or Mary Jane, I still feel that since the film took liberties with the source material anyway, why not go ahead and leave out Betty Brant, include Gwen Stacy, and introduce Mary Jane either later in the first film or in the second? The whole "Gwen Stacy/Mary Jane dilemma" shows itself to be its most problematic toward the climax of the film, during a fight between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin (who looked absolutely ridiculous, by the way). In the battle that ensues, Green Goblin throws Mary Jane off the Queensboro Bridge and Spider-Man comes to the rescue and saves her before she can meet her demise. So what's the problem? Well, this echoes a critical turning point in the Spider-Man mythos, the death of Gwen Stacy.
Gwen Stacy's untimely death serves as a reminder to young Peter Parker that despite all his amazing abilities, he can't save everyone. However, in the film this doesn't happen. Why? Because they decided to swap out Gwen Stacy for Mary Jane, and instead of having Spider-Man learn an important lesson, they (the filmmakers) forgo this catharsis and give us a "Hollywood happy ending" in its place.
One final note before I start to wrap this review up, there was entirely too much CGI in the movie. I never felt as though I connected to Spider-Man because it was all too easy to tell it wasn't even a man I was looking at, only a computer generated image. I much prefer the classic 1970s live-action television series, "The Amazing Spider-Man" starring the perfectly cast Nicholas Hammond. At least you had a real guy in a real costume performing real stunts. I could connect with that, but not with this movie. Shame on you, Sam Raimi for failing to utilize such a iconic comic book character properly.
Anyway, I figure that's good enough. If you've made it through this far, good for you! I'm too tired now to continue on, but I think I've made my point. "Spider-Man" is a disappointment that goes from bad to worse. Its sequels, unfortunately, are not any better. I blame Sam Raimi. I can't wait until the franchise gets rebooted, and maybe they'll get it right the next time around. I love Spider-Man, I love Stan Lee, I love Marvel Comics, and I mean absolutely no offense or disrespect by my review, but it's because I'm such a big fan that I hold such high expectations for a movie about this character.