Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 19, 2020
The first major blockbuster Spider-Man movie hasn't aged particularly well, but it's overflowing with charm and a great cast.
Watching this as an adult is still as much fun as it was back in 2002 (when I was a fresh faced 13 year old). Tobey Maguire, Willem Defoe, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons - all of them are really well cast and bring their comic book counterparts to life in a way that captured the imaginations of comic fans everywhere, all backed up by a fantastic score by Danny Elfman.
It's faults are few, but mainly in line with the first X-Men film - it's just doesn't quite stand up compared to comic films today and suffers from sub standard CGI and an early 2000s time stamp - I must say though - I have a special kind of love for the borderline Power Rangers villain costume that Green Goblin gets to wear...
Spider-Man is an important milestone in bringing comic books to the big screen, and will surely be enjoyed for years to come.
Watching this as an adult is still as much fun as it was back in 2002 (when I was a fresh faced 13 year old). Tobey Maguire, Willem Defoe, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons - all of them are really well cast and bring their comic book counterparts to life in a way that captured the imaginations of comic fans everywhere, all backed up by a fantastic score by Danny Elfman.
It's faults are few, but mainly in line with the first X-Men film - it's just doesn't quite stand up compared to comic films today and suffers from sub standard CGI and an early 2000s time stamp - I must say though - I have a special kind of love for the borderline Power Rangers villain costume that Green Goblin gets to wear...
Spider-Man is an important milestone in bringing comic books to the big screen, and will surely be enjoyed for years to come.
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
James Franco (1 more)
The tone
Far from a disaster
If you haven't seen The Room, then I urge you to do so at once. It's a bemusing, confusing, unintentionally hilarious 90 odd minutes that fully deserves all the cult screenings and bewildered wonder that it has garnered over the years. It's without question a perfect awful movie. And here with The Disaster Artist, based on the book of the same name, we get to see the story of just went on to get this film made.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020 (Updated Sep 21, 2020)
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥... 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥."
"𝘖𝘩 -- 𝘸𝘩𝘰'𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦, 𝘒𝘢𝘺?"
Well I guess it's confirmed that this movie predicted Jefferey Epstein.
Have absolutely nothing constructive left to add that hasn't already been rightfully said by everybody else at this point, it's 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 - yes it's still a masterpiece. Brando gives the second greatest performance cinema has ever seen in this emotionally rich, lived-in, unstoppable portrait of a vaguely incomprehensible mob boss who is both insatiably bound to and undone by tradition - acting of this caliber is topped only by, you guessed it... James Franco in 𝘚𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴! This isn't really all that secretly deep or anything either - it's just really good at what it does. Does the seemingly unachievable task of making a bunch of mob guys sitting around discussing business so fucking riveting. Pacino sits firmly in one of the quintessential starmaking performances, not a single less than exemplary performance can even be found here. The front half of the last hour is rather sloppy, jumping around uncomfortably between times - but remains nonetheless mesmerizing and spotlessly written. And how about that location cinematography? A sprawling, hypnotic dirge - you could write a novel about how amazing this is, and I'm sure people already have.
"𝘖𝘩 -- 𝘸𝘩𝘰'𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦, 𝘒𝘢𝘺?"
Well I guess it's confirmed that this movie predicted Jefferey Epstein.
Have absolutely nothing constructive left to add that hasn't already been rightfully said by everybody else at this point, it's 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 - yes it's still a masterpiece. Brando gives the second greatest performance cinema has ever seen in this emotionally rich, lived-in, unstoppable portrait of a vaguely incomprehensible mob boss who is both insatiably bound to and undone by tradition - acting of this caliber is topped only by, you guessed it... James Franco in 𝘚𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴! This isn't really all that secretly deep or anything either - it's just really good at what it does. Does the seemingly unachievable task of making a bunch of mob guys sitting around discussing business so fucking riveting. Pacino sits firmly in one of the quintessential starmaking performances, not a single less than exemplary performance can even be found here. The front half of the last hour is rather sloppy, jumping around uncomfortably between times - but remains nonetheless mesmerizing and spotlessly written. And how about that location cinematography? A sprawling, hypnotic dirge - you could write a novel about how amazing this is, and I'm sure people already have.
Ali A (78 KP) rated The Fountains of Silence in Books
Jun 1, 2020
The Fountains of Silence is about Texan teen Daniel visiting Francisco Franco's Spain in the 1950's. Franco is a dictator who needs business men to invest in his country so he opens it to Americans. Daniel visits with his parents to see his mother's birthplace. Ana works at the hotel Daniel and his parents are staying in and is assigned to their rooms. Daniel and Ana quickly become friends but Ana is guarded with him. Her family were Republicans, those who were against Franco's rein, and now are either shunned to live as second class citizens or died horrific deaths. Daniel quickly learns that Spain isn't what the government likes to show and there are secrets everyone is hiding.
I was fascinated with this novel as it's something I have never really learned of this time in history in school. I knew of before, during World War II, but never afterward with Franco's dictation. I cared about the characters and wanted to know the outcome. I could tell when some things would happen and cried during some of them too.
It was a heartfelt novel set in a dark time that had family and love and exploration. A must read for historical fiction readers and lovers of Ruta Sepetys.
I was fascinated with this novel as it's something I have never really learned of this time in history in school. I knew of before, during World War II, but never afterward with Franco's dictation. I cared about the characters and wanted to know the outcome. I could tell when some things would happen and cried during some of them too.
It was a heartfelt novel set in a dark time that had family and love and exploration. A must read for historical fiction readers and lovers of Ruta Sepetys.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated 127 Hours (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Probably the best that it could have been...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Danny Boyle is a director with an eye for the modern. visceral styles, sharp editing and the belief that the combination of both will draw the audience into the action, emotion and mood of the situation at hand. There's no doubt that the stunning true story of adventurer Aron Ralston's accident resulting in his right arm becoming trapped under a rock in the middle of nowhere, required a special director and a style as described above.
Did he pull it off? It's a though sell, 90 minutes of a man and rock but I think it was done about as well as it could have been. The story is interesting and told with a sense of humour and a philosophical attitude appropriate for the subject matter, but it all boils down to the moment when he performs his DIY surgery, a plot point that may well sell the film to most people, as it sold news papers back in 2003.
Overall, well told, very well acted by James Franco as Ralston and along with Boyle's signature direction and jukebox soundtrack, whilst not blowing my skirt up, it made my wife cry, myself cringe and was as well conveyed as this story of a man trapped quite literally between as rock and hard place, ever could have been.
Did he pull it off? It's a though sell, 90 minutes of a man and rock but I think it was done about as well as it could have been. The story is interesting and told with a sense of humour and a philosophical attitude appropriate for the subject matter, but it all boils down to the moment when he performs his DIY surgery, a plot point that may well sell the film to most people, as it sold news papers back in 2003.
Overall, well told, very well acted by James Franco as Ralston and along with Boyle's signature direction and jukebox soundtrack, whilst not blowing my skirt up, it made my wife cry, myself cringe and was as well conveyed as this story of a man trapped quite literally between as rock and hard place, ever could have been.
Tommy Wiseau recommended Sonny (2002) in Movies (curated)
ClareR (5589 KP) rated A Long Petal of the Sea in Books
Jan 14, 2020
My first, and not my last, Isabel Allende book!
A Long Petal of the Sea is my first foray into the books of Isabel Allende, and after reading this, it most certainly wont be my last.
This is the sweeping historical story of the Dalmau family, their role in the Spanish Civil War, their escape in to France (which was horrific), and their journey to Chile as refugees on the ship ‘Winnipeg’ arranged by the poet Pablo Neruda.
It’s a devastating and yet heartwarming look at humanity and it’s ability to endure. I hadn’t known about the concentration-style camps that the French forced the Spanish refugees in to after Franco and his right wing party won the Civil War. It looks as though people have always been able to destroy one another in inhuman ways (this is no surprise to me, by the way). We see more of the use of concentration camps in Chile after the military coup.
The main characters, Victor and Roser Dalmau continue to see Chile as their home, over and above Spain. They show us that home is where your friends, family and community are - and that you can make this home anywhere.
This book really is a joy to read. I’ve learnt so much of the history of this time, as well as having the pleasure of just reading a great story.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Bloomsbury for my copy of this book to read.
This is the sweeping historical story of the Dalmau family, their role in the Spanish Civil War, their escape in to France (which was horrific), and their journey to Chile as refugees on the ship ‘Winnipeg’ arranged by the poet Pablo Neruda.
It’s a devastating and yet heartwarming look at humanity and it’s ability to endure. I hadn’t known about the concentration-style camps that the French forced the Spanish refugees in to after Franco and his right wing party won the Civil War. It looks as though people have always been able to destroy one another in inhuman ways (this is no surprise to me, by the way). We see more of the use of concentration camps in Chile after the military coup.
The main characters, Victor and Roser Dalmau continue to see Chile as their home, over and above Spain. They show us that home is where your friends, family and community are - and that you can make this home anywhere.
This book really is a joy to read. I’ve learnt so much of the history of this time, as well as having the pleasure of just reading a great story.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Bloomsbury for my copy of this book to read.
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated Dirty Angels (Dirty Angels, #1) in Books
Mar 11, 2020
I bought this years ago, 2015 to be exact, and have put it off for a long time when my taste changed from New Adult to Young Adult and Urban Fantasy. I chose it as a challenge read on here so I would finally read it.
So this starts with a prologue. Luisa decides to run away from her abusive drug lord husband in the spur of the moment decision, only to be captured by the enemy. It then moves into Chapter One and we see how she came to be married to Salvador and how she came to be in Javier's captivity. Javier wants her as a hostage so he can negotiate for something Salvador has and the longer they spend around each other, the more they begin to understand each other and feelings emerge.
I'm not really into mafia/cartel books. I find them to be rather violent and prefer sweeter stories with some angst in them. There were some times in this when I just couldn't read all the description and just skipped entire paragraphs, especially the bit with Franco. I also skipped quite a bit towards the end just wanting that final showdown between Javier and Salvador.
I didn't really get their romance. I understand Luisa looking for any light in the blackness that she's living but I still thought Javi was a bit dark, though he did have some nice moments.
I won't be continuing the series.
So this starts with a prologue. Luisa decides to run away from her abusive drug lord husband in the spur of the moment decision, only to be captured by the enemy. It then moves into Chapter One and we see how she came to be married to Salvador and how she came to be in Javier's captivity. Javier wants her as a hostage so he can negotiate for something Salvador has and the longer they spend around each other, the more they begin to understand each other and feelings emerge.
I'm not really into mafia/cartel books. I find them to be rather violent and prefer sweeter stories with some angst in them. There were some times in this when I just couldn't read all the description and just skipped entire paragraphs, especially the bit with Franco. I also skipped quite a bit towards the end just wanting that final showdown between Javier and Salvador.
I didn't really get their romance. I understand Luisa looking for any light in the blackness that she's living but I still thought Javi was a bit dark, though he did have some nice moments.
I won't be continuing the series.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.