Spider-Man 2 Reviewed [updated]

Update: 06/30 15:42 GMT by T : This article has been pulled; the Spider-Man 2 review which appeared here was reposted without credit or permission from chud. (Read it in its original context.) We welcome original feature-length articles, but not plagiarism.

Comments

Kirsten in Spider-Man

[SIGALRM]

Spider-Man 2 seems like the next step in the slow death of the career of Kirsten Dunst

OK, she's not Meryl Streep, but she doesn't have to be; Kirsten has tremendous sex appeal--which more than compensates for her somewhat mediocre performance in Spider-Man.

Besides, I thought she was intense and believable in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Re:Kirsten in Spider-Man

[rudeboy1]

Yeah. I'm not a big fan of Dunst either. I'll tell you what though, as far as GOOD actresses with sex apeal goes, this makes me wonder what Claire Forlani would look like with red hair... Rawr! She'd be an amazing Mary Jane! She plays off this sort of humble, quietly stunning character so well in some of her movies. I was watching the director's comments for Mallrats a while ago, and they were showing some of the outtakes where she let her outrageous British accent bleed through. I didn't even know she was British! Since then, I'll hear it every once in a while in her lines. Kind of like the droopy eye thing, I guess. You don't notice it till it's pointed out, then you can't avoid it. Still, I would KILL to see her as Mary Jane.

Seen it, liked it, but # 3 doesn't look good thoug

[Sarojin]

I saw it at a critics screening Saturday. It was pretty good, the SFX are better and Dr. Octopus makes for a more compelling foe. I was a little bothered by how they've rendered Peter Parker as an angst ridden, navel-gazer. That seems to be the fashion for superhero films these days. Everyone trying to copy Tim Burton's Batman, but while Batman has always been a haunted figure, Spiderman was always pretty light stuff I thought. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one.

*SPOILERS*

The next sequel is foreshadowed at the end of the one. The Green Goblin will be back and it's going to be Harry, as yhou might expect. I don't know I just don't like the character of the Green Goblin, I don't think any amount of CGI can hide the lameness of that character.

hrmm

[Sarojin]

Everyone is arguing about not liking the green goblin or thinking it a bad idea if he is the villain again in the third, but I was actually thinking when I heard about this ending that Raimi and Co. probably already thought it would be repetitive and a weak character for already being used so they will probably turn to the hobgoblin, which was also a great villain in my opinion. Also in my opinion, the green goblin was a great choice, I absolutely loved that villain.

Re:Raimi and CGI

[ConceptJunkie]

I'll go one step further... this is not a trade-off, it's exactly the right way to make a comic book movie. Back in the early sixties, characters with depth and humanity is what created the Silver Age of comic books and Spider-Man was at the front of the pack. "Spider-man 2" sounds like the anti-"Spawn", a movie about someone you care about with some good action on the side.

While I thought "Superman 2" was the best superhero movie ever until the latest generation of superhero movies started coming out (ironically, all based on Marvel characters), the level of special effects has advanced to the point where the action can match the action of the comics, and when combined with thorough and good character development, will make some my favorite movies ever.

When the special effects help create an immersive reality (hello, Peter Jackson) without overwhelming the story or actors (George Lucas, call your office) then you have the best combination.

I don't get the Kirsten craze

[Anonymous Coward]

She's not that good looking, she's just ok. And if you wanna talk chest, she's pretty flabby in that area, certainly nothing to get me all googlie eyed over without some series 18hr Playtex presence to spruce it up. And acting ability? Come on! Who did she blow to get this gig? She certainly couldn't have won it on her deadpan delivery talent.

There are thousands of actresses in LA that look hotter and act better than Kirsten. It's time for Spidey to get a new love interest!

Re:I don't get the Kirsten craze

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of us want to spend our evenings at Scores where strippers with rock hard implants threaten to put eyes out before grinding their desperation into someone elses for $40.

Maybe if you'd spent more time with real women than digital recreations you'd have an appreciation for the sublime joys of real boobies.

Forget the game

[zakezuke]

I didn't really find the game all that exciting... It takes about 4hours to complete or so and it seemed to have alot of training wheels. For example web slinging is dependent on specific web spots clearly marked throughout the city, and you get a popup when you fight an arch foe showing you what moves you need to do to defeat 'em. Also your web fluid is unlimited, and your number of lives is unlimited. Dispite being geared tward the inexperenced gammer, I did find the Mysterio sequence to be the best, where you must navigate New York in the clouds broken up into levitating islands. All and all as far as theme games go it was acceptable, almost worth the $15.00 it's presently being sold for.

Re:Seen it, liked it, but # 3 doesn't look good th

[Osty]

I cant remember 100% my storyline progression but doesnt Harry become the Hobgoblin instead?

I don't remember the exact progression (which came first, GG or HG?), but I do know that Harry takes up the mantle of the Green Goblin. The Hobgoblin was someone else (Googled for it). I thought there were only three Green Goblins (though I couldn't remember other than Norman and Harry). It looks like there were four of them. There were also four different Hobgoblins. Apparently villains in the Spider-Man mythos like to recycle old ideas (see the page above, there are several different iterations of a number of villains).

A differering opinion regarding Kirsten Dunst

[nobodyman]

From Ebert, no less. To wit:

Dunst is valuable, too, bringing depth and heart to a girlfriend role that in lesser movies would be conventional. When she kisses her astronaut boyfriend upside-down, it's one of those perfect moments that rewards fans of the whole saga; we don't need to be told she's remembering her only kiss from Spider-Man.

True, she's been a lot of mediocre teen-movie fare, but to claim that she hasn't had a better performance since Interview with a Vampire indicates to me reviewer hasn't seen Drop Dead Gorgeous.

Re:Raimi and CGI

[mblase]

While I thought "Superman 2" was the best superhero movie ever until the latest generation of superhero movies started coming out (ironically, all based on Marvel characters)

It's not ironic; Warner Bros. (owner of DC Comics) has all but dropped out of the comic-book-movie business since the fourth "Batman" film, and if that was the best they could pull together I'm glad for it. On the other hand, Marvel doesn't have a big media company like WB owning it, so they're making up for the lack of comic book sales since the mid-90s by selling movie scripts (or, to look at it another way, cross-promoting their comic books to increase sales).

Now, Marvel knew going into the game that comic book movies have a terrible track record, so they spent a lot of time and effort getting good scripts and directors for the first X-Men and Spider-Man films, and it paid off. Hulk was a good film, IMO, although not a lot of people loved it. Punisher I never saw. Daredevil I did see, and I frankly regret it. That last movie alone proves that just because Marvel's spending a lot of effort on these films doesn't always mean they're succeeding.

I think Marvel's known all along exactly what you've stated: that good, believable, three-dimensional characters are what brings people back again and again. (Okay, so they probably forgot it for a while back in the 90s, but they're trying.) I'm as glad as you are that they've pushed hard to keep that aspect of their stories in the recent crop of films.

The Importance of Being Earnest

[aethera]

I don't know if the movie touches on the significance of MJ being in this play. It's one of Oscar Wilde's famous comedies, and it's all about the dangers of living a double life.
The short of it; a young country gent(Algernon) goes to city to flirt around and cause trouble, but when in the city goes by the name of Ernest so that no rumours of his city life make it back to his home in the country. One of Algernon's city friends, Jack, travels to the country to dally with Algernon's young ward, and he also uses the name Ernest. Combined with some witty dialogue, a good does of sarcasm, and some smacks at the upperclass, its probably one of Wilde's best works. And Oscar Wilde, along with GB Shaw should probably be up there with Shakespeare among England's finest playwrights.
Summary here
Full text here

Re:Seen it, liked it, but # 3 doesn't look good th

[Artifakt]

If it follows the usual pattern for superhero flicks, Spiderman 3 will have several villains and not just the 2nd Green Goblin. Remember how many bad guys show up in Batman and Robin or Batman Forever? Let's see, we have the Rhino, Sandman, Mysterio and Electro from the early Spiderman comics, or Venom the living spidy suit from the later years. Or maybe Spiderman 3 will also be X-men 3.
Earrghh! I thought I'd outgrown this stuff 20 years ago. Why do I even remember the names of a bunch of Spiderman villians?

In my experience, pretty good actress

[Goonie]

I'd have to say that as well as being cute, she has been a convincing performer in a number of films playing different types of characters:

• The Virgin Suicides: hard to judge, given her main job was to sit there and look stunningly beautiful in a just-post-Lolita kind of way.
• Drop Dead Gorgeous: She played an ambitious small-town goody-two-shoes teen for comedy; was pretty effective in perhaps not the most challenging role.
• Dick: playing a very dumb blonde teenager in a slightly more exaggerated manner; also very believable.
• The Cat's Meow: playing comic actress (and mistress of Randolph Hearst) Marion Davies on a cruise where their relationship came under strain, slightly miscast (she was too young) but did a fair job in a role that required a fair range.
• Spiderman: serviceable in a wallpaper role.
• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: meaty supporting role of a naive secretary; makes a major plot twist look convincing. Good work.

So, overall, in the things I've seen her in she's been a pretty good performer. I certainly can't recall a performance where she's been a shocker.

In any case, bad directing can make even the best actor look bad. Natalie Portman, besides being achingly beautiful, is a fine actor, and let's consider just how wooden a performance she gave in Attack of the Clones. It'll be interesting 20 years from now to interview her about working with Lucas; I think she might be less than complimentary.

Just saw the movie, question for the

[Pfhor]

fellow Spiderman fans.

Did anyone else catch Jameson's son doing that huge leap to get to MJ near the end?

I am convinced its a nod to showing him having the symbiot in him (from the cartoon, not the comic books) where I believe he contracted it while in space.

Anyway, I think for a sequel (or triquel?) now that we have:
A) love interest issues resolved (no more harping over MJ)
B) identity issue resolved

We need something to spice it up some more. We obviously have the green goblin 2 coming in the next one, but what about Venom? Any thoughts on this? (i may have the names mixed up, it's been a while since i've read the comics / cartoons).

Re:Fun, but a downloader folks.. (minimal spoilage

[Prune]

Besides other failings, such as cheesy attempts at humor and no end to alliterated names (Peter Parker, Otto Octavius, Green Goblin?, come on!!), the amount of science that was sacrificed in the name of entertaining the masses almost made me weep. Disappointed by Roger Ebert's positive review, I emailed him the following:

On a number of occasions you have pointed out scientific inaccuracies in movies -- be it characters outrunning fireballs, or the wrong speed of the line of sunlight in observation #4 in your Mummy Returns review. The horrendous way Spider-Man 2 handles science, however, transcend these by an order of magnitude. So why didn't this get at least a passing mention in your review?? I would have walked out of the theater at one point, if I had been sitting in an isle seat! There's something to be said for suspension of disbelief, but when a movie uses science buzzwords like fusion and nanowires, it is making at least some pretense of minimal scientific accuracy and should have avoided some of the more glaring nonsense seen here.

I know you get lots of mail, so I'll just point out a couple of examples. Spidey expels a large amount of webbing, and not just in terms of length, but as we see in close-ups, it's fairly thick and clearly of a lot of volume. Spider-man somehow manages to produce material that's at least a significant fraction of his weight. So now that we've dropped as fundamental a law of physics as the conservation of mass and energy, I suppose anything is game. This was wholly avoidable while still allowing Spidey to perform as he does, for the simple reason that we know much stronger materials exist (i.e. carbon nanotubes) and the web could have been many times thinner.

I could swallow that problem, but the next one was too much, and prompted me to write this message. The depiction of fusion was plain embarassing. Bombarding a fuel pellet by lasers will cause it to release its energy in an instant flash. The lasers would be only on for a moment, otherwise the pellet will evaporate and disperse before fusion can start. In the movie, the lasers started one after the other; the first laser would have destroyed the pellet. It gets worse. They showed a fiery ball looking like a star. I suppose the twisted thought process that gave birth to that must have gone something like this: stars are powered by fusion, so a small fusion reaction must look like a small star. In reality, stars glow because fusion in the core heats the upper layers. Due to the hundred million plus degree temperature, the actual light emitted by fusion is in the gamma and x-rays spectrum (which, together with the neutrons would have killed anything around due to the lack of heavy shielding; the magnetic containment cannot affect non-charged particles), with only a bit of mostly violet visible light. And that tritium pellet, come on! Tritium is radioactive and you can't just carry it around in a glass sphere. And tritium is a gas; to have a solid pellet it must be stored at extremely cryogenic temperatures. I could keep going, but the point is that many people that watch this kind of stuff get a totally twisted view of science.

My favorite character is ...

[JoshMKiV]

Stan Lee (As) Man Dodging Debris.

I'm glad he made it into the film again.

Re:Raimi and CGI

[ConceptJunkie]

Marvel's success probably has something to do with Stan the Man running things and him making sure that the movies remain true to the books. After all, most of those classics were created by him in the first place.

I'd love to see a movie homage to Jack Kirby... a character with no fingernails. ;-)