Spiderman 2
Cast
Tobey Maguire as Spiderman
Kristen Dunst as Mary Jane Watson
Rater #1
8/10. So far, the summer sequels this year have been good. Shrek 2 comes to mind and now spiderman. There are others that I'll need to see eventually but Spiderman 2 has been at the top of my list.
It was a good thing that they managed to bring back everyone from the cast. I think the movie might have lacked it's sheen if it didn't have it's original cast. If Tobey maguire hadn't been cast as Spiderman again, the movie might have failed. Tobey acted pretty well throughout the whole movie, and he still makes me believe that he will always be spiderman. Kristen was good as Mary Jane again. Actually the whole entire cast was good
Special effects improved but they kind of didn't. I can remember a few beginning scenes that failed to blend themselves to make them look realistic but for the most part they worked.
Since some of the cast is already signed up for Spiderman 3, I'm just excited to see if they can keep the series going instead of running it into the ground. But we'll have to take a wait and see approach. Basically if you haven't seen Spiderman yet, you desperately need to see it.
Rater #2
8/10. The summer of 2003 was the summer of the crappy sequel. Stuff like
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle and Legally Blonde came out, did
marginal box office to dismal reviews, and then left. 2004 seems to
be the summer of the huge sequels. They're universally acclaimed,
like Shrek 2 (except by me), and do huge box office. Spider-Man 2
seems to belong to the latter group. Not just because it was
released in 2004, but it is a worthy sequel to 2002's Spider-Man. It
seems more cinematic, and knows where it's going more than the first
one did.
Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), after being bitten by a genetically
altered spider in the first, has powers of a spider and uses them to
stop crime in New York. But Peter's grades are falling, he loses his
job, and ultimately has to choose between being Peter Parker and
Spider-Man. He chooses the former, but at about the same time, Dr.
Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) performs an experiment that goes
wrong, causing four tentacles to be fused onto his back, hence the
name Dr. Octopus. He and Spider-Man fight.
The special effects, supposedly improved from the first, seemed hit-
or-miss. Much of the CGI looked more obvious, whether it be Spider-
Man's webslinging (he often looked fake) and the green screen.
However, Doc Ock's tentacles were much better than the other CGI
effect, and made the character a whole lot more interesting than the
Green Goblin. I was one of the few who didn't complain about the
Green Goblin in the first, but Doc Ock was just more developed and
seemed more like a menacing villain here. Plus, Molina did a better
job as the villain than Willem Dafoe did in the first (although I
did like his "comeback" here).
However, it seemed like Doc Ock was all but forgotten for much of
the movie. The plot, instead of centering around Spider-Man, centers
around Peter and his conflicts. Sure, he has to decide between which
he wants to be, but mostly it's about Peter's relationships. I'm
cool with that, except there was barely any action in the movie. A
couple fight scenes, but those mainly consisted of Spider-Man and
Doc Ock punching each other. Why not use your powers to save
yourself? I must admit, when they did use their powers, it was a lot
better than the first, mainly because the villain was better. I also
appreciated the more mature style of the whole movie. After re-
watching the first, it seemed pandered for children, while this one
seemed more mature.
The script takes its time, allowing the relationships to deepen
between the characters. There's some great scenes that don't really
involve Spider-Man at all (such as Peter and Aunt May at the table),
but at times, you're just waiting for something action related to
come up. I'm not even sure if this could be considered an action
movie, with the scarcity of the action scenes. But it definitely is
a super-hero movie, and a worthy one at that. Sam Raimi knows his
stuff, and creates a conglomeration of everything-some action,
mainly drama, but homages to his Evil Dead series, King Kong, and
even Maguire back injury that almost caused him to not star in this
movie. Although Bryan Singer's X-Men may have started the whole
comic book craze, Raimi's direction of the Spider-Man movies made
the good ones what they are today. To that, I think he deserves a
lot of credit.
Maguire, again, is pretty good, but I can't stop thinking about what
Jake Gyllenhaal (his replacement while Maguire's back was injured)
would have been like in the role. Probably better, since he did play
a superhero in Donnie Darko. Kirsten Dunst, as love interest Mary
Jane, is almost universally panned, but I find no fault with her
acting. But, as I said before, Molina shines here. It's obvious he's
having the most fun with his role, along with whatever acting chops
are necessary, and the combination's staggering. He's come a long
way from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Is Spider-Man 2 the best comic
book movie? No, I think that goes to The Hulk. Is it the best comic
book movie sequel? It is so far, until (hopefully) The Hulk 2 is
made.
Rated PG-13 for stylized action violence.
Running time: ? minutes
Back Home