Register a SA Forums Account here!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«4 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Feb 8, 2004

PCXL Fanboy

A really good movie. Not as good as Hellboy, but it is close. Everything good has already been stated, so a couple grievances:

-too much time spent on Peter and MJ staring longingly. It felt like this took up half the movie.
-the 1980's wants their screams back. The next time I hear a girl shrieking her lungs out will be too soon.



Mar 1, 2003
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.


- Good action scenes. The CGI was much better in this one than the first, in my opinion, and enhanced rather than replaced the action scenes.

- Good story, I thought, and the actors did a nice job with the parts they had.

- Just the right amount of comic relief. Jameson the Father is one of my favorite characters, actually.


- The 'completely impervious to heat and magnetism' tentacles. Nothing is impervious to heat and I wonder what kind of shielding protected the electronics in the arms from the magnetic fields without itself being affected by the magnetic fields.

- The "miniature sun" was retarded. I can tolerate "comic-y" science when it's completely beyond the ken of modern technology (see: tentacles, spider bites fusing genetic material). But I like movies attempting to incorporate "real" science to at least have a passingly accurate attempt at it.

- The destruction of the device at the end. In the real world, slightly rotating one of the pyres out of alignment would have caused a significant asymmetry to allow the system to dissipate, with possibly minor consequences, over a period of time. "Drowning" it only immerses it into a gigantic body of easily sucked in fluid material to add to its fusion mass.

- The plot was too broken and stop-start in my opinion. It seemed to get going then fall flat and did that several times throughout the movie. It was a good plot, but wasn't smooth.

I gave a 3/5 because of the poorly done science and choppy execution of the plot. Didn't think it was as good as the first, but certainly not a terrible movie. I will probably pick the DVD up for a companion to my copy of the first.

Apr 23, 2004


The movie rocked! With that out of the way I wanted to put my .02 in on some of the gripes I have seen in this thread.

I cant find the spoiler code - so be warned!

***** spoilerish stuff**********

There are only two living people that know who spider-man is. Mary-J, and Harry. Doc Oc knew who he was, but is now dead. The people on the train saw his face, but they don’t know who he is. They know he is a young caucasian man with brown hair and an average build. Lets see, its NY, it could be about 1.5 million different guys. I’m curious if Aunt May knows. I think she does. I think she figured it out on the side of the building. She seams to let on to her knowledge while packing and talking to Peter.

As for spider-man 3. I don’t want anymore villains in masks. I know it has been stated before, but having the goblin in a mask really hurt the first movie. Doc Oc really brought life to the villain in this one, don’t cover him up again in the next film!

doctor 7
Oct 10, 2003

In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

Best super hero movie I've ever seen, and definately one of the best movies I've ever seen.


May 1, 2003
wash mildly, mosh wildly

Horrible, horrible movie for so many reasons. Mainly, all the characters were poorly acted and unintersting and even unlikable. There were pointless soliloquies out of nowhere, and like the first one, there were major plotholes that really ruined it. The only part of the movie I liked was Bruce Campbell's cameo.


Jan 5, 2001


I loved this movie. I'm still too stunned by how much I loved it to write a decent review of it, but that doesn't matter since other people already wrote better reviews. I love the spider-man character, I love the conflict he has between his ideals and the realities of his life. For me, the whole movie falls into place. I never thought it dragged, I enjoyed every minute of it. Spider-man 2 is my favorite movie of all time. If I could sit here and watch it on loop for days, I would. I can understand that people thought it dragged in parts. As I was watching it I picked those parts out. I could easily tell when spidey was CGI (he looked like he was made of plastic). I didn't care. When Doc Ock's fusion ball started sucking it parts of New York City yet somehow did not suck in the metal car next to it, I noticed, but I completely overlooked it. I loved every second of this movie. It was perfect.


Jan 15, 2001

As Seen in Print!

It was a drat fine movie, but I'm going to have to go against the curve and say Spidey 1 was better. There was too much time spent between Parker and MJ, and while I certainly don't mind Kirsten Dunst getting as much screen time as possible, they made kissey faces at each other for far too long.

What action was there, though, was top notch. Couldn't have asked for any better. Just needed a smidgen more. The CG was fan-freakin'-tastic. My wife put it best when she compared Doc Ock's tentacles to the Velociraptors of Jurrasic Park.

There were a couple of moments that really ruined the 5-star for me, though. Namely, When JJJ was waxing poetic about Spiderman being a hero with the suit pinned to the wall behind him, and suddenly SWOOSH the suit is missing with a comically-large fonted printed note left behind... just sad. Also, some of Harry's lines were just horrible. "I have nothing left, except the Spiderman"? Come on.

If the first movie is a 5, Spidey 2 is a 4. drat good, but doesn't quite feel like the first time.

Monkey Lincoln
Dec 1, 2001

I was going to give it a 5 for being completely lacking in Macy Gray, then I noticed it was also lacking in Macho Man Randy Savage.

Voted 4.5/5, like with the last movie.

No Butt Stuff
Jun 10, 2004

I don't think the Harry is going to become the HobGoblin anytime soon.

If that were the case, wouldn't he have put the mask on?
As for Venom, the symbiote has to get attached to Spidey before it becomes Venom. Though, that's probably more likely than Harry trying to kill Spidey in the next movie.

arbeit macht spass
Aug 15, 2002

four walls & adobe slabs

I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but I thought it was pretty bad. I read the comic books as a kid, but regardless of comics having much more room to develop characters, I think the characters were horribly wooden. Peter's anguish in the comics was always more heroic; in the film it seemed just awkward and pathetic, which didn't jive with me...but that's just a personal thing, I guess.

What really bothered me is what follows:

1. The first 15 minutes tried really, really hard to re-establish the first film's events, which just screamed "sequel." Aunt May's line about "can you believe it has been 2 years" is the most flagrant of all; they shouldn't have to have a "previously, on Spider-Man" introduction.

2. Wooden, static characters. J. Jonah Jameson has much more of a human dimension in the comics. He was just a ridiculous caricature of a stingy bastard, which got to be overdone by the point of the caviar comment at the wedding. Harry is either being a yuppie or raving about Spider-Man AT ALL TIMES. If there are no secondary facets to the characters, I get really turned off by them. Yes, it's reflecting a comic-book universe, but clichés fly a lot more easily in comics than in movies, and for good reason.

3. HAY GUYS DO WE HAVE ENOUGH SIGHT GAGS? Seriously, I didn't need thirty seconds of "oh noes the mops won't go back into the closet!" Yes, there is a certain degree of humor in the comics, but does Peter need to get conked in the head while picking up his books four times? Does he have to snatch away the pizza slice? Uh-oh -- Aunt May kicked the wrong guy! It was funny at first, but it got really, really old.

4. Some movies are didactic without ever stating their themes, but this movie had some of the worst scripting I have ever read. "Punch me, I bleed!" had me and my friends ing at its amazing awkwardness, but the entire conversation about subverting your desires and giving up your dreams was so hammy and awkwardly-written. The fact that some of those lines ("I have nothing left but Spider-Man!") made it in to the script boggles my mind.

5. Why the take-offs of other movies? The scene where Peter trips and falls while strutting looks straight out of "Road Trip," the rooftop-running scene was straight out of "the Matrix" (and was goofy in the absolute extreme) and the whole MJ running in a wedding dress with that goofy look on her face was just....straight out of an '80s music video. I thought it was absolutely retarded.

On the positive side -- awesome action sequences. Really, really awesome CG, too.

All in all, it was a waste of money. Despite the changes and omissions, LOTR seemed much more like a labor of love on the part of Peter Jackson than Spider-Man does on the part of Sam Raimi. I read some rave reviews and was expecting something great, I guess, and what I got was just about the schlockiest movie I have ever seen in my life. It's a real shame.


Sep 6, 2003

Sometimes you have to do things that you hate, so you can survive to fight another day.


tuckfard came out of the closet to say:
Wow I really loved this movie. To me it is definitely the best comic book movie yet. The whole movie was fun as hell. I drat near cried twice, too


me too

great movie. i watched a download, but for certain i'll be seeing it at the cinema when it's released here so i can get the full CGI effect and the sound atmosphere.

i love the way they managed to inject the same camp humour i loved so much from the first Spiderman movie into this sequel. it's the little things that make it shine just as much as the big things (like the train fight). it did, however, seem to drag a little towards the end.

i understand they had to make something of Harry finding out Peter is Spiderman (finding his fathers stash), and it wouldn't be Hollywood if MJ didn't leave prettyboy at the altar. but still, like i say, it kinda dragged.


Jul 17, 2001

The Ultimate Showdown

I was very disappointed by this movie, I think largely because I bought into the hype from everyone else who had seen it. My instincts were telling me that itd be no better than the first one, but I had no idea that it would be as bad as it turned out to be.

As im sure most of this has already been pointed out, ill be concise to show that Im not trolling.

- The first 45 mins of the movie dragged on like no other movie Ive ever seen. We all get that Peter's life is hosed because of his choice of being spiderman, but the melodrama was ridiculous.

- Mary Jane's dialogue was horrible, especially when it came to her play. I almost walked out when we had to hear her hackned British accent.

- There was no emotion in the dynamic between Peter and Mary. Or at least the dialogue made it feel that way. Example: Peter: "Ive been reading poetry." MJ: "Whatever that means."

- The useless moments thrown in for no reason. 1. The elevator gag- couldve been 1 minute shorter. 2. The Broom closet - okay wtf? 3. Aunts monologue - we get the loving point already 4. Cake with Kate Moss - why? 5. Spiderman doesnt need a mask

- The Evil arms. Why exactly were they evil? And why did they want to do the experiment again?

- Bruce Campbell's cameo. Oh please, hook a brotha up. A loving pushy usher, poo poo, make him Peter's professor, give him something distinguished.

- Superman 2 syndrome. Okay so you spend half the movie illuding to the fact that being Spiderman is ruining Peters life. And he becomes Spiderman again only to save MAry Jane? At least Superman wasnt being so shallow.

- Doc Ocks pointless actions. Okay so he needed the element to reproduce the experiment, why not just threaten wussy Osborne Jr's life to get it? Why go to all the trouble of finding Peter, taking MJ, fighting Spiderman, only to be possibly be stopped by Spidey?

- Peter Parker the pussy. Please man, make me not loathe seeing him on the screen. I dont know if it's the combination of Tobey MacGuire and the writing, or just the writing, but throw PP a bone here.

- Disappointing climax. Okay the fight on the train was decent, so we are going to set this off right, no the final fight is 5 mins of wussery.

With the exception of Alfred Molina's acting, everything in this movie makes me want to never see another Spiderman movie again, ever.


Jan 28, 2003

This movie was just way too slow, and had too much pointless drama going on for me to like it. I wanted to love the fight sequences, but the CGI was especially bad so it pretty much ruined that aspect of it too. Wayyyyyyy too many 3-Stooges slapstick comedy parts. I was close to walking out at a few points. It just wasn't my cup of tea.


Oct 19, 2001

Your party has died.
Please press [ENTER] to continue to the
Las Vegas Bowl

This movie was everything they've been saying. It's by far the best superhero movie that I've ever seen. As far as people knocking it for the science/physics stuff, it's a freaking comic book! Things don't always have to make sense in real life, quit thinking about all the science poo poo and enjoy the freggin movie.

Anyways I could see the 3rd movie being Jameson bringing the symbiote back and Peter fighting the green goblin 2 using the black suit. Then in the 4th one we see him get rid of the suit in the begining and then venom emerges for the final battle.

/edit: I did have a problem with him taking his mask off so much. He should have left it on in a few places, but then we wouldn't have seen the emotion that was trying to be expressed.

Jul 8, 2004


I liked this film a lot more than I expected to. While I passively enjoyed the first film as a fun excuse to eat popcorn, this one actually pulled me in like a good drama. I saw it on opening day without reading any reviews, so the emotional angle took me completely by suprise. It was definately a pleasant suprise though. All the characters were well acted (except Harry, his dialogue came off corny most of the time)and the comedy moments were actually funny instead of out of place like most gags in action movies. Some times the plot dragged and I felt there was a strange lack of action for an "action movie" but all-in-all it was excellent. 4.5/5

Feb 4, 2004

by Fistgrrl

Quite possibly one of if not the best movie sequel I have ever seen.

Let's start with the story.

Picking up 2 years after the first movie much has changed. Mary Jane is a successful Broadway star, Harry Osborne has inherited his father's company, Aunt May is facing financial difficulties, and Peter Parker's life is torn in two. Between his super-hero alter ego and his mild-mannered self, he's in an identity crisis like nothing else.

Sam Raimi once again takes the silliness of a comic book and translates it into one of the most entertaining and expertly molded Action/Comedy/Romance films ever.

Peter's internal strife is well done and we get to see him struggle with the burden he bears of being a champion of the people as he decides what he must sacrifice to live the life he wants or needs.

The actor's picked fill out there respective roles nicely (Though I would've billed Elton John as Doc Ock.) J. Jonah Jameson's is easily the most expertly and impressively amusing parts.

The CG has been massively improved and looks much more realistic than the previous film. Almost as if they really mo-capped two people falling off a building and pummeling eachother.

There are several really moving scenes. The train, Final Fight with Doc Ock It's been a long time since I got so emotional in a movie theatre.

Not much else to praise that hasn't been praised before. But I definitely recommend this flick.

And to all you haters who are bothered by Spider-man's unmasking on the train Sit and think for a minute. A whole train of people know what he looks like. Not who he is. How many Newspaper photographers put their own pictures next to the ones they run?

5.5/5, best film of the year, bar none. I liked it so much I saw it twice at full price.

Jan 17, 2004

this is not what I wanted

Probably the best movie I've seen so far this year.
Molina steals the show and deserved more buildup.


May 20, 2004

I must say I was very suspicious about the almost total lack of negative reviews (the conspiracy-like total lack of negative reviews, IMO at the time). But after seeing the movie I now understand why. This movie is simply amazing in every way.
DocOct is the most perfect movie villain I have ever seen, and just about every other thing about this movie is great.
The end was just a little cheezy, but it totally worked. The whole movie just works.
5/5 no question.

May 20, 2001

I didn't really like it. Too much slapstick (Peter is clumsy, we get it), too much stupid drama and morals. Stupid fake science, stupid disappearing plotlines (what happened to the girl from next door after the cake scene?). There were some silly plot holes as well, but that's already been mentioned.

The middle hour or so really dragged as well, it could have been shortened a lot if the scenes had been written more succinctly. All in all it was ok, so I voted a 2.5. I really cannot understand why people hail it so much, but I guess I'm just not the intended audience.

Jan 18, 2003

After the first viewing I probably would have given this a 3/5, but after seeing it twice I am awarding it a 1. Having grown somewhat accustomed to the extremely awesometastic fights, I noticed that this movie has absolutely nothing else going for it. It has the worst script I have ever witnessed (way worse than x-men, somehow), and the half-assed science of the tentacles and very small sun is beyond offensive. Spiderman was a wonderful movie, and this one had the potential to be as good or better. Instead it is garbage. X2 remains the greatest comic book movie ever, in my mind.

I think a lot of my complaints have been covered in other posts, but here's 3 small objections I had that I have not seen elsewhere.

--MJ, upset because Peter missed her play, says that all of their years as best friends amounted to nothing but an empty seat. What years were these? At the end of the first movie they were barely friends, and 2 years later she says it's been a while since she's seen him.

--The magnetism of the baby sun, all the time. My least favorite part is when all those necklaces go flying off, and then a closeup on Rose shows her earrings have not been torn from her ears. Are they plastic?

--Doc Oc explains that he designed the tentacles to be impervious to heat or magnetism. A reporter asks him whether the AI he has just described could pose a threat, but he hasn't said a word remotely alluding to any AI at that point.

Nov 18, 2000

Awesome movie.

Things I liked:

- The characters (and the actors who play them) made the movie for me. I thought that everyone did an incredible job, with the possible exception of Kirsten Dunst, but she did a good enough job that I bought the package. Maguire is great as Peter, Molina did a hell of a Doc Ock, and I absolutely love Simmons' Jameson.

- Lots of little jokes and humorous scenes. The scene where Spidey is in the elevator with that guy had me dying, just because they played that "uncomfortable elevator silence" sooooo well. I loved the nod toward the comic cheese too (Jameson: "A guy named Otto Octavius winds up with eight limbs. What are the odds!").

- They also played the tragedy well. I really felt terrible for Peter Parker / Spider-Man for all of the poo poo he was going through. It made the happy ending that much more impactful.

Giving this one a 5.

Jul 10, 2004
Dark Pope

I was disappointed by this film, as I always am by comic to live action adaptations. btw this whole post is going to be one long rant.

I mean seriously the story arc is way overdone, I expect someone to surprise me not just spoon feed me this regurgitated plot line. I will admit that the fighting does look nice, but eye candy was all this film has going for it. They alter the characters in such a way that they either embellish or radically change their persona so it can fit North American cinema. Like Peter Parker's nerdiness, over done, seen it in the first one, get over it. The problem is reducing the large and complex comic world into a 2 hour film always gets to me because they bother too much with the details instead of trying to envelope the audience in the vastness of the universe.

For example when he gives up his powers because they're failing him. This is where the action descends and the character tries to develop. Umm, it took up half the movie. Honestly the part where he's walking down the street and has to put on his glasses to see again was a dumb scene that in my opinion did nothing for the film. Oh I'm sure the 8 year olds would giggle, but I was banging my head against the seat.

Anyways all I'm saying is this film fails to do for me what I think it fails to do for a lot of other people, which is tell the entire story of Spiderman. I don't want to wait til Spiderman 10 til they introduce Carnage. Like throw in 2 or 3 villains, have some cross overs. MIX IT UP GODDAMMIT! And I wonder why more fanbois are not more outraged. I was reading one of the earlier posts and the guy was still happy with the film even though they made Doc Oct more braun than brains. That's the kind of poo poo I don't appreciate.

Anyways I gave this thing a 2.5 simply because this movie draws in people like the one who sat behind me in the theatre with a bemusing laugh that stole the show.


p.s. I don't read comics, this is just a review by someone who likes to be entertained.

May 16, 2004

4/5. the action rocked. the writing was horrible. I'm not sure if they were going for the comicbook-esqe style of writing or they just suck.

Mr. Stingly
Sep 1, 2001

Satanic cop-killing henchman with a heart of gold

I really really wanted to love this movie. I love Spider-Man. I love the comics.

I felt the first movie was extremely lacking in action. It just needed MORE action scenes, and less loving stupid Tobey Maguire romance. But I forgave it, because it had an excuse, being Spider-Man's origin.

Number 2 has no excuse. Spider-Man is an exceptionally cheerful, happy-go-lucky hero. Any time he gets all whiny and depressed in the comics is when it gets really gay and lovely. If you want angst and brooding about how depressing being a hero is, you've got Batman.

He spends way too long dicking around with this internal conflict and not enough time busting thugs and cracking one-liners. Peter's motivation for being Spider-Man is NOT exclusively "with great power comes great responsibility." It's that his family raised him with huge boy-scout morals and the idea of justice and right and wrong. His sense of right and wrong is practically another superpower.

The idea that he would just get fed up of his conflicting responsibilities is crazy. It's like an abortion clinic bomber suddenly deciding he's going to turn his back on his beliefs and just get a job and go to college, because blowing up clinics is making him miss bible school. Spider-Man is a loving fanatic about saving people. It's in his goddam bones.

That's why Spider-Man is such a great character. He does what he does because it's RIGHT!!! There's no stupid revenge for my murdered family/parents. Uncle Ben just kick started him. But he's been kicking rear end for 40 years because it's just the right thing to do. You can feel it in every one-liner he spouts off to the Shocker or Venom or Dock Ock, or a priest. When you make it so he just throws that off, it gets stupid. I got pissed off when he just let those thugs beat that kid up. All he has to do his throw them off the kid. He didn't even seem like it bothered him too much to let those guys beat the poo poo out of that dude. Oh wait, he magically lost his powers. Kind of dumb, since they are as much a part of him as breathing and blinking.

The action scenes were excellent. They were actually punching the crap out of eachother! Doc Ock was able to take a little too much punishment (his arms are the superstrong part of him, not his face.), but that is fine with me, since it extended the fighting. Truly great Spidey action. There weren't enough one-liners, and I don't think it usually takes that many punches from Spider "I can punch bricks out of a chimney with ease" Man to take down a non-superstrength badguy.

I'm glad this movie did so well with critics. I want them to love comic movies, so more get made. I want them to love Spider-Man. But I don't want the movie to loving pander to them! When Entertainment Weekly's stupid elitist girl movie reviewer gives it an A, I know something's wrong.

Ugh. Now I'm all worked up with nerd rage.

That entire thing made me annoyed with the movie. I want to see SPIDER-loving-MAN, not Peter Parker.

I'm glad everyone likes it, but number 1 was more Spider-Man than this one. Since I'm all angry now, I'm giving it 2.5/5, despite some excellent action.

Wee Bairns
Feb 10, 2004

Jack Tripper's wingman.

I just saw it and was suitably impressed enough to vote 5 with confidence. Yes, it dragged on in several part, and yes, it was cheezy in parts, but it was still a helluva movie. I blinked once and almost missed Stan Lee.

Jul 23, 2003


NaughtyPenguin came out of the closet to say:

-The eeeevill arms. Ok - so they have some AI that assists the user, and makes it possible to control the arms without having to spend years adapting to tentacle-like appendages. They come out of nowhere - that's ok, the audience was expecting them sooner, rather than later. I can accept that they are controlled via direct neural link. The metal spine looks nice and sinister as it attaches.

There! Right then! Did you catch it? That little blue thing at apex of the spine, that's the point where the believability starts getting thin. At this point, we can still say "Ok, the inhibitor keeps his higher brain functions from being affected by the arms' artificial intelligence. Hell, if that weren't there, he might have trouble speaking or using creative problem solving, since the feedback from a mind-machine interface could be disruptive otherwise.

That's not what the inhibitor does, however. In fact, the arms are INHERENTLY EVIL. That's correct. Remember that movie, Idle Hands? Me neither. Think Army of Darkness, then (I think. It might be Evil Dead II. Been a while). Bruce Cambell's hand turns evil. It wants to kill him, and cause mayhem in general. His hand becomes inherently evil, and he cuts it off with a chainsaw. This is ok. Hell, it's even funny, beacuse once Bruce grafts the chainsaw onto the stump, he's got a chainsaw for a hand. And that's quality.

Sadly, this doesn't translate quite as well to a serious action movie. The arms defend themselves from being cut off. This is still believable, I think; Otto's subconcious could have been controlling the arms - the dark part of him that surfaced as a result of killing his wife could have wanted to strike out, and a programmed AI protocol to restrict damage to the arms could have acted on that...and set up a wonderful little start to Otto's descent into villany. Instead, in the next scene, Otto hears a voice in his head, while the snakelike arms click and hiss like his very own personal Serpent. The AI, for some reason, wants to be that little devil on his shoulder, with massive cybernetic implants.

Maybe it would work if you believed that the influence of the arms was entirely his subconcious - sinister serpentine movement and all. But the concept of the inhibitor chip contradicts that, as does his very swift descent to evil. Maybe I'm just too nitpicky, but hey - I like my villains human.

the arms weren't inherently evil... killing the doctors, like you said, was in self defense. but the arms for the rest of the movie were only trying to do what they were built to do: handle and maintain that supernova energy thing. They attacked all those people, including spiderman and peter parker in turn, because they were jeopardizing his project. The arms saw spiderman rip the machine out of the wall, so it blames him for the energy device failure. That's why the arms hate spiderman. Also, the reason doc ocks arms attack spiderman is because harry was willing to give all the tritium or whatever to doc ock if he brought spiderman to harry. What I'm trying to say is that the arms were only trying to do what they were built to do, be that in "evil" ways or not, the arms can't distinguish. They are only trying to get the job done.

Dec 22, 2003

Kirsten Dunst = Yum


Apr 23, 2004

That was the cheesiest horrible movie with the worst acting I've ever seen. How the hell can 90% of close-ups on Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst making cheesy lines be called an action movie? The dialogue was just horrendous. At the beginning MJ goes "It was nice seeing you tonight Peter." and he replies with "Oh boy, yeah."
What the hell?
I don't get why people are calling this movie amazing or anything. It's a mediocre effort at best. Nothing amazing about it, just a cheap flick with cheesy acting and horrible dialogue.


Bloated Pussy
Jun 8, 2002

dont read my posts

  • Awesome CGI and awesome action.
  • Dr. Octo gets his own bullet. He's just plain awesome, from the way he looks, to how he talks, to how he moves... it's all excellent.
  • The middle third is boring, I didn't enjoy any of the "I don't want to be Spiderman" stuff.
  • Kirsten Dunst. I hate her acting, I hate how she looks, I hate her.
  • I'm not going to nitpick the science or the realism of anything because I'm not retarded. But the reason Dr. Octo's arms behave the way they do is never really discussed, aside from "if I don't have this chip on my neck, the arms will control me instead of me controlling them". So why does this make them automatically evil?
  • A few spots of bad dialouge ... "You punch me, I bleed" -- is that more poetry? Or is he really saying it?

Far too flawed to be a 5.0, but it's certainly better than the first and is an excellent summer popcorn flick.

Jan 19, 2001

All Hail Big Hairy Mike

5.5 from me. Even its flaws were perfect, no matter how ludicrous they became (drowning a mini-sun in a river? ahh, comic book magic at it's best). Solid cast giving equally solid performances, a plot that balances everything perfectly - drama, humor and action - and visual effects that, even when obviously CG, just plain work make this what I consider to be the perfect comic-book movie, action movie, or 'summer blockbuster' movie.

Apr 10, 2003

Infinite Crisis Death
Wild Guess #1010
Braniac "Indigo" 8.0
"Looks like someone's
trying to corrupt

I'm a comic fan, not a spiderman fanboy. I'm also a film fan though, so I went in to this pretty open minded despite all the hype. I was disapointed by the film, and when I got home I actually got annoyed at the comic references that were missing and/or needlessly wrong.

There were too many harks back to Raimi's old stuff or other such rubbish, I personally don't think that Doc Ock was handled very well at all (he had about one line that recognised the fact his wife dying), Spiderman was too depressing. It's all well and good Peter being so down in the dumps, but Spiderman still isn't the cocky and self-assured super hero we all loved in the comics.

Technically it dragged on too much in far too many places, and I felt the editting was piss poor. Raimi over indulged with his stuff that will only make the fanboys blind to the inherent flaws of the rest of the film, but make them feel like fapping all the way home.

The only good points were the action sequences, even the CGI was only OK, I don't understand where all this "awesome" CGI was, I could still tell plain as day where the spiderman was cgi or not. At least in Spiderman 1 you could pass it off as "cartoony" and having a comic like edge, but this time they've obviously not been trying for that, and ruin the whole feeling.

I never wanted to admit it, but Kirsten Dunst was poor in this film, as was Maguire if I'm perfectly honest. They're far too...wooden isn't the word, but intensive in their one mood/feeling. You keep getting hit on the head over and over again.

And half of New York bloody well knows who spiderman is now! I mean honestly... "we won't tell mister". If you're going to bring this to the modern age, then bring the modern age attitude. I know you're going all "pro-new york" Mr Raimi, but don't be mistaken that half the people on that train these days would have sold the story of how they saw spiderman with a description to the Daily Bugel straight away.

Women. loving. Screaming. Need I say more?

If I wasn't a comic fan, and I hadn't heard any hype, I could still only give this movie a 3 out of 5. As it is the film was poorly made bar the action sequences, and the CGI was *ok*. The story *should* have been lifted from the comic's, but they got so much wrong in my eyes. The only things they got right was old JJ Jameson again, and Harry, especially at the end.

As it stands, I can only grudgingly give it 1 out of 5, considering how good Spiderman 1 was.

Feb 21, 2004


Holy. loving. poo poo.

I finally just saw Spiderman 2, and let me tell you - this is best drat superhero movie ever made. In all of human history.

The film had surprising emotional depth, awesome action, and great acting. Great plot/story, script, etc. etc. etc. There were a few plot holes, but nothing too detracting. Also note that I have never read a Spiderman comic book (I've actually only read half 1 comic book, which was Superman, in my entire life, so I'm no superhero fanboy). Other films of this genre only grab you and have you waiting for more of the action scenes; "Spiderman2" grabbed you and had you waiting for more in both the action and non-action scenes. I am totally pleasantly surprised. I was expecting cheese, but Sam Raimi has just earned my newfound respect.

Something is lacking and/or could have been done better, thus a 4.25/5 (round up to 4.5 in SA's scale). Still a HIGHLY SUPER ENJOYABLE MOVIE that I recommend to everyone.


Edit: The first time I saw the rear end in a top hat usher, I was like, "Wait a sec, that can't be...why, WTF, that's Bruce loving Campbell! Why the gently caress was he casted? Oh, LOLers!"

Aug 16, 2004


Spider-Man, for me, has always been about his sense of fun. Peter Parker is a man with as many witty comebacks as he has love and devotion to the people he cares about. But for all his mad scientific skillz and refusal to be talked down to, Peter's life is frequently weighed down with problems. Money problems are a dominant issue. Girl problems are another one. Being Spider-Man is the ultimate escape from that. It's where Peter can truly cut loose and experience freedom from his problems. It gives him the power to say and do everything he wants to. Because when he's Spidey, the other stuff falls away and he can do good for everybody. How many times as a kid did I see Peter's head beneath a thought bubble that expresses exactly this — the idea that he can escape from the problems on his mind by ducking into an alley or closet and performing the quick change? If Peter Parker feels down, the Spider-Man side of him can still feel good. It's only when Spidey fails to do what makes him feel so good — when he fails to save a life or make a difference — that suddenly even being Spidey is weighed down with doubt and pain.

I wanted to see Peter having more fun in the first movie than he did. But he does have some fun — he yells with glee as he swings around the city and gets his one or two jabs at the Goblin or Jonah in. Not many wisecracks, no, but he's just starting out, after all. I was hoping for more of the wisecracking hero in part two.

When a sequel rolls around, it's hard to escape the natural attitude of "What have you done for me lately?" The successes of the first go-round are taken for granted. Spider-Man 2 still has an awesomely acrobatic Spidey, a proper costume, and solid casting. Those were the high points of the flawed original movie. But this is the second go-round, and my attitude is that this is where you correct the old mistakes as well as develop in new directions. To this end, I'm pleased to report that Spider-Man 2 contains very few scenes where Peter is doing or saying painfully embarassing things. I'm also happy to state that Mary Jane gets maybe one or two scenes of strength — unfortunately, though, she's still not as strong as I care to see her.

And finally, nothing's changed about Peter sense of fun as Spidey except that it's gone down. Way, way down. And now we hit the core of what I'm trying to get at here.

This is where I get into my complaints with Spider-Man 2.


1) The movie, overall, simply is not very fun to watch. This is easily the biggest problem for me, as you would no doubt expect from what I have stated thus far. Angst and depression can be fun in their own unique way when it's appropriate to the character and/or handled in an enjoyable way. But I don't think it's appropriate to the character and it's definitely not handled in an enjoyable way — the scenes detailing why Peter's life is poo poo are just painful and unpleasant to watch.

2) As an extension of the above... the movie spends most of its running time focused on soapy drama. I'm not talking about an exploration of what drives an individual to do certain things or a look into human frailties in the face of desperate situations — you know, things that could be intriguing. I'm talking about love triangles, friendships torn asunder, and a heaping helping of stupid accusations, assumptions and misunderstandings based on a lack of information rather than anything interesting. You know, daytime soap crap. This is far and away the majority of the movie, and takes up far more of the film than anything else, including time spent with either Spider-Man or Doc Ock (or, in truth, the combination of both). It seems clear, then, that Raimi cares more about this stuff than anything else in the movie. Perhaps he shouldn't be making so-called superhero films. I'm sure this would fit nicely into The Gift.

3) Doc Ock has good points and bad points. We're going to have to talk about the bad points right now, though, and the biggest is easily that he barely seems to have any loving screen time. Compared to the Goblin in the first film, we get almost no time to get to know Doc Ock, and Spidey barely even encounters him throughout the movie . It's especially frustrating for me because I think he's easily the definitive Spider-Man villain above all else. But that's the original Doc Ock I'm talking about. The film's interpretation is full of artistic license. In this respect, Doc Ock has just successfully stolen the gimmicks of both The Lizard and Venom from the comic books. To be fair, these characters have not been brought into the movies, so at least it seems new and different to those who are only familiar with the flicks. On the other hand, it sure does limit the number of villains you can safely use in future sequels without looking like you're doing the same poo poo over and over and over. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

4) Mary Jane: Stone Cold Bitch? Look at how she acts in that final scene. Now consider what she's just done.

5) One of the major arcs of the flick, which deals with Spidey's powers faltering, is so patently asinine that I'm not sure I should even need to explain why it sucks.

6) If MJ is the Stone Cold Bitch, at least Peter is the Flaming Nimrod of Epic Proportions. He'll reveal his identity to anybody he meets down on a street corner. Peter reveal his secret to your momma fo two fuckin' dollah. People complain that Daredevil is pretty lax about hiding his identity in the comics, but this is ridiculous.

7) Since I've established that I always thought of Peter Parker as a man with a strong ability to whip out a comeback, I can't say I'm very happy with the portrayl of PP as someone who will take absolutely any punishment that can be dished out to him. He acts as though he deserves every harsh word and slap to the face and would like to ask for some more, and maybe he really believes that he does... but, as with most of the things I mention here, I just don't care for going that direction. I have no tolerance for protagonists without spines.

10) I really wish we had seen more Spider-Man. The first movie was an origin story, and with that out of the way I figured we could really get down to it with Spidey this time out. Bring the action up a notch, really show us Spidey doing his thing in his prime. A lot of people will scoff at comic book movie fans and say "Oh, you just didn't like that movie because you wanted more action!" but in an origin film like the first Spidey or Hulk, I don't necessarily expect or need to have that much action, just good characters and a good story. But in this case, I must sheepishly admit that... yeah, I kinda did want the action. We didn't get less than the first time, but I did want more.


1) The action was definitely kicked up a notch and way more exciting this time out. Too bad there's almost none of it.

2) Regardless of my feelings on the soapier scenes as a whole, the performances were pretty much dynamite.

3) Regardless of my feelings on Doc Ock's portrayal in the film, I think he's realized perfectly in not only a performance sense, but a visual sense. The tentacles are kind of mezmerizing to watch, the way they snap with personality or light up a cigar. The outfit Ock pulls together is very cool, much better than the freaky green leotard he's famous for. Whereas Green Goblin was tweaked into a debatable visual realization, Ock is tweaked into something that captures his look with style and substance.

4) The "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head" sequence is utterly hilarious. At multiple points. Really. It goes to show that this movie does, in fact, have a good sense of humor on those rare occasions that it tries to, which is the point I want to make here.

5) Characterizations, while not being what I might want to see, are always believable for what we know of the characters so far or learn of them in this film. There is never any problem with me thinking that "he/she definitely wouldn't do that," even if it's something that doesn't seem to make much sense (as mentioned in the Bad Points list).

Do you see what I'm trying to say here? I'm very frustrated with the movie's decisions. I don't agree with the storytelling ideas here because this is not MY Spider-Man, it's the not the character I always liked, it's something else... something far less fun, something I don't find too enjoyable. Yet it's a very well-made movie. What it does, it does well. It has a few good points going for it. And it's understandable that the critics would react well to the movie as long as it's internally consistent and features great performances. It is and it does. In the end, pretty much all of the good points and bad points of the first film are here, and the new stuff is largely not to my liking.

At this point, I'm pretty much giving up the ghost. I'll do my best to stop hoping that Sam Raimi will give me the character that I grew up with, or that he'll show me the style and traits that I dream of seeing. A lot of people out there are happy with this, and this is his vision. Just because I think it's a mistake doesn't mean it's going anywhere. If I want to see my Spidey, I'll just have to watch that MTV animated series from last year.

As far as live-action goes, I'll stick to the first flick. This one gets a disappointing 1.5/5.

Nov 23, 2002

4/5. The comic might dictate this and that, but many scenes and dialogue seemed very out-of-place and didn't work in a movie. Also, way too many clichés.

Sep 21, 2002

Wanna see a demonstration of my school? It's called "Eight Leaves, One Very Big Stick"!

Nap Ghost

I liked the first one a lot, but I didn't like this one as much.

The first half really dragged on with problem after problem showing how being Spider-man is ruining Peter Parker's like completely. After a while I wantyed to say "enough already, I get it!" I think they piled a little too much crap on Peter Parker.

He can't even hold down a pizza delivery job, he is failing his classes, and his Aunt is being kicked out of her house. It's quite depressing, and all this setup just makes the ending seem kinda silly "Hay peter you have no money and no job and live in a lovely apartment, let's get hitched!" "OK!"

Oh, and I can't forget the angst. There is way too much time spent with Peter angsting about Mary Jane and Mary Jane angsting about Peter. A little less of that would have been better.

The combat seemed to be more of a live action comic book with two-dimensional characters then it was giving the impression that real people were fighting. Several times Spiderman falls huge, bone-shattering distances and just walks it off. Yes, this was done in the first film, but it was done a lot more in this one.

And the science dialogue showed thatt the writers were blatantly ignorant of what they were talking about. (An unshielded fusion reaction that has a human being standing 5 feet away from it? a reaction that requires robotic tentacles attached to a human? AI in the tentacles?

However, the combat sequences looked great and were very energetic. All the cast members acquitted themselves very well, particluarly Alfred Molino and James Franco.

The Green Goblin Returns ending was excellent.

I might have bitched a lot in this review, but I still thought the movie was OK. 3.5/5

Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2004 around 04:06


Dec 23, 2000


College Slice

To start this off I'll say that I didn't like the first movie. It felt awkward and didn't have anything exciting enough to stick out in my memory.

Spider-man 2 is much, much better. Better use of the characters, better themes, and better action. I had to watch some of the fights over again to catch all the little things Doc Ock's arms and Peter's webs were doing.

Since all of this has been talked about, here are my complaints:

1) I realized I wasn't interested in the romance angle of the first movie because Kirsten and Tobey have no chemistry whatsoever, in my eye. I have trouble viewing them as friends, let alone lovers. Peter certainly pines for MJ well, but there's nothing in return, no spark or even an echo. Since it's not Maquire's problem, I'd like to blame this entirely on:

2) Kirsten Dunst is a terrible actress. She has trouble expressing any emotion and always comes off as the same dull person with a light smile on her face, as if she was staring into space and unaware of what is going on around her, which sometimes breaks into a giggle. I can't buy that she's in danger when a fat man with a bad haircut drags her up the side of a building with four metal arms.

3) I hope that Danny Elfman was only responsible for the credit theme, because I like Elfman and whoever ripped off the opening of Hellraiser II for the score when the Doc puts on his metal arms should be hung. Before they're hung I'd like them to try to explain the difference by humming both tunes, then record it and play it for laughs along with Vanilla Ice's interview about how he didn't steal from David Bowie.

Personal - 4
Technical - 4
Rating - 4

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«4 »