Aaannnnnddd Spider-Man3 is officially gonna suck

[Lonestar]

I don't need a bunch of clowns whose homeland's primary export is "Middle-earth" to make a commentary on NYC movies.

[FrostyBoy]

Excuse me, Superman 1 happens to be my favourite movie of all time.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Excuse me, Superman 1 happens to be my favourite movie of all time.

Like New Zealand and Middle-Earth, Metropolis is a made-up place!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rottentomatoes to the rescue!!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/

93% fresh, with 95% fresh for the 'Cream of the Crop'

[Dis]

one of these days I should get around to watching spiderman 2. I didn't care for the first one that much though.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I consider Spiderman 2 to be the best Superhero movie ever made

any movie where Alfred Molina is the bad guy can, by default, be no better than 4/10



Part of it is that the character of Spiderman is just weak (as he's probably supposed to be)... he's a whiny little *****. But that aside, Tobey Maguire does a decent job of playing the role, I suppose. You can't do a better job of playing a whiny little *****, I guess. Kirsten Dunst is a horrible actress. Franco I like, but he is not a good enough actor to make up for the rest of the movie sucking.

(and really, a lot of the complaints I have can be applied to Spiderman 1 as well)

The story doesn't flow... it just feels too scripted. Like things in the movie are happening regardless of what everyone involved does. And that's probably the result of poor directing... or the actors having weak presence... or both.

It's like the new Star Wars movies... they cared more about making the movie a special effects wonder then they did about making it a good movie.

And it wasn't even enjoyable as an action/comic book type movie... just senseless environment destruction... CG effects, and finally THE EVIL ALFRED MOLINA dies...

how lame

[Imran Siddiqui]

Molina was a perfect Doc Ock. Couldn't have casted it any better.

As for making it a 'special effects' wonder . The entire movie was about a very compeling story about the hardships a superhero has to go through and how it weighs down his personal life. The pressure has to be immense to give it up and just be a normal guy.

But you never see that in Superman or Batman, they can be superhero and be back in just enough time to change and look pretty enough for their next assignment or social gathering. PAH! PAH, I say!

Spidey 2 gives you that feeling, that notion that this superhero thing isn't all easy. You have to give up something of yourself. You have to choose to forgo an easy life to go fight crime.

Spiderman 1 was the lackluster one... and the sequal was miles above the first, in all aspects. Perhaps the first one can be called a special effects wonder, but in NO WAY can the 2nd one be. It has the best plot I've ever seen in a superhero flick. One that actually explores what it means to be a superhero and not just oooh, what a brilliant enemy X is fighting against.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Rottentomatoes to the rescue!!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/

93% fresh, with 95% fresh for the 'Cream of the Crop'

With their budget, they decided to spend 1/4 of it on the movie and 3/4 of it bribing everyone to say great things about it.

Can't fool me, I know a bad movie when I see one.

The rule of thumb goes like this:

1. If a movie gets no advertisement, it is either an extremely bad movie (so bad you will probably never hear about it), or a movie that is so good, it doesn't need advertising.

2. If a movie gets a lot of advertisement, that's because it needs it. i.e. Spiderman

3. If a movie gets HUGE amounts of advertisement, in many forms, thats because it deserves it. i.e. Matrix

[Imran Siddiqui]

Roger Ebert is unable to be bribed.. as he is the man

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040629/REVIEWS/406300301/1023

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.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Molina was a perfect Doc Ock. Couldn't have casted it any better.

As for making it a 'special effects' wonder . The entire movie was about a very compeling story about the hardships a superhero has to go through and how it weighs down his personal life. The pressure has to be immense to give it up and just be a normal guy.

Maybe if the movie had better actors, it would have been better.

But as I said... Molina sucked. Why him? He's the type of guy you cast as a lab technician... a supporting sidekick type guy... at best... not a main villian in a movie. He didnt' play the role well. It was annoying to have to watch him play a role above his talents. I think he actually played a perp in a Law and Order. That's the type of role he's suited for.

I did literally fall asleep at one point during movie.

Originally posted by Sn00py
With their budget, they decided to spend 1/4 of it on the movie and 3/4 of it bribing everyone to say great things about it.

Except Imran... I bet he didn't get anything.

hahaha LOSER

[Imran Siddiqui]

Molina sucked. Why him?

Because he looked and grasped the part of Doc Ock. He played him as more than simply the evil supervillan bent on world domination.

As James Berardinelli put it, Molina struck the right balance in the character. Not playing him over the top or too low key.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Roger Ebert is unable to be bribed.. as he is the man

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040629/REVIEWS/406300301/1023

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.

Well, I don't know who he is, but he must never have heard of Batman 1; and didn't X-Men come out before Spiderman 2?

I'm sorry, but your friend got bribed or drugged.

[Dis]

Batman 1 wasn't that great.

I hate some of the silly bad guy stuff. Like the deal with the makeup. Stupid. If anything, Batman returns is better than Batman1. But even that had the stupid deal about pouring the stuff in the city's water supply. Argh.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava




any movie where Alfred Molina is the bad guy can, by default, be no better than 4/10

You mean to say that you didn't love "Maverick"?



In truth Alfred Molina is a really good actor. Check out "Frieda" sometime, he's terrific in that.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Sava
I did literally fall asleep at one point during movie.

That's okay Sava, you were probably high...