Spider-Man 2
I read a review of Spider-Man 2 today. Interestingly, at no point was the word “corny” used. Or “cheesy”. Or “hokey”. Not once.
So let me make sure that you know something at the outset, as I think it’s important. If Spider-Man rated, say, eight on the hokey-cheesy-cornball scale, Spider-Man 2 turns it up to eleven. There are times in this movie where you can’t move for all the characters suddenly bursting into huge, didactic and tautological speeches on heroism, love and responsibility. Even Uncle Ben, the character who represented this insane, unsubtle cheesiness manages to get himself back into the film, despite being very dead.
Many of these speeches are terrible. Some are passable. All could have been sliced down to fractions of their current length without losing a thing, and made the film’s opening half far more enjoyable.
But don’t be thinking that this film is bad. It’s not all bad. Almost everything that isn’t corny is fantastic. Let me tell you about these things, and cheer us all up.
This film is very funny — puzzling given the unsubtle nature of most of the dialogue. Tobey Maguire has a knack for physical comedy, whether he be straining to lift or pull some massive object, or feigning a quite topical sore back (Maguire was almost replaced on the film due to back problems). It’s just a shame that Peter is written as the sort of nerd who doesn’t say much when nervous rather than saying a lot, as I feel Maguire could babble to excellent effect given the chance.
Most important in distinction from the previous film — the action has been stepped up quite a notch. Remember how some of the fist-fights between Spidey and the Green Goblin were uncannily reminiscent of something from the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers? No longer. It helps that Doctor Octopus looks a lot more human than the Goblin did, and it makes Spider-Man look a bit more real by comparison. And I can’t gush enough about the various arial stunts that Spider-Man performs. If you even remotely find the idea of this superhero cool, you’ll love every action scene to pieces.
Some of the nicest touches however are the glimpses we get of Peter’s personal life. Seeing him dodging the rent, delivering pizza and visiting the laundromat allows the film to span across the crazy comic book world of ridiculous physics and inadequately explained tentacles, and the harsh, yet amusing reality the rest of us find ourselves in. Lots of fantasy movies and series suffer from slipping a shade too far away from the viewers’ world — Spider-Man 2 dodges such a thing effortlessly.
The grounding effect is also achieved through the largely sympathetic Doctor Otto Octavius. Alfred Molina does a brilliant job — occasionally even with some hokey dialogue — at making a mad scientist having his brain controlled by metal tentacles seem almost believable. He and Maguire probably do the best acting jobs in the film, though James Franco and Kirsten Dunst aquit themselves well again as Harry Osbourne and Mary Jane. It’s no wonder however that Dunst has said she only wants to do one more film; MJ seems doomed to always be the damsel in distress.
Everyone everywhere seems to be raving about Spider-Man 2. I only liked it, but I suspect I’m more allergic to cheesiness than most. I probably overloaded when I watched the whole of Babylon 5. If you enjoy comic book movies, and don’t mind the occasional unsubtle monologue on heroism or responsibility — then you’ll love this one.
588
Mat
July 7th, 2004 at 12:21 pm
I agree with you tom. ive become lactose intolerant in movies.
Andy
July 7th, 2004 at 12:31 pm
You seemed to have changed your position on the initial scenes. Just wondering why.
Tom
July 7th, 2004 at 9:35 pm
Firstly, I’m going to frame Matt’s post and put it above my bed.
In response to Andy – well, you’re just so persuasive aren’t you? I realised I was allowing my dislike for the poetry, ‘dinner with Octavius’ and wedding announcement scenes cloud my opinion of the early movie.
Jack
July 9th, 2004 at 3:18 am
Didn’t you enjoy ‘Dinner with Octavious?” – any cheesiness was mitigated by what-his-face the actor, and it made the character much more likeable or deeper or something.
I hope you appreciate how eloquent I’m being.
Tom
July 11th, 2004 at 7:15 pm
I do appreciate your eloquence… But no, I was cringing all through that scene. Not a bad actor, but really, when I realised he was going to tell Peter about how he wooed his wife with poetry I was ready to cover my ears.
And then his easily contractable little scientific homilies that of course would get repeated back at him at the end of the film to convert him. Ugh!
But it’s ok, because there were good fights in between.
Jack
July 29th, 2004 at 5:36 am
Come now. I love a good cliche.
I was watching the trailer again the other day. I wouldn’t mind seeing the whole film again actually – I enjoyed the fight scenes that much. Although it occurs to me that Dr. Octavious was very lucky that he didn’t kill Peter with that car he threw into the cafe.
Tom
September 3rd, 2004 at 11:02 pm
I read a review of it the other day that cited a whole bunch of problems like why he tried to kill Peter when in fact he wanted to talk to him. But the reviewer still thought it was one of the best movies ever.
Is there a case to be made that these minor plot holes are OK as long as the set piece they produce looks really cool?
Andy
September 4th, 2004 at 10:56 pm
Like Pirates of the Caribbean?
Tom
September 5th, 2004 at 12:07 am
Just like Pirates, yes. How different in quality would you say that film is to Spider-Man 2?
Andy
September 6th, 2004 at 11:45 am
Spider-man 2 has small plot holes and is great. Pirates has big plot holes and isn’t.
Tom
September 6th, 2004 at 5:02 pm
So you were quite happy to bag ships not working quite right in Pirates mercilessly, but particle physics suddenly starting huge, glowy, swelling chain reactions that can be contained by a liberal dousing in water doesn’t bother you?
Also, Spider-Man 2 doesn’t have Johnny Depp in it.
Andy
September 6th, 2004 at 10:08 pm
Pirates doesn’t have Kirsten Dunst in it.
Tom
September 7th, 2004 at 4:41 am
Spider-Man 2 doesn’t have Keira Knightley in it.
Andy
September 9th, 2004 at 9:41 am
I thought you’d use that one.
I’d like to see Charlie’s Angels with Kirsten, Keira and Jessica Alba.
Tom
September 9th, 2004 at 5:47 pm
Brilliant, Andy! In Hollywood, they’d call you an ideas man.
I want to see that movie.
Tom
January 27th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
I’m still waiting for that film.
Watching Spider-Man 2 the other day, I must say my favourite bit of the film — aside from the cool action — is the final shot, with MJ looking out the window at Spidey webbing off to save the day. Mainly because it’s one of the few bits in the film where there’s an emotional feeling that’s conveyed without any irritating dialogue. Apart from the colours of the room and her face looking beautiful, there’s a real ambiguity to her expression.
I like emotional ambiguity.
Andy
January 28th, 2005 at 3:28 am
It’s a shame they had to do the extra wedding bit though. It always puts me in a bad mood and I never appreciate the vey last bit.
Tom
January 29th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Yeah… it makes MJ seem a bit nasty, leaving that astronaut there. I think they put the wedding in for one of two reasons. Or both.
That last one is pure speculation.