So, anybody else see the new trailer? I WAS excited about getting to see Doctor Octopus, but now I'm not so sure (I'm sure Alfred Molina will be entertaining as ever, it's the effects that bother me). Otherwise, it looks like more of the same, so far -- Mary-Jane Watson still wants to know if Peter Parker loves her, and Peter still refuses to be more than a friend, but will they actually make Mary-Jane a real CHARACTER for once, that's what I wanna know! Plus Spidey's various swoops and swings amidst the skyscrapers still have that fake-looking CGI feel.

I saw it a few weeks ago. The greatest thing i noticed was that it didn't have the one big downer i complained about from the first film -- Spidey trying to speak thru that mask.

Anyone ever remember the mute Spiderman that used to make random appearances on PBS's Zoom? I think they may have been onto something there... Keep him quiet, keep him mysterious, keep him from looking like Tobey the Dork from Pleasantville talking behind a mask...

Honestly, in retrospect, how can they expect us to believe that a gorgeous babe like Kirsten Dunst would go for such a dork? He's a free-swinging geek talking thru a mask, and even at that, all his monkey swings are so obviously computer generated you'd die for the huge erected sets of silent cinema. Lang. Murnau. You get the idea.

I did a hideous Chiaroscuro review for the first film years ago. I was WAY too nice.
Hindsight is 20/20.

-s.

stef wrote:
: Anyone ever remember the mute Spiderman that used to make random
: appearances on PBS's Zoom?

No, but I remember the mute Spider-Man who used to have little sequences all to himself on PBS's The Electric Company. The theme song always kinda puzzled me, cuz it ended with the guy singing "Nobody knows who you are!" and I kept wanting to yell back at the TV screen, "YES WE DO!! HE'S PETER PARKER, YOU IDIOT!!"

My kid sister changed that line to "Everyone knows who you are!" when she was really little. The adults thought that was hilarious. Of course, even at the time I figured that the line meant that no one in the world of "Spidey Super Stories" or whatever they were called knew who he was.

Spider-Man's battle patter is one of his trademarks. He's GOT to talk. Find a way to make it work.

As for the CGI swings -- You can build all the big Langian sets you want, and it isn't going to enable a stuntman to swing with the superhuman strength and speed and agility that Spider-Man's got to have. Until someone learns to build a realistic CGI Spider-Man, I'll take a fakey CGI Spider-Man over a realistic stuntman on a rope any day of the week.

I agree with SDG. Even if it does look kinda fakey, I love the fact that Raimi has put Spidey in some of trademark swinging poses with the CGI. So, complain all you like, but it still looks more dynamic and realistic than Christopher Reeve against a blue screen. And don't get me wrong I still love the first two Superman films, but it does look dated. I know that a lot of people trash CGI constantly, and often times it is overdone or poorly done. But there are some things that are IMPOSSIBLE to do without CGI, and Spidey's swinging is one of those things.

The main thing about CGI is that it is a double-edged sword. If it's done poorly, it looks like a videogame. If it's done well, it's not even noticable. I love all the complaints I heard about the CGI in Master and Commander or Pirates of the Caribbean. Oh, wait! I didn't hear any. That's because most people can't tell when CGI is being used. For example, people complained about the starships in The Phantom Menace looking too fake, and accusing CGI, when in actual fact ILM used traditional models for the starships. What was done digitally was the optical compositing, which I think you would be hard pressed to argue is inferior to tradtional optical compositing and its resulting matte lines and object constraints.

Often times when CGI becomes really apparent, it's not because of the poor quality of the CGI, but rather because people are putting things in CGI that no one has ever seen before or are so obviously not real that we assume that it has to be CGI (ie: the fleet of ships in the Troy trailer, Spider-man's swinging; or the clone vs. droid battle in Attack of the Clones). Often times people aren't aware of how effects are actually done and "CGI" is the buzzword that critics with little technical knowledge love to bash. Sometimes it would do some people good to pick up a copy of Cinefex or some other FX magazine and see how some of the images are actually created. You might be surprised and if not, at least informed.

This is not to defend CGI in all cases. There are films that I think have subpar CGI that really stands out in them (ie: The Mummy Returns or the Spy Kids films), but in the end I accept the medium, like Stef and his love of the old Murnau or Lang sets (which while impressive are still a far cry from realistic) and move on. I think the FX nominees at the Oscars this year are three examples of films that have made wonderful uses of CGI and I think that this rediculous bashing of the technology is largely uninformed.

Anders wrote:
: But there are some things that are IMPOSSIBLE to do without CGI, and
: Spidey's swinging is one of those things.

Actually, what really stuck out as bogus, to me, in the trailer was the shot of Spidey running down an alley and jumping BEFORE he swings.

QUOTE

Anders wrote: : But there are some things that are IMPOSSIBLE to do without CGI, and : Spidey's swinging is one of those things. Actually, what really stuck out as bogus, to me, in the trailer was the shot of Spidey running down an alley and jumping BEFORE he swings.

Ah, but that scene was NOT what was I was defending. If the offending scene was indeed "bogus" looking, I'll grant you that (I would have to see the trailer again). I'll agree with you that it is possible, in fact one of the sequences that bothered me the most in the first film was Peter running on the rooftops when he first discovers his powers. I was so obviously fake, it seemed like they didn't try. In most cases this is a case of bad motion capture or animators, nothing inherrant to CGI itself, as I find Gollum's movements in The Lord of the Rings films to be quite naturalistic as well as other CGI creations.

However, honestly tell me you'd rather have a guy swinging against a blue screen for the web-swinging sequences. THAT is what I think would be hard to do convincingly without CGI. And granted again you might feel that Raimi isn't doing it convincingly, then I'll argue that at least if he's forsaking realism he's at least being true to the representation of the characters abilities and movements in the comic books, and in that case CGI works.

QUOTE

And they always worked better.

Stef, you have a point about the creativity of earlier directors and I will grant you that, but ALWAYS?

Personally, as much as I could NOT STAND the new Matrix films, I found Neo's flying much more convincing than the old 70s bluescreen "Superman" approach.

QUOTE

But it always seemed that in the age of pre-CGI, the best directors would find ways to make things work.

Perhaps what I find most confusing is that you equate CGI with lack of creativity, when perhaps more accurately CGI is in SOME cases the "way to make things work" BEST. In fact, your statement is misleading because sometimes the way to make things work in the days of "pre-CGI" was to eliminate things entirely. So it's not necessarily a matter of making things work, instead CGI opens up new possibilities than what was available before.

However, I AGREE with your implied criticism, that CGI becomes a problem when it is the ONLY tool in a director's repetoire rather than one of many. When CGI becomes the ONLY way to do something then I see it as a weakness and not a benefit, but I think really creative and serious directors will continue to use CGI as one of their tools and push it in new and more realistic directions.

Anders wrote:

: : Actually, what really stuck out as bogus, to me, in the trailer was the
: : shot of Spidey running down an alley and jumping BEFORE he swings.
:
: Ah, but that scene was NOT what was I was defending. If the offending
: scene was indeed "bogus" looking, I'll grant you that (I would have to
: see the trailer again). I'll agree with you that it is possible, in fact one of
: the sequences that bothered me the most in the first film was Peter
: running on the rooftops when he first discovers his powers. I was so
: obviously fake, it seemed like they didn't try.

Exactly. I did have that scene in mind as I wrote that, plus the scene in the first film where Spidey lands on something (during the bridge sequence) and gets his balance, and it is soooo obviously NOT a real person who is having to deal with real physics there.

: However, honestly tell me you'd rather have a guy swinging against a
: blue screen for the web-swinging sequences. THAT is what I think would
: be hard to do convincingly without CGI.

Well, given that it can't be done convincingly WITH CGI, either ...

QUOTE

Well, given that it can't be done convincingly WITH CGI, either ...

See my above quote regarding realism versus fidelity to the comic book. However, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page with this one, so I will leave it at that... for now.

QUOTE

QUOTE And they always worked better. Stef, you have a point about the creativity of earlier directors and I will grant you that, but ALWAYS?

Well, yeah, always, note the preceding "best directors" clause.

I'm not talking about seeing the zipper on a monkey suit in Planet of the Apes here.

-s.

QUOTE

Oh dang.  Yep, that's what i was thinking of.  Oh well, Zoom, The Electric Company... The only thing i remember about either one of them was that one of them started with \"HEY YOU GUUUUUYS!\"

That would be The Electric Company. It was in its prime when I was a kid, and I was a big fan. (I liked Zoom, too. Figures that would become my nickname all these years later.)

QUOTE

(a feat which i tried in a supermarket checkout microphone at the age of three)

And now there's an even newer trailer, in which it seems Peter Parker will do what Clark Kent did in Superman 2 and give up superherodom so that he can enjoy the bliss of romantic attachment ... only to be caught off-guard when a new crisis strikes New York City and he learns once again that The World Needs A Hero. But will have the ability to plant a supernatural kiss on Mary-Jane's lips and make her forget everything? That's what I wanna know!

Should we take it from this that the inevitable Spider-Man 3 will follow the same basic storyline as Superman 3? Who is the 21st century's Richard Pryor, I wonder?

I don't think Tobey Maguire's capable of carrying Cedric the Entertainer.

Chris Rock, maybe--he's kind scrawny

Nezpop has it spot on. In fact, here's the cover to the issue:



That's why I don't understand a lot of the criticism of the Spider-man film(s). They are what they are, and they are a pretty good approximation of what the Spider-man mythos is all about. And the old school fans who think the movie changes too much (ie: having Mary Jane instead of Gwen Stacey as Peter's first love, etc.) should realize that Raimi and Keopp are taking a lot of cues from Brian Michael Bendis's Ultimate Spider-man series, which is one of the most consistanly well written super-hero comics out there.

Nezpop wrote:
: So, your Superman theory isn't quite as substantial as it first sounds.

I guess that depends on where the third film goes.

I suppose if they sign Dave Chappelle up.

Roger Ebert calls Spider-man 2 the best super-hero movie he's ever seen.

Click on the link for the audio review by Ebert and Roeper.

WHOA!!

YEAH!!

I mean, WHOA!!!!

Okay. I don't know if Spider-Man 2 is the absolutely best super-hero movie I've ever seen -- though it's certainly a contender.

But it's definitely the most exhilarating, heartfelt, wildest, flat-out COMIC-BOOKIEST comic-book movie of all time (the last point being a claim I made for the first Spider-Man movie also, but there my enthusiasm was tempered by weaknesses that just ain't here).

This movie left me jazzed like I can't remember feeling about any comic-book movie since I saw Superman II in theaters -- and I was twelve at the time. That it blows away the first Spider-Man is not even an issue for discussion. But it also lovingly builds on and extends the first movie in countless ways.

Spider-Man 2 gets the essential issues and dilemmas of super-herodom better than probably any movie ever, even Superman II. Character, relationships, and emotions get a LOT of attention here -- and while this too is on a comic-book level, it's also sincere and heartfelt.

At the same time, the action sequences are hands down the wildest comic-book action sequences ever filmed. Doc Ock and Spider-Man have a duel on an above-ground subway train that is fan-freaking-tastic; their fight scenes are so much better than the Green Goblin ones -- those arms really make Ock a perfect opponent for Spidey. (I just hope that as the series goes on, when the Goblin plot moves to the next level, they find a way of upping the ante in relation to the first film.)

Creatively, this movie is not afraid to kick back, to think outside the box. There's a delightfully offbeat sequence somewhere in the middle of the film with a brief freeze-frame toward the end that made me laugh out loud and drew applause as well as laughter from the (admittedly highly motivated) audience. And there's a well-conceived appearance by Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben that is not a flashback or a dream sequence but isn't paranormal either and makes a lot of sense.)

Doc Ock's character, origins, and the nature of his problem have all been substantially rethought, and all to the better. Alfred Molina's performance is just terrific, and the arms look fantastic, including their ability to telescope. (One hole in the effect is that while you can easily buy the arms hoisting Doc Ock, when Molina's on his own two feet he somehow never looks as if he's really lugging that weight around on his back. Oh well.)

Aunt May, Mary Jane, Harry Osbourne, J. Jonah Jameson are ALL better (and more) utilized this time out. Mary Jane is better developed as a character, although her and Peter's denied love is still somehow not quite totally involving, and some of their dialogue works better than others.

There are a few plot glitches, which you could generally easily imagine patching with a single line of dialogue. (There's one scene in which Dock Ock demands something of someone who comes back at him with a rather tall counter-offer, that Ock implausibly agrees to readily. If I'd been writing it I would've had Ock first point out that he could dismember the other person bit by bit till he agreed to give Ock what he wanted -- and then I'd have Ock say "But as it happens I have my own reasons for wanting to do the sort of thing you ask for, so it suits me to agree to your proposal." That would've worked.)

Yet almost none of these minor issues interfered with my enjoyment of the film in any meaningful way. Even the opening credit title sequence rocks hard, with far more artistically conceived CGI web effects juxtaposed with photos and (I'm pretty sure) Alex Ross paintings reestablishing the characters and even recapping the plot points from the original movie. It was so entertaining I stopped reading the names.

For the first time since The Passion of the Christ and The Return of the King (don't worry, you don't need to sweat how this sentence is going to end), I am actually going to get Suzanne to go to the theater with me and catch this one herself, even if I have to stand out in the lobby half the time with our one-year-old.

Definite A range film. Haven't yet decided between 3 1/2 and 4 stars.

I've been looking forward to this one since I saw the first trailer awhile ago. I know there's been some debate on the CGI aspect of the movie, but I thought those arms looked pretty dang cool. Your review is really getting me pumped up.

As the resident board member who reads four monthly Spider-man titles, I can't tell you how jazzed I am to see this film. !!!!!

I've already got my ticket!!!!

I ran into Moira Macdonald, head film critic for The Seattle Times, at a birthday party this evening down at the beach, and we talked for quite a while. She was positively joyful about Spidey 2, saying that it had renewed her belief in the Big Summer Movie, and that it was so much better than she'd expected.

Can't wait until Monday night!

In my day there was only one Spidey a month. Just as well, I couldn't have afforded all of them with the other marvel mags I consumed.

All right, I did it -- I went with four stars.

WOOOOOOOOO-HOOOOO!!!

My grade-A review (very rough draft, will be revised tonight.)

Are we on the same page? You four-star A raters? The first one was poor right? Not awful, just not great.

Have the fixed the CGI to make Spidey look at least like Gravity applies to him?

Dan,

I gave the first one a B/B-. Didn't do a whole lot for me, and wasn't anywhere close to the X-Men films.

This one is spectacularly improved.

As for the animation, it is improved, but there were still a few sequences where it didn't work for me. But that didn't matter because so much else did work for me, and there was so much going on on the screen so fast that you really don't have time to be irritated.

Best thing about the film: The writing.
Second best thing: The development of the Doc Ock character.
Third best thing: ALFRED MOLINA IS FINALLY GOING TO BE A HOUSEHOLD WORD.
Fourth best thing: Tobey Maguire hits this one out of the park. He goes for it with a Sean-Astin-as-Samwise/Elijah-Wood-as-Frodo intensity.
Fifth best thing: Danny Elfman finally woke up from his several-year-long nap and wrote a freakin' soundtrack.

Doc Ock... and I don't say this word often... ROCKS.

On Rotten Tomatoes, I like this quote best:

"Spider-Man was good bubble gum, but this movie is a Willie Wonka Everlasting Gobstopper!"

Just out curiosity, SDG, which Spidey titles do you read monthly?

I assume you're reading Ultimate, because Bendis keeps on pumping out one of the best superhero comics month after month. And you're reading Amazing as well? I think it's the weakest one.

If you're not reading Spectacular, I recommend it. Jenkins used to write on Peter Parker: Spider-man and he still writes solid stories. I wouldn't all out recommend it if you're on a tight budget, but I do recommend picking up issue 14. It's a stand-alone story about Spider-man and a kid with cerebral-palsy(?). Very nice.

Anders, sorry, I have to disagree about Amazing. I love JMS's writing. Love his characterizations, love his humor, his willingness to play with the Spider-Man mythos (Ezekiel is a great character, and I'm fascinated where he's going to go with this whole idea of Spider-Man of the future and Peter's last stand), his predilection for pushing Peter to the absolute limits of his endurance and ability and beyond.

Also I'm fascinated by Peter's running dialogue with God, especially as JMS has always been an avowed atheist. He was respectful of religion in supporting characters in B5, but how he's writing spirituality for his protagonist, and I think it works really well.

And, being myself a married man with a career, I relate more to old married working Peter than to high school Peter.

Ultimate is the other title I read, and I do enjoy it, though I'm not wild about it the way you are. It's a clever semi-revisionist take on the mythology, and Bendis has a knack for dialogue and an ear for contemporary slang, but it's somehow a little unsubtle for my tastes.

It doesn't hurt, either, that I prefer J.R. Jr.'s art to the more cartoony look of Ultimate.

I'm willing to give Spectacular a shot.

Wow... WOW! I haven't been this pumped since i saw Guns and Roses in Stockholm, back in '91. Pure and simple, folks, that was a thrill ride. And a half. Times 140.

Everything was better in the sequel. (Felt the same way about the X-men films... Are we arriving at a new period in film history? Before, it always seemed like the sequels were never as good as the original. These days, the tide seems to be shifting the other way.) The acting was much better, i loved MJ this time.... the CGI was amazing (still needs some tweaking but in this film it's 99% there. The best since Gollum, for sure)... the villian, oh my word, the villian. Just plain brutal, and i mean that in the slangest sense of the word. The way he walked was amazing in itself!! His tentacles were spectacular... And what about J. Jonah Jameson?!?? The perfect portrayal (again)!

The storyline was perfect, as a film that flies in the face of all the modern day, Nietzsche-esque stories that are sometimes currently admired. It was refresing to see a struggling hero in action. In fact, the weight of the hero was physically felt on my body throughout the bulk of the film. I haven't been so tense in a theater since Irreversible, or The Blair Witch Project (and this film was PG!)....

Spider-Man 3 is going to be awesome. I am already looking forward to it. But how much will Harry's drinking play into his fight scenes? We will most definitely see...

I am convinced that the film works on a level that is more than just a "great superhero film," too, and perhaps that's why i am so excited. There were several moments when i saw it as a great film, period.... With depth in the cinematography and perfect nostalgic choices by Raimi, who seems to have grown and grown in his talent. Interesting how a guy who was once only a "horror"guy has grown...

It's funny how life works. Once word got out that i was going to this show, about 10 Jr. Hi and High schoolers ended up going with me to the grande event. We all got great seats, we were all mesmerized by the show, and we all had the night of our lives.

-s.

I'll be the minority report. I liked the original better. I think this wanted to be more philosophical than it was. Not to say I didn't like it. Certainly I loved Molina. Dunstan was not at her best. Just read Jeffrey's review and reference to TPOC, I think it has more in common with Last Temptation in the struggle of who to be. But it really didn't carry it off for me.

Loved this movie. I can't really say more except it was what the first one should have been and more.



And the ending was great. I loved how it ended on Mary Jane (and not Spider-Man) with that look of "Did I really sign up for this?" It was not a shot most would end a movie on, but that was a stroke of brilliance.

I'm giving it a 3.8 out of 4.

And if Maguire doesn't get an Oscar nod, I'll be mad.

I agree with all who think this film is great. I LOVED IT. I've already seen it twice and the second time was just as enjoyable and made me enjoy the parts I loved even more.

I can definitely say it took the promise of the first film, which I loved, and expanded on it. This is perhaps the single most enjoyable film going experience I have had all year (especially considering that most of the summer films have been dissapointments, excepting Harry Potter).



I loved the ending. I loved how there was more about Peter Parker. I could watch a film about Peter Parker, and not even have Spider-man. I loved the "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" sequence. I was caught up in the moment that MJ discovers Peter's secret. And I loved the ending, "Go get 'em, Tiger" is such a comic book moment, it was sheer bliss.

Just saw the movie for the second time today, and I'm going to echo Anders. Loved it just as much as the first time. The moments that affected me the first time around, that had me cheering, still had the same affect. I loved the opening credits (that last painting, of Peter walking away from MJ, was heartbreaking). I still got choked up during Aunt May's "hero" speech. The "raindrops keep falling on my head" scene was great, especially that freeze frame (do you think they intended to make Peter look as dorky as he did there?), and I love the little jokes that seemed tossed off and yet felt entirely natural ("This is really heavy").

As Anders said, sheer bliss.