David Coscina 3 Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Saw a midnight show of the sequel to the pop hit of a couple years ago. And what with the reviews heralding this as "as good as Superman The Movie" I had to check it out.First, it is about the only super hero film where the titular character is actually the focus of the film. What a novel idea. Unlike a certain other hero who dresses up as a winged night mammal, and who has to compete with 5 million other characters for screen time in his franchise, Spider-man 2 focus' solely on Peter Parker. And what a nice surprise it is. Many comic book adaptations are so concerned with getting the "world" and the "look" just right, they concern themselves with plot over character development. It's so great to see Parker muddle through life and attempt, (and fail mostly) at leading a double life.Raimi actual brought the world of the mundane into the life of a super hero. Other than Unbreakable, I don't think we've ever really seen a hero who's so fragile (no pun intended) or vulnerable. I don't know about everyone else, but I could certainly identify with Parker's balancing of duty to family (AUnt May), a job to put himself through college, romantic distractions (with MJ). It's all there. He also just happens to be a guy who can climb walls, spin a web (any size), and race around the city saving people.It's an interesting moral dilemma that Raimi introduces into the film too. Are people who have been gifted with an ability obligated to serve humanity to the exclusion of their own life goals and ambitions? Well, you'll all have to check out the film to see how it develops. I'm not offering any spoilers. However a few more comments...The music by Elfman and co. (additional cues were composed by John Debney and Chris Young) is in some ways much more melodic and accessible than the first although I found the incessant use of the main theme to be distracting at times rather than effective underscore. A couple standout cues are when Octavious is trying out his new fusion device for the first time, with some really great symphonic bombast underlining the gravity of the moment. Also, and I think kudos go to Debney on this one, the subway-train fight scene is one of the best action set pieces I've seen in recent history. Really fine stuff, well shot and edited so you can understand what's happening (I hate the usual MTV frenetic editing style where you can't really see what's going on). Debney's music has some shrilling winds that recall our man John's Jurassic Park and I'd say the most thematically strong presentations of Elfman's material. Debney is a more thematic composer while ELfman excells (of late) at motivic writing.And these are just a couple in a long line of memorable scenes form the film, which actually is funnier than the original but balances it perfectly with drama. One never feels like they're sitting through Batman Forever which didn't take its story or characters seriously. A perfect example of how Spidey 2 pulls this off is in the Burt Bacharach montage. When you see it, you'll understand. Raimi beautifully pulls this moment off. It's not superfluous either- it has a context in the story arc of the film. The only downside is the irregular pacing. Around 40 minutes in, I noticed that the film suffered from this. I don't mind long dialogue sequences. In fact I salute Raimi for putting these in. But the rhythm of how these scenes work with the action moments just didn't seem to gel. It's like shifting gears in a car too quickly- the film had a bit of a studdered effect. But you know what? I still thought it was great. 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 1,931 Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Well, I expect the next film based on that winged mammal character to be much more character driven and Bruce Wayne centered and the last movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Coscina 3 Posted July 1, 2004 Author Share Posted July 1, 2004 Oh you bet. I'm really looking forward to Batman Begins. Chris Nolan at the helm, I think he will erase any awful assocations that Schumaker helped create with rubbish like Batman Forever or worse Batman and Robin.I got my hands on a version of the screenplay and it does kick serious butt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumpeteer 243 Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Here is the review I wrote.Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Coscina 3 Posted July 1, 2004 Author Share Posted July 1, 2004 Very good review Trumpeteer. And I agree that there were parts where I was frustrated by McGuire's lack of emotion. After all the crap he goes through as Parker in this film, you'd think he'd just let it all out.Franco would have made a convincing Parker and yes, he can emote much better. I do think that they didn't give him a lot to work with in Spiderman 2 though. He made the most of his screen time however (like during the party sequence- very dramatic!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,284 Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Will it make if to the special effects academy award this time? No LOTR out thereI think it will be nominated (HP3 doesn 't also have LOTR out there), though as far as i have seen it was the same crap as the 1st one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Coscina 3 Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 It's not crap but it's noticeabley CGI. To me these SPider-man films are the synthesis of live-action and animation. So when a CGI SPidey is slinging around the screen I just go with it. Much more enjoyable a movie experience that way.Does anyone remember how to use their imagination any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 1,931 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I don't think it detracts from the viewing experience at all, I can buy these kind of effects, but from what I've seen in the trailers, Spiderman still looks cartoonish as hell, but it suits well the tone of the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Coscina 3 Posted July 3, 2004 Author Share Posted July 3, 2004 Absolutely Merkel. I'm surprised by the skepticism and cynicism surrounding the special effects in the film. When I go see a movie about a guy who crawls on walls and spinds webs from his hands, I suspend a great deal of disbelief in order to enjoy the experience. But no more than I did accepting a great white shark plunging killer-whale style onto a stern of a boat.I think Lord of the Rings did a lot of people a great disservice by making the effects so real (for Golum) that everyone brings the same expectations to every subsequent film involving a CGI human-type character. Pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I really liked this movie alot! Definately going to end up being the best movie of this summer. Not that that is saying alot, but this is still a great movie. OH and IMO McGuire is a great Peter Parker. The man keep his emotions restrained which is the way it needs to be for a Superhero movie like this. Too much and it would just be corny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I'm surprised by the skepticism and cynicism surrounding the special effects in the film. When I go see a movie about a guy who crawls on walls and spinds webs from his hands, I suspend a great deal of disbelief in order to enjoy the experience.You should suspend disbelief to enjoy a story, not the visuals. The visuals convince you that you are watching real life, if they are done well. If not, they pull you out and annouce that you are watching a movie, hence the disruption of any sense of disbelief.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Ummmmm no offense but both Superman and Star Trek: TMP both had effects which were very unrealistic. Now of course to be fair those movies came out many years ago when special effects were alot less developed than they are today. However. Spiderman is moving into the same experimental territory in special effects those movies moved into. IMO no movie now or in any other time matches the pioneering done by the effects in the SW films. I mean the space battle in ROTJ is still the single most impressive effects sequence EVER! Not even a single bit of CG was used in that deal either. Really says something dont it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Ummmmm no offense but both Supderman and Strak Trek: TMP both had effects which were very unrealistic. Now of course to be fair those movies came out many years ago when special effects were alot less developed than they are today.I haven't seen those films, but Superman - The Movie and Star Trek - The Motion Picture had brilliant effects.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I mean the space battle in ROTJ is still the single most impressive effects sequence EVER! it pales considerably to the space battles in Star Trek Deep Space Nine, and it's a TV show.Jedi's space battle doesn't even compare.Neil, that is such a beautiful photo Superman flying, and it looks like he's flying too, the colors are crisp and true, no hint of a fake looking CGI character in that picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Praise God for the edit button! Anyway IMO the flying effects in Superman were rough at best. I mean the blue screen work could not have been any more obvious if there had just been a friggin blue screen in the background. Same goes for alot of the sequences in ST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishCal24 0 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 One never feels like they're sitting through Batman Forever which didn't take its story or characters seriously. A perfect example of how Spidey 2 pulls this off is in the Burt Bacharach montage. When you see it, you'll understand. Raimi beautifully pulls this moment off. It's not superfluous either- it has a context in the story arc of the film. I strongly disagree. The so-called humor was far too campy to match the tone of the story's dramatic elements and that made it difficult to take the drama seriously. While there is nothing as bad as that awful wrestling sequence from the first movie, I was still rolling my eyes many more times than I laughed. I'd hoped Raimi would be able to find a better balance between these two elements, but he clearly didn't learn from the mistakes that he made two years ago.The only downside is the irregular pacing. Around 40 minutes in, I noticed that the film suffered from this. I don't mind long dialogue sequences. In fact I salute Raimi for putting these in. But the rhythm of how these scenes work with the action moments just didn't seem to gel. It's like shifting gears in a car too quickly- the film had a bit of a studdered effect. You won't get any argument from me because you hit the nail on the head with that statement.Will it make if to the special effects academy award this time? No LOTR out thereI think it will be nominated (HP3 doesn 't also have LOTR out there), though as far as i have seen it was the same crap as the 1st one.In many scenes the CGI and composite work is actually worse. I find that completely unacceptable in this day and age as there is simply no excuse for such poor quality work with the budget this movie had. The effects seen in PoA make the work her look all the more pathetic.Also, did the film's writers really need to beat us over the head with "Great Power, Great Responsibility" moral again. Can you say "dead horse"? I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought it was quite clear the first 10 billion times. I really wanted to like this sequel, but left feeling as disappointed as before. I do have to admit the performances and dialogue were a bit improved. Alfred Molina is especially good as Doc Ock and far more believable than Dafoe's extremely cartoonish Green Goblin. It probably is a slightly better movie than its predecessor is, unfortunately that isn't saying a hell of a lot. I seriously doubt I'll be spending any money on the third installment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,284 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 I think Lord of the Rings did a lot of people a great disservice by making the effects so real (for Golum) that everyone brings the same expectations to every subsequent film involving a CGI human-type character. Pity.Sorry, make it The Hulk for me. I dont think as Gollum as the pinnacle. Very close to it, but not in it.Sorry to all but i cant stand 'Sony pictures imageworks' work. I'm almost 99.9% sure who did the quidditch match in Philosopher's Stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 II think Lord of the Rings did a lot of people a great disservice by making the effects so real (for Golum) that everyone brings the same expectations to every subsequent film involving a CGI human-type character. Pity.That's like saying Spielberg did a lot of people a great disservice by making Jaws, thereby creating the summer blockbuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 9 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 II think Lord of the Rings did a lot of people a great disservice by making the effects so real (for Golum) that everyone brings the same expectations to every subsequent film involving a CGI human-type character. Pity.That's like saying Spielberg did a lot of people a great disservice by making Jaws, thereby creating the summer blockbuster. Yes, people should stop making good movies altogether. What would the bad ones do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Yes, people should stop making good movies altogether. What would the bad ones do?they are just about there now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC1 3,565 Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Ummmmm no offense but both Superman and Star Trek: TMP both had effects which were very unrealistic. Now of course to be fair those movies came out many years ago when special effects were alot less developed than they are today.The vast "Cloud" in Star Trek - The Motion Picture is magnificent! ----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Yes, people should stop making good movies altogether. What would the bad ones do?they are just about there now.Sad but true! :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now