Alexander Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 Just got back from seeing this. It was -- no pun intended -- amazing. It certainly raises the stakes. Much better plotting (novelist Michael Chabon, author of Wonder Boys and the comic-book themed The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, co-wrote the story), less heavy-handed dialogue (although Aunt May still has some klunky speeches), INCREDABLE effects, great acting and a villian who doesn't wear a plastic fright-mask. It all adds up to one of the best comic-book based films since Superman the Movie. [Warning: Spoilers follow] It is truly staggering how much Spider-Man continuity they manage to squeeze into a little over two hours. Doc Ock's origin, the "Spider-Man, No More" story arc, Harry discovering that his father was the Green Goblin, on-screen appearences from both Doc Conners (The Lizard) and Col. John Jamison (The Man-Wolf), plus tons of Peter Parker as the original hard-luck hero (including a couple of unmaskings) and the continuing "will-he/won't he" romance with M.J. And it never feels rushed. No character feels short-changed. Toby Maguire IS Peter Parker. He inhabits the role the way Christopher Reeve WAS Clark Kent. The actor who plays Doc Ock is wonderful. He gets Ock's casual cruelty to the proverbial T. Eight thumbs way up from me! Quote
Free For All Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 The actor who plays Doc Ock is wonderful. He gets Ock's casual cruelty to the proverbial T. Alfred Molina. He's done some good work in films. He was great in Chocolat. Sounds like Spidey 2 is worth seeing! Quote
Claude Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 Slightly off-topic: Teen arrested in alleged effort to bootleg "Spider-man 2'' - ALEX VEIGA, AP Business Writer Wednesday, June 30, 2004 (06-30) 18:00 PDT LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A 16-year-old was arrested early Wednesday in a theater showing "Spider-man 2" after a projectionist using night vision goggles saw him using a camcorder to make an illegal copy of the superhero sequel. The teen could be charged under a law that went into effect Jan. 1 and makes taking a recording device into a movie theater a crime punishable by up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $2,500. The Los Angeles District Attorney's office is expected to review the case and determine whether to charge the teen, who was released into his parents' custody, said Sgt. Mel Amoroso, a spokesman at the Los Angeles Police Department's Devonshire Division. The film industry's trade group hailed the arrest and credited its recent initiative to offer cash rewards of up to $500 to theater employees who turn in moviegoers attempting to make illicit film copies. "In theaters nationwide, there are now thousands of eyes looking for camcording-pirates and this incident proves that pirates who use these devices in theaters will be caught," said James W. Spertus, vice president and director of antipiracy operations for the Motion Picture Association of America. Camcorders account for 92 percent of all illegal copies of films that appear for sale over the Internet and are sold on street corners from Burbank to Beijing, according to the MPAA. The teen, whose identity was not made public, was among the throngs of midnight movie viewers across the country who crowded theaters for the debut of the "Spider-man" sequel. According to the MPAA, the projectionist at the Pacific Winnetka theater in the Los Angeles suburb of Chatsworth spotted the teen using a camcorder a few minutes into the start of the film. He and two other individuals with him were escorted out of the theater by security and turned over to the police. The camcorder contained a recording of the beginning of the film, the MPAA said. "Hundreds of people have put tens of thousands of hours into making a truly great picture, and the notion of having it stolen and sent out for free around the world is just plain wrong," said Jeff Blake, vice chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, the film company behind "Spider-man 2." http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...2100EDT0173.DTL Quote
Soulstation1 Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 imo spiderman 1 wasn't that good ss1 Quote
sal Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 imo spiderman 1 wasn't that good ss1 I agree, but just by the previews, 2 looks to me MUCH better. I'll be checking it out, but only AFTER I see Farenheit 911. Quote
BruceH Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 It is truly staggering how much Spider-Man continuity they manage to squeeze into a little over two hours. Doc Ock's origin, the "Spider-Man, No More" story arc, Harry discovering that his father was the Green Goblin, on-screen appearences from both Doc Conners (The Lizard) and Col. John Jamison (The Man-Wolf), plus tons of Peter Parker as the original hard-luck hero (including a couple of unmaskings) and the continuing "will-he/won't he" romance with M.J. And it never feels rushed. No character feels short-changed. Toby Maguire IS Peter Parker. I wonder what Maguire would have thought if someone had told him that at the beginning of his acting career. Could this be the Year of the GOOD Sequel? Shrek 2 was just as good (and for my money better) than the first one, people are saying that Prisoner of Azkaban is the best in the Potter series so far, and now every review I've read, including Alexander's, says that Spidey 2 is superior to #1. Did the planets line up, or something? Anyway, I'm one of those people who liked the first Spiderman quite a lot, so I'll be seeing this one for sure. BTW, it made $40.5 million in its first DAY, a WEDNESDAY for godsake!! Woah! I knew it was going to be #1 this weekend, but jeeze... Quote
Dave James Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 1 was just another example of Hollywood's predeliction with style over substance. Sounds like 2 may get beyond that. 1 can only hope. Up over and out. Quote
BruceH Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 How much substance did the original 60's comic book have? Quote
Alexander Posted July 1, 2004 Author Report Posted July 1, 2004 How much substance did the original 60's comic book have? Quite a bit, actually. Yes, the original Ditko issues have a certain innocence about them, but at bottom existed a hardened cynicism about viewing life from the outside. It's been pointed out that comicdom's obsession with dual identities stems from the fact that a great many of the creators were Jewish. Certainly very few heros conformed to the "blonde, blue-eyed, all-American" ideal. Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man were all dark haired outsiders who were feared and despised for what they were, rather than what they did (which was always good). It wouldn't be a stretch to say that Lex Luthor or J. Jonah Jamison represented a typical anti-semite in their unreasoning hatred of Superman or Spider-Man. In that sense, the alter-ego (Clark Kent, Peter Parker) represents the Jewish American experience of assimilation. How many of these writers and artists overheard anti-semitic remarks by people who didn't know that they were in the presence of Jews? After all, Stanley Leiber changed his name to Stan Lee. It's not difficult to imagine that Peter listening to one of Jonah's anti-Spider-Man diatribes (unaware that he was in the presence of Spider-Man himself) refers to this experience. Quote
BruceH Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 How much substance did the original 60's comic book have? Quite a bit, actually. Yes, the original Ditko issues have a certain innocence about them, but at bottom existed a hardened cynicism about viewing life from the outside. It's been pointed out that comicdom's obsession with dual identities stems from the fact that a great many of the creators were Jewish. Certainly very few heros conformed to the "blonde, blue-eyed, all-American" ideal. Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man were all dark haired outsiders who were feared and despised for what they were, rather than what they did (which was always good). It wouldn't be a stretch to say that Lex Luthor or J. Jonah Jamison represented a typical anti-semite in their unreasoning hatred of Superman or Spider-Man. In that sense, the alter-ego (Clark Kent, Peter Parker) represents the Jewish American experience of assimilation. How many of these writers and artists overheard anti-semitic remarks by people who didn't know that they were in the presence of Jews? After all, Stanley Leiber changed his name to Stan Lee. It's not difficult to imagine that Peter listening to one of Jonah's anti-Spider-Man diatribes (unaware that he was in the presence of Spider-Man himself) refers to this experience. Interesting take. I think Spiderman 1 did a pretty good job of translating that into a movie without slowing things down too much. That is, what's implicit in the comic is, for the most part, implicit in the movie as well. Which is kind of a miracle for Hollywood, of any era. In fact, I think it's a better "comic book movie" (pracitically a genre to itself) than the first Superman film. Just my opinion. Quote
couw Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 How much substance did the original 60's comic book have? Quite a bit, actually. Yes, the original Ditko issues have a certain innocence about them, but at bottom existed a hardened cynicism about viewing life from the outside. It's been pointed out that comicdom's obsession with dual identities stems from the fact that a great many of the creators were Jewish. Certainly very few heros conformed to the "blonde, blue-eyed, all-American" ideal. Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man were all dark haired outsiders who were feared and despised for what they were, rather than what they did (which was always good). It wouldn't be a stretch to say that Lex Luthor or J. Jonah Jamison represented a typical anti-semite in their unreasoning hatred of Superman or Spider-Man. In that sense, the alter-ego (Clark Kent, Peter Parker) represents the Jewish American experience of assimilation. How many of these writers and artists overheard anti-semitic remarks by people who didn't know that they were in the presence of Jews? After all, Stanley Leiber changed his name to Stan Lee. It's not difficult to imagine that Peter listening to one of Jonah's anti-Spider-Man diatribes (unaware that he was in the presence of Spider-Man himself) refers to this experience. that particular piece of substance is more in the mind of the reader than in the mind of the artist I'd say. Not to downsize the importance of the comic medium in dealing with "issues," but they issues largely seem to have been there as a reflection of the times, not necessarily as an artistic reworking of the same. Of course there are archetypal (and modern archetypal) themes used everywhere in the comic medium, those are the stuffs good stories are based on. The golden age spidey stories were certainly pretty well told, but to go so far as to say they had a lot of big great deep substance is a bit of a stretch I think. Quote
jazzypaul Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 couw, you'd be shocked how much substance a lot of the great comic books of the 60's and 70's had. And probably more shocked then with the graphic novels that they sometimes evolved into. Batman was about the only one that was completely out of touch, and even then. Hell, I remember one of my Conan the Barbarian comics dealing quite frankly with the consequences of being promiscuous. And this is supposed to be stuff for kids...The Punisher dealt with some heavy stuff as well. That film was wasted on that piece of shit movie that could have been SOOOO good is a tragic shame. Quote
couw Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 couw, you'd be shocked how much substance a lot of the great comic books of the 60's and 70's had. And probably more shocked then with the graphic novels that they sometimes evolved into. Batman was about the only one that was completely out of touch, and even then. Hell, I remember one of my Conan the Barbarian comics dealing quite frankly with the consequences of being promiscuous. And this is supposed to be stuff for kids...The Punisher dealt with some heavy stuff as well. That film was wasted on that piece of shit movie that could have been SOOOO good is a tragic shame. couw worked in a comic bookshop, he knows these things. still, I have the impression that however deep the second level meaning was, a whole lot was lost in the silly first level plots. Spidey was nowhere near Moore's Dark Knight shit or the truly great graphic novels of today. Of course European comics have a whole different history, no super heros, yet plenty of action, and with the "hidden layers" shimmering through more clearly and much less flat. Sounds chauvinistic, probably is, but I did read a lot of that American stuff and enjoyed that a whole lot as well. Quote
mgraham333 Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 I know it's just a matter of time before CG of the human form becomes indistinguishable from live actors, but we're not there yet. In the first Spider Man movie, there were several times when the action switched from practical to CG and it was so noticable that it looked like I was watching a video game rather than a movie. Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on any one movie in particular. There are tons of examples - Blade II was terrible in this regard. One scene from the Two Towers where Legolas flips around the front his of horse....sheeeeesh... I think a lot of it has to do with the characters doing things that are simply, physically impossible - not just the feats of strength and dexterity - but rather, the human body doesn't bend this or that way. Anyway....the rant above was all a preface to my opinion that Spider Man 2 advances the CG human form to a degree where it is less noticable when the switch occurs from live action. You can still tell, but nothing was so jarring that I was looking around for the joystick Good movie over all - as good as or better than the first. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 still, I have the impression that however deep the second level meaning was, a whole lot was lost in the silly first level plots. Spidey was nowhere near Moore's Dark Knight shit or the truly great graphic novels of today. I agree. I'd much rather read Ditko's off the wall Charlton stuff, and his own selfpublished stuff than his Spiderman stuff. Although Ditko and I are on opposite sides of most issues, I still see more substance there than in Spiderman. And guys, comics are one subject where an American talking to a European about substance just doesn't fly too far... Quote
Jazzmoose Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 On the other hand, I'm unfamiliar with Moore's Dark Knight shit. Unless you mean Miller's Dark Knight shit. Still, I'll take issue #6 of The Watchmen over any other standard format comic book ever printed... Quote
couw Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 On the other hand, I'm unfamiliar with Moore's Dark Knight shit. Unless you mean Miller's Dark Knight shit. Still, I'll take issue #6 of The Watchmen over any other standard format comic book ever printed... depends on what you mean by standard format, just the size of the thing or must it be superhero-centred too? Quote
jazzbo Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 Give me Ditko's Dr. Strange. . . or give me The Spirit! But I'll take Spiderman 2 with Doc Ock in the meantime. . . I'm eager to see it. I liked the first one, the one thing I really most wish had been different in that one was the Goblin; I think they should have had the really funny looking purple and green Goblin from his first appearances in print. . . the contrast between his goofiness and his ruthlessness was poignant! Quote
jazzbo Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 Although come to think of it. . . Mr. A would make a nice weird movie. . . ! Quote
couw Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 Although come to think of it. . . Mr. A would make a nice weird movie. . . ! you mean Mr T., right? Quote
RDK Posted July 1, 2004 Report Posted July 1, 2004 Although come to think of it. . . Mr. A would make a nice weird movie. . . ! Well at least weird... Quote
Jazzmoose Posted July 2, 2004 Report Posted July 2, 2004 On the other hand, I'm unfamiliar with Moore's Dark Knight shit. Unless you mean Miller's Dark Knight shit. Still, I'll take issue #6 of The Watchmen over any other standard format comic book ever printed... depends on what you mean by standard format, just the size of the thing or must it be superhero-centred too? The size/format. Not necessarily superhero, but now that you ask and make me think, I retract my statement! Quote
Jazzmoose Posted July 2, 2004 Report Posted July 2, 2004 Although come to think of it. . . Mr. A would make a nice weird movie. . . ! Accent on the weird! I wouldn't mind seeing someone take a stab at The Question... Quote
jazzbo Posted July 2, 2004 Report Posted July 2, 2004 Yeah. . . The Question. . .sort of a waterdown Mr. A. . . that would be interesting. Quote
Alexander Posted July 2, 2004 Author Report Posted July 2, 2004 (edited) On the other hand, I'm unfamiliar with Moore's Dark Knight shit. Unless you mean Miller's Dark Knight shit. Still, I'll take issue #6 of The Watchmen over any other standard format comic book ever printed... I have a feeling he meant Miller's "Dark Knight Returns," but Moore did put his distinctive stamp on the Batman character in "The Killing Joke." If you haven't read it, I absolutely recommend it. Moore also wrote Superman's swan song in "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?" Both are excellent deconstructions of the superhero mythos, written right around "Watchmen." Speaking of interesting takes on Mr. A and The Question, Moore's Rorchach is based on those characters. Considering that Ditko was a Rand-head, it's interesting to note Moore's clearly jaundiced view of Ditko's philosophy. Staunch individualists turn into a psychopath who thinks nothing of breaking fingers as a way of gathering information. Of course, that classic scene (the crimefighter interrogating low-lifes in their dens of sin) is also present in Batman and Daredevil, as well as "The French Connection..." BTW, I thought that Spider-Man's fight with Ock on the elevated train was an obvious nod to "The French Connection." What say you? Edited July 2, 2004 by Alexander Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.