Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Movies Media Entertainment

Spider-Man 2 Reviewed [updated] 443

Posted by timothy from the bonch-abalone-is-right dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spider-Man 2 Reviewed [updated] More

Spider-Man 2 Reviewed [updated]

Comments Filter:

  • Kirsten in Spider-Man (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:01PM (#9566692) Journal
    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 [imdb.com].

    • Re:Kirsten in Spider-Man (Score:5, Funny)

      by JPriest ( 547211 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:14PM (#9566776) Homepage
      _Why_ did he have to point out Kirstens droopy eyelid?! I never noticed it before, but now it is bothering me. damn you!

    • Re:Kirsten in Spider-Man (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:34PM (#9566918)
      There are plenty of attractive females in Hollywood, in Califnornia, in America, and on this planet. To be a first-rate actress requires more than sex appeal; it requires acting talent (which has nothing to do with sex appeal... e.g. Cathy Bates is a fantastic actress). I realize we've arrived at a point in our culture where "hot" is equated with smart, talented, kind, forgiving, passionate, loving, and worthwhile... but physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. Yes, Ms. Dunst is attractive and I'd certainly have intercourse with her given the chance... but that alone doesn't mean she should be cast in A-list, high-budget movies. There are plenty of other extremely attractive (many moreso than her) actresses with much more talent in this world. So no, sex appeal does not make up for lack of talent. Yes she's pleasing to look at... and if she can't act she would be better off being a model and having still pictures taken of her.

      That being said, I agree that she gave a very good performance in ESotSM, and I don't think she was horrible in the first Spider Man... I've never considered her a horrible actress (like, say, Samantha Mathis). I will see SM2 tomorrow and frankly I'll be surprised if she gives such a horrible performance that it makes me wish someone else had been cast.

      • Re:Kirsten in Spider-Man (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:45PM (#9566992)
        she gave a very good performance in ESotSM


        ESotSM? OK, it's officially gone too far nerds, we need to stop abbreviating EVERY FUCKING THING.

      • In my experience, pretty good actress (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Goonie ( 8651 ) * <<robert.merkel> <at> <benambra.org>> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @12:15AM (#9567905) Homepage
        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.

      • Re:Kirsten in Spider-Man (Score:5, Funny)

        by dopaz ( 148229 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:44AM (#9568368) Homepage
        Speak for yourself... Kathy Bates is one fine piece of ass.

      • Something to make sure that every slashdoter world wide will continue to worship at the idol of K. Dunst.

        http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/0189-sta/dun st ki1.ste?path=pgallery&path_key=Dunst,%20Kirste n

        Ahhh geek sheek, you can't resist a nerd chick!
      • Personally, I don't think she was bad at all. It's just how she looks. Her face (maybe because of the droopy eyelid thing) can only express emotion in so many ways. I don't know if the reviewer wanted over the top weeping and a Joker-like smile when she was happy, but I thought Dunst pegged it. Mary Jane is kind of floating through life. Successful, but not quite happy. Kind of in a fog. And at the end... well.. nevermind. It's a great movie. One of the best action movies I've seen in over a decade as well.
    • No, she looks anorexic in the movie. She doesn't look good at all in it.

      THen again, some people like that...but she's stick thin. She looks sort of like a bobble head doll.

  • SPOILER ALERT (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarsDefenseMinister ( 738128 ) <dallapieta80@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:08PM (#9566726) Homepage Journal
    Trinity dies in the end.

    Oops.
  • tells me this is going be a great movie and makes tons of money.

    • Re:My spidey sense (Score:2, Informative)

      by MowserX ( 181413 )
      I saw the sneak preview Monday, and I have to agree with the reviewer, that this movie was definitely better than the first one.
      I own Spidey 1 on DVD and have watched it a number of times. Up until Spidey 2, it was my favorite comic book movie.
      After seeing Spiderman 2, I am now very excited about the potential of this franchise. There are so many cameos and reasons for some people to hold a grudge against Peter/Spiderman, that by the end of the movie, you are left wondering which villain(s) will be in the

  • http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112410&cid=9 53 3399

    Read the reviews of the Star Trek/Star Wars remake and nearly split my sides laughing. Can't wait to see what they do with Harry Potter as well!

  • Raimi and CGI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nucal ( 561664 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:12PM (#9566764)
    Some reviews of Spider-man 2 have mentioned that Sam Raimi is not all that comfortable with CGI ... which means that he tends to focus more on the human element rather than the blockbuster aspects of a movie. Given the depth of Peter Parker as a character, this seems like a reasonable trade off that helps make this better than the "typical" comic hero movie ...

    • Re:Raimi and CGI (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:21PM (#9566827) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re:Raimi and CGI (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mblase ( 200735 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:20PM (#9567163)
        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.

        • Re:Raimi and CGI (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )
          It might also have something to do with the fact that all the major characters in the DC universe didn't have depth. Most of them were your typical action heroes with little depth until fairly recently (last 15 years).

          That, and DC Universe now belongs to Marvel, anyway. I believe they were bought out at or around the time of the "crossover universe" period, 6 years or so back. Why use DC heros for films when Marvel heroes are better suited?

          I'm just waiting with baited breath for a Wolverine movie to be re
        • Punisher was so-so. I had high hopes for it, but frankly the old Dolph Lundgren version was about as good. Thin plot, sketchy characterization, and John Travolta all combine to make a movie that just wasn't all that engrossing.

          • Re:Raimi and CGI (Score:3, Informative)

            by corbettw ( 214229 )
            Thin plot, sketchy characterization, and John Travolta all combine to make a movie that just wasn't all that engrossing.

            Wait, why'd you suddenly start talking about Battlefield: Earth? Or did you mean Broken Arrow? Or maybe Face-off or Password: Swordfish? Now I'm really confused.

        • Re:Raimi and CGI (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @12:58PM (#9572306) Homepage Journal
          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. ;-)

      • Re:Raimi and CGI (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cyclocommuter ( 762131 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:34PM (#9567232)

        As a kid who grew up reading Marvel and DC comics, Spiderman easily became my favorite. No, it was not the action scenes that captivated me but Peter Parker's initial "nerdiness". He was bullied early on by his schoolmate Flash and he was even too shy to make a pass at his officemate at the Daily Bugle who I think was his first object of desire... Betty.

        The best Spiderman comic book episodes though was during the span of time he was fighting the Lizard (Dr. Connors), the Rhino, the Vulture and Kraven the Hunter... this was also a time of great turmoil in Peter Parker's life... he had to take care of his ailing Aunt May and was torn between his two ladies of interest... Gwen and MJ who as I recall, was introduced by Aunt May while Spiderman was about to face the Rhino. The original MJ on the comic book looked much better than Kirsten Dunst... thinner, more worldly. Peter Parker was in 7th heaven when MJ decided to go ride with him on his motorcycle.

        I am not sure if any movie can capture in film what those comic books conveyed to comic book nerds at the time.

        • Re:Raimi and CGI (big spoilers) (Score:5, Insightful)

          by istewart ( 463887 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @05:36PM (#9575759)
          I am not sure if any movie can capture in film what those comic books conveyed to comic book nerds at the time.


          I must say, this movie comes damned close. Through the first two-thirds of the movie, I kept turning to my friend and asking, "Are we supposed to feel THIS SORRY for him?" However, the ending was a big payoff, set up by Peter Parker's suffering throughout the beginning and middle. I was practically cheering when he turns around without his mask on after convincing Doc Ock to drown the reactor, and Mary Jane finally sees his true identity. Likewise I was almost yelling "YOU DUMBASS!" at the screen when he gives her his "we can't be together, too risky, blah blah blah" speech, but that in turn just helps to provoke her to leave Jameson's son at the altar. At the very end, there's all this depressing stuff (Harry becomes the Goblin, Aunt May loses her house, Jameson's son gets stiffed) but all you're focused on is Peter Parker, finally redeemed, in love, and swinging between towers as Spider-Man. That feeling of total empathy with Spider-Man is what makes the movie so great.

      • Re:Raimi and CGI (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nine-times ( 778537 )
        '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.'

        I think this is, basically, why the Spiderman movies have been so good (haven't seen 2 yet, but everyone's raving). Spiderman was,

  • stop ripping his kirsten dunst insult (Score:5, Funny)

    by deft ( 253558 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:16PM (#9566799) Homepage
    This is a guy on slashdot.... he should be praised for recognizing a female in the movie at all. After all, there were comic book characters and electronics everywhere in this flick... im suprised he even noticed her.

    She must have had alot to do with the comic book characters and electronics, now that i think of it. If I mentioned a hot blonde int he movie, he'd probably reply, "oh the one being saved by that awesome spidey from that no good doc oc.... badass, yeah I sort of remember her".

  • Roger Ebert.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by TastyWords ( 640141 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:19PM (#9566817)
    ...(I'm sorry, I still miss his original partner, Gene Siskel)

    Anyway, Ebert said it is probably the best superhero|hero movie ever made.

    I don't like his tv show now that his original parter, Gene Siskel, who was my favorite - one of the reasons I went to that section of the Chicago Tribune (I live in Indy) first - to see what he'd written about current movies.

    I'm certain we could come up with a ton of movies which would be considered superhero|hero movies, where some would be very esoteric to many who haven't had a variety of newspaper cartoons growing up; e.g., The Phantom, in the Trib. And Spiderman was also in the Trib until about the time I graduated from high shool.

  • Complaining about Kirsten Dunst's acting ability.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:32PM (#9566903)
    ...is like complaining about a stripper's dancing ability.

    For pretty much the same reason.

  • a bird? an airplane? ...no! it's Spider-Man! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nazsco ( 695026 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:38PM (#9566946) Journal
    > For example the excellent train fight takes place on an elevated train in a part of the city where there are no elevated trains -- but it doesn't matter. The film makes it work, so that you don't even think about it

    HOW THE HELL SHOULD I NOT THINK ABOUT AN ELEVATED TRAIN LINE WITH A DEAD END THAT WOULD THROW A BRAKELESS TRAIN RIGHT INTO FIFTH AVENUE!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    also, they transformed spider-man into super-man!
    - add eyeglasses to alternative identity. check
    - not a smart ass. check
    - CAN STOP A FSCKING TRAIN WITH ITS BARE HANDS! check

    oh! the humanity!

    • Re:a bird? an airplane? ...no! it's Spider-Man! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Necromancyr ( 602950 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @11:51PM (#9567777)
      I put a teeny little 'my view' of the movie on my site - nothing to submit to slashdot, but the BIGGEST problem I have with the new movie is that Spidey isn't a smart ass...at ALL...during fights. If you've ever read the comics, that's one of his biggest things.

      No matter the situation, Spidey always has a one liner to toss out. THere might have been 1-2 in the entire movie...even with the lower volume of action scenes, it was a big let down.

      Movie's still great though.

      • Re:a bird? an airplane? ...no! it's Spider-Man! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @08:16AM (#9569623)
        They tried doing the smartass thing a few times in the first movie (think the JJ/Goblin/Spidey scene at the Bugle), but IMO it just didn't work very well. This sort of thing works great in the comics, but coming out of a live actor it just seems forced.

        Oh and to the poster above complaining about the train scene: you're right, it'll probably be ridiculous (haven't seen it yet), but don't discount Spidermans strength. I remember reading some little blurb in the letters section of some Spidey issue way back when that said Spidey was like the 4th strongest hero in the Marvel Universe, only behind guys like Hulk, The Thing, Thor, and Colossus. Now considering how things change in a comic universe that's probably no longer true, but Spidey's strength is meant to be formidable.

  • time.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Docrates ( 148350 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:39PM (#9566953) Homepage
    Bonch, dude, you just spent 3 hours writing a review of a 2 hour film....

    Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

    • Re:time.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bushcat ( 615449 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @11:21PM (#9567578)
      Bonch, dude, you just spent 3 hours writing a review of a 2 hour film....

      Or he spent 2 minutes cutting and pasting Devin Faraci's review over at CHUD.

      • Geeze! TOTALLY Copied Review (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spoco2 ( 322835 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:08AM (#9568210)
        My god you are right... that's just pathetic on the part of the poster, and he should be banned/suspended from Slashdot for posting this as if it were his work.

        Plus it was a crap review anyway as it did what I HATE in reviews which is giving away some of the best bits. ie. "And the humour was supurb like when he turned into a chicken and ate all the guest's dinners"... that may not be in this film, but you get my drift, I was reading through the review, got to a spoiler of what would have been a great SUPRISE joke and stopped dead right there...

        Geeze, how hard is it to write a review that doesn't reveal jokes or plot points? Why can't people stay more generic? X's acting was Good/bad/indifferent, the CG of Y was not so hot, or was during running but crap during swinging. Etc. etc. It's NOT THAT HARD.

      • EDITOR: YANK THE REVIEW!! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        ./ can't support this crap. pull the review or credit the author!

  • When will? (Score:5, Funny)

    by NEOtaku17 ( 679902 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:42PM (#9566969) Homepage
    When will the Indian version hit theatres in America?

  • A differering opinion regarding Kirsten Dunst (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:08PM (#9567112) Homepage
    From Ebert [suntimes.com], 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 [imdb.com].

  • Typo... (Score:5, Funny)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:30PM (#9567206)
    "some of us have seen it a bit early"
    • I think you meant to say 'some of us have seen it a bit
    • torrent early'

  • Berardinelli (Score:2, Informative)

    by KI0PX ( 266692 )
    Here is James Berardinelli's Spiderman review. [colossus.net]

    Berardinelli gave Spiderman 2 three stars out of four, which is a fairly solid recommendation.

  • Shazaam (Score:5, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:38PM (#9567247) Homepage Journal
    "Spider-Man 2 hits theaters tomorrow, though some of us have seen it a bit early."

    Yeah my download finished yesterday.

  • plagarism from CHUD? (Score:5, Informative)

    by doublephaeton ( 782646 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:47PM (#9567339)
    http://www.chud.com/reviews/spid2.php3

    seems to me bonch just copy/pasted this article in its entirety, without giving any credit to the chud guys, who did the real work!

  • The Importance of Being Earnest (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aethera ( 248722 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:57PM (#9567404)
    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 [sparknotes.com]
    Full text here [hoboes.com]

    • Re:The Importance of Being Earnest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blankinthefill ( 665181 ) <blachancNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:15AM (#9568233) Journal
      While you got the gist of the story correct, you are off on the names/details. Algernon is from the city, and he has invented the concept of "Bunburying". He has created an imaginary friend that lives in the country named Bunbury, who is often incapacitated. Algernon then has an excuse to go to the country (where he ends up with Jacks young ward). Jack is from the country, and creates the persona of Ernest so that he can end up meeting a girl he has fallen in love with. Ernest, if you didn't guess it, is the same as Bunbury. Long story short, both Algernon and Jack end up taking on the differing persona of Ernest, and the two women that they have fallen in love with end up in a tangle of confusion, because of the mix-up of having two Ernests. The play is a social commentary on many things, not the least of which is the foolishness of a name (which some here would do well to recognize), and was definitely put in the movie for a reason, in my opinion, if not for more than one.

  • Fun, but a downloader folks.. (minimal spoilage) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Helpadingoatemybaby ( 629248 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @11:35PM (#9567685)
    Like Science? Enjoy details? Then this may not be the film for you.

    I saw it yesterday and the thing that stands out most in my mind, granted I'm a geek, but when the fusion reaction goes out of control -- critical in fact, and starts magnetically sucking all metal towards itself and fusionically threatens the entire city!?

    That's right, I said fusion.

    It appears that one of the basic requirements for writing a film these days (and I like to write) is to have not only no knowledge of science, but preferably a vacous gaping city sucking fusion orb where even the most basic science knowledge should be.

    Also a complete lack of knowledge of trains is helpful. You might notice an elevated line that is built to go two stories to a dead end at... THE RIVER. Exactly where are the engineers? The physicists? Were you all killed by Doctor Octopus?

    And where is Ozcorp getting its never ending funding from? Why wasn't this stock shorted by everyone after their CHIEF SCIENTIST went nuts in the last movie and started killing people? These are details that could have been written into the film, but instead are just thrown away in favor of cliches. The other things that actually save this film from the dreck pile are 1) the performance of J.K. Simmons (the angry editor guy), who once again steals every scene that he's in, on top of being strongly written. (every time that Tobey is in the newspaper office he might as well be invisible.) Meanwhile, Alfred Molina (Doctor Octopus) does a stellar job with second rate lines. Now he is an interesting character -- and, unlike spidey, his CG didn't look fake. Why not make a film about him rather than the bland kid in the spider suit?

    Romance is one of the things that saves this film -- because make no mistake about it it's the exact same formula that you've seen and know and love. If you like that film that you've seen a dozen times -- this is it too! Now with extra romance. It's fun for what it is, but don't expect more than cliches.

    Is it just me, or isn't there so much more that could be done with film?

  • sheeesh.... (Score:2, Funny)

    by tklive ( 755607 )
    why dont you just marry spiderman...

    sure, it probably is one great movie..but still, that review sounded way over the top
  • Sam Raimi is a good director, yes. He is considered an auteur director as well. I love his work. Spiderman was good. However, Spiderman 2 is not his work alone.

    The full credits [imdb.com] of the film tell the full story. Spiderman 2 was written by a total of 6 people - none of which was S. Raimi. There were also 6 producers and executive producers (although, 'executive producer' is often a title given to someone simply as a 'feel good' title and has little involvement). Cinematography was done by Anette Haellmig and

  • Movie Review: Out-of-context quote of the day ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by jdkane ( 588293 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @12:26AM (#9567980)

    A ton of credit has to go to Bill Pope, who has shot himself

    :)

  • 1. Ebert & Roeper [go.com] MP3 review from 6/28/2004 show.

    2. Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com]

    3. IMDb [imdb.com] (more reviews tomorrow morning)

    4. Darh Horizon's review by Garth Franklin (Webmaster)

    As far as I see, everyone seems to like it over the first movie! I hope I can catch the flick this Monday with friends. I didn't love the first one, but it was enjoyable. I hope the second one is a lot better. :)

  • Just saw the movie, question for the (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pfhor ( 40220 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:50AM (#9568648) Homepage
    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).
  • I work at the movie theaters, so my schedule was suppose to be from 8:00 PM to 1:00 AM... but my manager let me off early because he knew I wanted to watch the movie. It was pretty crazy once 12:00 hit (Yes, we had a 12:00 show. Not a preview.) As I removed the tensile barriers, shouted "Spiderman 2!", pointed at House #3, and ran -- a lot of people chased after me to the theater. It was pretty intense. Thank God for employee benefits... including not having to pay for a single movie. w00t.
  • And well....it was great.
    Not just a little bit.

    For comic book fans, it's got what you want. For film fans, it's got what you want. For action movie fans, it's got what you want.

    Granted, there were moments when I wanted to scream "but that doesn't make sense!" ( {spoiler} like when the fusion generator was sucking in everything....except things like people and important props {/spoiler}) But in general it was a well done film.

    There are only two criticisms I could possibly give this movie: Kirsten Dunst's

  • What??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Art_XIV ( 249990 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @08:41AM (#9569759) Journal

    Spider-Man 2 is certainly the movie that pays off all the promise Sam Raimi has held for the past few decades.

    Whassat? I think that you just unintentionally implied that Army of Darkness was not the greatest movie of all time!

  • I saw it and reviewed it Wednesday morning. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by crashnbur ( 127738 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @11:36AM (#9571409)
    Spider-Man 2 succeeds in many ways that I did not expect, justifying my decision to watch the midnight showing and stay up past 4:00am to write a small review for my web site [neotope.com]!

    I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Spider-Man 2. A sequel is supposed to dwell in the shadow of its predecessor, but this one does not. Spidey is beaten and humbled -- by enemies, friends, the public, and himself -- and yet he still comes across as one of the most realistic heroes imaginable ... not for shooting spider webs out of wrists, but for the human element. Above all else and beneath the mask, Spider-Man is Peter Parker, an emotional, rational being like the rest of us. He has decisions to make, and whether they make sense or even matter to anyone else, they matter to Peter Parker.

    The key to this film's success, aside from Tobey Maguire's excellent portrayal of a hero torn among many difficult choices, is Sam Raimi's ability to open and close numerous plot elements while maintaining a coherent and cohesive plot. The movie takes its sweet time to inform you of what has changed, who is important, and why it is all so ... before we are rushed through an action-packed, emotional frenzy that climaxes with one of the most satisfying endings I have ever enjoyed for what I would normally describe as an entertainment film (as opposed to being a serious film).

Slashdot Top Deals

"The algorithm to do that is extremely nasty. You might want to mug someone with it." -- M. Devine, Computer Science 340

Close