Roger Ebert posted:Now this is what a superhero movie should be. "Spider-Man 2" believes in its story in the same way serious comic readers believe, when the adventures on the page express their own dreams and wishes. It's not camp and it's not nostalgia, it's not wall-to-wall special effects and it's not pickled in angst. It's simply and poignantly a realization that being Spider-Man is a burden that Peter Parker is not entirely willing to bear. The movie demonstrates what's wrong with a lot of other superhero epics: They focus on the superpowers, and short-change the humans behind them. (Has anyone ever been more boring, for instance, than Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne?) "Spider-Man 2" is the best superhero movie since the modern genre was launched with "Superman" (1978). It succeeds by being true to the insight that allowed Marvel Comics to upturn decades of comic-book tradition: Readers could identify more completely with heroes like themselves than with remote godlike paragons. Peter Parker was an insecure high school student, in grade trouble, inarticulate in love, unready to assume the responsibilities that came with his unexpected superpowers. It wasn't that Spider-Man could swing from skyscrapers that won over his readers; it was that he fretted about personal problems in the thought balloons above his Spidey face mask. Parker (Tobey Maguire) is in college now, studying physics at Columbia, more helplessly in love than ever with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). He's on the edge of a breakdown: He's lost his job as a pizza deliveryman, Aunt May faces foreclosure on her mortgage, he's missing classes, the colors run together when he washes his Spider-Man suit at the Laundromat, and after his web-spinning ability inexplicably seems to fade, he throws away his beloved uniform in despair. When a bum tries to sell the discarded Spidey suit to Jonah Jameson, editor of the Daily Bugle, Jameson offers him $50. The bum says he could do better on eBay. Has it come to this? I was disappointed by the original "Spider-Man" (2002), and surprised to find this film working from the first frame. Sam Raimi, the director of both pictures, this time seems to know exactly what he should do, and never steps wrong in a film that effortlessly combines special effects and a human story, keeping its parallel plots alive and moving. One of the keys to the movie's success must be the contribution of novelist Michael Chabon to the screenplay; Chabon understands in his bones what comic books are, and why. His inspired 2000 novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay chronicles the birth of a 1940s comic book superhero and the young men who created him; he worked on the screen story that fed into Alvin Sargent's screenplay. The seasons in a superhero's life are charted by the villains he faces (it is the same with James Bond). "Spider-Man 2" gives Spider-Man an enemy with a good nature that is overcome by evil. Peter Parker admires the famous Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), whose laboratory on the banks of the East River houses an experiment that will either prove that fusion can work as a cheap source of energy, or vaporize Manhattan. To handle the dangerous materials of his experiments, Octavius devises four powerful tentacles that are fused to his spine and have a cyber-intelligence of their own; a chip at the top of his spine prevents them from overriding his orders, but when the chip is destroyed, the gentle scientist is transformed into Doc Ock, a fearsome fusion of man and machine, who can climb skyscraper walls by driving his tentacles through concrete and bricks. We hear him coming, hammering his way toward us like the drums of hell. Peter Parker, meanwhile, has vowed that he cannot allow himself to love Mary Jane, because her life would be in danger from Spider-Man's enemies. She has finally given up on Peter, who is always standing her up; she announces her engagement to no less than an astronaut. Peter has heart-to-hearts with her and with Aunt May (Rosemary Harris), who is given full screen time and not reduced to an obligatory cameo. And he has to deal with his friend Harry Osborn (James Franco), who likes Peter but hates Spider-Man, blaming him for the death of his father (a k a the Green Goblin, although much is unknown to the son). There are special effects, and then there are special effects. In the first movie I thought Spider-Man seemed to move with all the realism of a character in a cartoon. This time, as he swings from one skyscraper to another, he has more weight and dimension, and Raimi is able to seamlessly match the CGI and the human actors. The special-effects triumph in the film is the work on Doc Ock's four robotic tentacles, which move with an uncanny life, reacting and responding, doing double takes, becoming characters on their own. Watching Raimi and his writers cut between the story threads, I savored classical workmanship: The film gives full weight to all of its elements, keeps them alive, is constructed with such skill that we care all the way through. In a lesser movie from this genre, we usually perk up for the action scenes but wade grimly through the dialogue. Here both stay alive, and the dialogue is more about emotion, love and values, less about long-winded explanations of the inexplicable (it's kind of neat that Spider-Man never does find out why his web-throwing ability sometimes fails him). Tobey Maguire almost didn't sign for the sequel, complaining of back pain; Jake Gyllenhaal, another gifted actor, was reportedly in the wings. But if Maguire hadn't returned (along with Spidey's throwaway line about his aching back), we would never have known how good he could be in this role. 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. There are moviegoers who make a point of missing superhero movies, and I can't blame them, although I confess to a weakness for the genre. I liked both of the "Crow" movies, and "Daredevil," "The Hulk" and "X2," but not enough to recommend them to friends who don't like or understand comic books. "Spider-Man 2" is in another category: It's a real movie, full-blooded and smart, with qualities even for those who have no idea who Stan Lee is. It's a superhero movie for people who don't go to superhero movies, and for those who do, it's the one they've been yearning for.
Jango10 posted:Doc-Ock is a better villain than the Green Goblin.
StarDude posted:After the first one came out on DVD, he said his goal with the sequel would be to make it "smaller, and hopefully better."
The2ndQuest posted:I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think SM2 deserves the praise it gets. It's just as guilty at rushing the development of it's villain as SM3 was. Which is a shame- what we did get, development-wise, of Doc Ock was great- Molina was much better in his role than Dafoe was in his. But unfortunately, we really just meet him and it's practically the next scene where he's strapping on the cyberarms (whose presence comes out of nowhere, and whose weakness with the chip is so damn obvious and generally pointless (as it has little to no purpose 2 minutes later) that it's just plain bad storytelling). By comparison, we had a lot more on Osborne before he became the Goblin, and so he feels more developed, even if his film portrayal is ultimately slightly more shallow. Even Church's Sandman, in many ways, was developed far better than Doc Ock, despite given far less dialogue. It also upped the silly factor considerably over SM1- it's hard to understand why people would complain about the dance sequences in SM3 when the "raindrops keep falling" bit in SM2 is a billion times worse and far more goan and eyeroll inducing. That said, it's not all bad- SM2 did have a few fantastic sequences like the train battle, and did a good job with the Peter/Mary Jane content (though the wedding aspect detracts from it and is somewhat unneeded). As I said before, Molina was great with what little they gave him, and the personalities given to the arms was a great touch. So, I think SM2 is not a case of a sequel surpassing the original, just maintaining, on average, the same quality. Oddly enough, SM3 fails to maintain the same quality, but probably ends up being more entertaining (though it also is guilty of stuff like the stupid news reporter commentary and, most heinously, rushing the Venom storyline when it really should have been 2 movies instead of 1). Even if SM2 was the best SM movie, I definitely don't feel it reaches the quality of X2 or Batman Begins in terms of being top of it's genre.
StarDude posted:The great thing about Spider-Man 2 is that Raimi was in pretty much complete control (not so with the first one or Spider-Man 3). After the first one came out on DVD, he said his goal with the sequel would be to make it "smaller, and hopefully better." So many sequels go for bigger and better, and completely miss the mark. Spider-Man 2 is easily, along with Superman: The Movie and Batman Begins, at the top of its genre.
Spiderfan posted:We get more of Osborn because he is more intertwined with Peter's life and is a figure that will never go away essentially. ... And I think we get to visit with him more than any other villain honestly. Though Osborn has a better connection and history with Peter, Octavius got to have a far more personal relationship with Peter and the audience as we get the opportunity to sit and wax intellectual with him and see inside his life. We get the opportunity to see that he is a good man corrupted by his misfortune and that his seemingly evil deeds are not nearly as black and white as they may seem. ... Though Norman certainly gets more screen time he has always felt far more two dimensional to me and they missed the mark on many of the more subtle nuances of the character. Personally I think they greatly improved upon Octavius' character giving us something far more fundamental to care about.
Spiderfan posted:I am not sure about your point about the arms. I thought that was clearly established. They were implements that allowed him to perform multiple functions and maintain the energy reaction from a safe distance while not being affected by it.
Spiderfan posted:The Raindrops sequence highlights an important part of Peter's life and the movie as a whole. This is a character who is endlessly beat on by both villains and life and always has to take it with a half-assed grin and make the best of it. For once in his life things are going well all because he cast aside the greatest burden of his life. But soon he is faced with the reality that his gift isn't there for his sake but for others, and that without him the world suffers as much or more than he does when shouldering that responsibility. Its a hard lesson that he has to learn and is one ripped right from the comics. Its that balance and sacrifice that make him a hero. Without the raindrops sequence we only get half the picture of what he is giving up for our sake.
Boba_Fett_2001 posted:I definitely agree with this. The first Spider-Man is pretty good but 2 is simply amazing. And I still haven't seen 3. I don't know if that's good or bad.
The2ndQuest posted:SM4 is already in the works, sorry
The2ndQuest posted:I fully agree actually- it's what I meant by Osborne feeling more shallow, even though he's more developed. He has a more natural progression from introduction to villainhood due to the screen time given to allow him to build to it, whereas Octavius is not given that luxary, yet is portrayed far better and humanely in the little time we are given with him.
The2ndQuest posted:I just don't see it being that deep. It seems it's primary purpose was just to insert a slightly-random, goofier-than-usual sequence to mock Parker to the audience (as we're definitely laughing at him, or, even, laughing at the film for the silliness). It not only feels tonally inconsistent with the rest of the film, but it takes the audience out of the film (granted, it's not as severe an offender as, say, the AOTC fireplace scene, but it still feels like a commercial break in the middle of the film).
Aunt May posted:Everybody loves a hero. People line up for them, cheer them, scream their names. And years later, they'll tell how they stood in the rain for hours just to get a glimpse of the one who taught them how to hold on a second longer. I believe there's a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble, and finally allows us to die with pride, even though sometimes we have to be steady, and give up the thing we want the most. Even our dreams.
