I have something I need to confess to you readers. I thought I had already done a review on this movie. I was going about life content knowing that I was only four movie reviews behind when in fact I was five behind, which turns out is one too many for me. I guess I can handle my laziness to a point, but the moment I get five movies back I feel it has gone too far. Since I thought I had already written this post it is going to be a tough one to write. Nobody likes having to do something over, unless you count having to redo a pie eating contest or something along those lines. Even though I never actually did any work on it my mind feels like it is being cheated and it isn't happy about it. So if you feel this review is subpar you can hush up because re-dos (even fake ones) are almost never as good as the original.
Hey look at that natural segue into discussing this reboot of a movie. Man I am good at this whole writing thing (source: not found). When I heard that they were rebooting Spider-Man a mere five years after Spider-Man 3 I shook my head in shame at the world that we live in. I will admit it I am quite the fan of Sam Raimi. He can partially be credited for giving the world Bruce Campbell and that makes you a hero in my book.
|A hero I say!|
The Spider-Man movies that Sam Raimi created proved to the world that comic book movies did not have to be a joke. We don't count the third one because that wasn't his fault. They forced him to add more villains and to include a lot of the things that made the movie less than great (see: emo dancing). So with all of that in mind I didn't see why they felt it was necessary to remake the movie so soon. I mean there were talks of a Spider-Man 4 up until January of 2010.
With everything I had learned leading up to this I couldn't help but compare the two. As per my usual I will give you my findings in bullet points. I will refer to each movie by their year of release.
- Casting- This one was kind of a tossup. In the original I loved J.K. Simmons as the editor of the Daily Bugle. I also like Willem Dafoe and James Franco, but I thought that the leads in the new film had greater chemistry. That is mainly a knock on Kirsten Dunst and her major unlikeability (I don't that I used a fake word). I also heart Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans from the new one. Winner 2012.
- Directing- Sam Raimi has been given some flak because his trilogy seems cheesy in places, but if you look at the comics that makes sense. The comic books are incredibly cheesy, I mean you couldn't find cheesier dialogue if you tried (probably not true). He stays very faithful to the original story. On the other hand if you look at the job Marc Webb did I wouldn't call it bad, but I wouldn't call it great either. There was nothing truly memorable about what he did. It seemed like he just wanted to play it safe, which makes it hard for him to join the ranks of the great superhero directors like Joss Whedon and Christopher Nolan. Winner 2002
|The real winners|
- Are we sure I didn't already write this review? Everything I look up seems familiar like I have already done this. Have I jumped into a different dimension? One where I didn't finish the review? Sweet mercy that means I found the one time line with a lazier version of me. I didn't think such a thing was possible but I can see no other explanation for what is happening.
- Sorry about that, time to get back to the review...I take that back I feel like the newer lazier me wouldn't so instead I will end with this comparison. 2002 budget 139 million. 2012 budget 230 million. 2002 worldwide gross 821 million. 2012 worldwide gross 552 million. Winner 2012
Rating 3.75 stars