Just check out some of the user reviews on the Spider-Man 2 page... It seems that's where most metacritic users go to give their specific opinions on movies, games, and albums. These forums have tended to cultivate more broad stroke discussions.
Death to Videodrome... long live the new flesh!
Posts: 392 | Location: Santa Monica | Registered: 12 May 2004
Well, that's not fair. I am just saying that to be a contrarian to every else who LOVED it. I thought it was mediocre though.
There was a heck of a lot of "telling" and not "showing" in the script. Like when Dr. Octopus has his first internal conflict. "Oh no, the arms seem to have penetrated my thoughts. It seems as though I am changing....yaddi yaddah." That part could have been much better.
Also, why were the arms evil...I understand that they want to finish their experiment. But going after old ladies, etc. Why are they EVIL???
The direction was cheesy as hell, too. Why did the people in the train have to raise spiderman above their heads? Why did the fingernails of one of the medics in the beginning shave the seemingly metal floor? Why did that lady who was scared of doctor octopus have to put her hands on her face and come screaming into a closeup shot of her? These are the questions I want answered.
However, I DID like the concept (though I don't really understand why scientifically this was supposed to happen) that peter parker lost his powers when he wasn't dedicated to the cause of being spiderman. That was well conceived.
The action scenes were pretty good too, I spose, though action scenes don't really excite me anymore as I feel like if you have seen 25, you've seen the rest of the 1,000,000. And the romance was pretty good. I like keeping the "go get em tiger" til the end. That was cool.
I saw the movie with three friends in Las Vegas, telling them, "Hey, it's metascore is over 80, it can't be bad!" Let me tell you, we were all bored to TEARS by this movie. The first one was amusing, but this one is TERRIBLE. There's absolutely nothing compelling about it. I'll give it the big thumbs DOWN.
Death to Videodrome... long live the new flesh!
Posts: 392 | Location: Santa Monica | Registered: 12 May 2004
I agree with a lot of what Dave is saying, and I was disappointed. The first one was better. Too much focus on internal conflict in this one for my taste. They didn't do nearly enough with doc ock, and I agree with Dave about the Doc saying everthing whenever his mind changed.
One other thing I wondered about *Spoilers*
Mr. Osborn's Insanity could be explained by the serum. What caused Harry's? And why would it be so similar to his father's?
I reserve the right to be entirely wrong.
Posts: 253 | Location: Kansas | Registered: 20 June 2004
well, just saw Spidey 2 and it was really great, as good as the first one.
But I agree with Brian, too much romance. Because of that the rythm of the film is a bit uneven at times.
Also, it is more "out there" than the previous one. But Doc Ock rules!! The special effects are excellent!!!
It is also much funnier than the first film and sometimes it feels like youre watching a Leslie Nielsen film!! (the whole Butch Cassidy spoof scene? What the hell was that??)
I thought it was great! I definately agree with Roger Ebert on this one, I think it is the best comic book movie ever made. It was also the best film I have seen this year, and I think Sam Raimi deserves a Best Director nomination for his efforts. The entire film was presented so much like a comic book that I was very impressed. I grew up on comic books and Spider-Man has always been on of my favorites. Any comic book fan should have been absolutely stoked about this film! Maybe for people who were never into comic books it can be seen as boring, but totally not for me. I thought that the scene on the train and the fingernails scraping the metal floor, as well as Doc Ock's internal conflict being verbalized were all scenes that captured the essence of a comic book perfectly. They would not necessarily work in other movies, but for this one I felt those bits were excellent! The acting was particularly good, especially J.K. Simmons, Alfred Molina and Kirsten Dunst. I really liked that whenever Harry Osborne is on the screen, his face is always half in the shadows. That was another very comic-book thing that Sam Raimi brought to the screen. Overall, I found nothing wrong with the film at all. My girlfriend said she had never seen me watch a film so intently, as I was searching for flaws and problems, but honestly found none. It is very rare for me to see a movie twice in the theatres, but if this comes to Imax screens like I have heard rumoured, then I will be there for sure! This was the perfect Spider Man movie for Spider Man fans!
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
quote:Originally posted by Smenkharon: I thought it was great! I definately agree with Roger Ebert on this one, I think it is the best comic book movie ever made. It was also the best film I have seen this year, and I think Sam Raimi deserves a Best Director nomination for his efforts. The entire film was presented so much like a comic book that I was very impressed. I grew up on comic books and Spider-Man has always been on of my favorites. Any comic book fan should have been absolutely stoked about this film! Maybe for people who were never into comic books it can be seen as boring, but totally not for me. I thought that the scene on the train and the fingernails scraping the metal floor, as well as Doc Ock's internal conflict being verbalized were all scenes that captured the essence of a comic book perfectly. They would not necessarily work in other movies, but for this one I felt those bits were excellent! The acting was particularly good, especially J.K. Simmons, Alfred Molina and Kirsten Dunst. I really liked that whenever Harry Osborne is on the screen, his face is always half in the shadows. That was another very comic-book thing that Sam Raimi brought to the screen. Overall, I found nothing wrong with the film at all. My girlfriend said she had never seen me watch a film so intently, as I was searching for flaws and problems, but honestly found none. It is very rare for me to see a movie twice in the theatres, but if this comes to Imax screens like I have heard rumoured, then I will be there for sure! This was the perfect Spider Man movie for Spider Man fans!
Woah Woah Woah there!!!
First of all, The best comic book adaptation is Batman Returns
Second of all, the best film of 2004 so far is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Third of all, you're right, the scenes which you describe were all awesome, but there WERE some flaws in the film.
Also, I just loved the opening credits, even better than in the first one!
I haven't seen Eternal Sunshine and Batman Returns has never done much for me.
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
quote:written by CompmanJX3 One other thing I wondered about *Spoilers*
Mr. Osborn's Insanity could be explained by the serum. What caused Harry's? And why would it be so similar to his father's?
Will someone who is familiar with the comic book or movie please explain this? It really doesn't make much sense at the moment. Does the crazy gene run in the family? Were they both crack addicts? Did Harry shoot-up with some of that serum without our knowledge? Someone please explain (or provide some other theories).
Someone give me my poll rights.
K-Dog
Posts: 196 | Location: Purgatory | Registered: 04 June 2004
quote:Originally posted by K-Dog: [QUOTE]written by CompmanJX3
Will someone who is familiar with the comic book or movie please explain this? It really doesn't make much sense at the moment. Does the crazy gene run in the family? Were they both crack addicts? Did Harry shoot-up with some of that serum without our knowledge? Someone please explain (or provide some other theories).
Someone give me my poll rights.
_K-Dog_
Ummm....Harry loved his father, but was always dissapointing him. When his father died he is flooded with guilt. The guilt triggers the want for revenge. When Harry goes insane he sees his father not a comic villain alter ego (a la Green Goblin). SO, in a way, Harrys brand of insanity is quite different than his father's, for it's brought about by a real-life cause and not something as cartoonish as serum.
Yeah, but his fit of insanity was exactly the same as the one his father experienced in the first film. I'd think that the insanity caused by a million dollar serum would be at least a little different from insanity caused by mental stress and alcohol.
All I'm saying is that they made it seem like Harry was suffering from the same exact condition as his father, even though that is clearly not the case.
K-Dog
Posts: 196 | Location: Purgatory | Registered: 04 June 2004
