I know everyone has probably already seen the film, but I am posting the review anyway. It isn't as clean as past ones due to typing it on WordPad, but it's here. Have fun.
_____________________________________
It may be considered high-treason, but I honestly thought Spiderman 2 was not as good as the original movie. Despite the entertainment value of the film, as a movie it just doesn't stand up. There are two major reasons for this though. The first reason is a lack of originality in the story, and the second director, Sam Raimi's blatant use of camp-happy camera moves. Both of these things took so much away from the web-slinger's second outing.
Now just because I found two things that, I felt, hindered the movie, I still liked it. But the story-formula was a rehash of the first movie, where the opposite things happen. Peter Parker (Tobey Maquire) is seriously down on his luck. He can't keep a job, his grades are failing and he is so tired he forgets his own birthday. To make matters worse, his powers are beginning to fail him (rather than he acquire new ones) and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) has gotten engaged (rather than has just broken up, see the opposite). Meanwhile, Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) has an accident with his experiment that causes him to go insane, and causes someone dear to him to die (just like William Dafoe's Green Goblin). During the movie, Aunt May is taken hostage (rather than Uncle Ben) and Spiderman decides to give it up (rather than embrace his powers). Even the ending is the opposite of the first movie. The story is great to fill the seats, and keep the audience in them, but I wanted more depth. The romance between MJ and Peter is nice and all, but more hero action rather than love would have been more appropriate, I think.
I can look past the story's repitition. But the way Raimi directed this film was borderline rediculous. Raimi is best known for his creation of the Evil Dead trilogy. However, so much of the camera-work and atmosphere seemed straight out of the campy, cult classic. One scene his even nice enough to have a close-up of a running chainsaw. Most people won't catch it, but I did. Spiderman is not the place to be reliving past successes. Also, the pacing of the film seemed off. I think a lot of that had to due with the overabundance of Peter Parker and Mary Jane's relationship in the story, but with that I am just being picky.
Even though I had a couple of problems with the film does not mean I hated it, though. The fight scenes are intense and exhilerating. Doc Oc's multiple arms and their power makes the battes so much more appealing. Also, Molina does incredible job as the villian. He was nominated for a Tony in Fiddler on the Roof, and his performance in this movie proves he is worthy of one. Maquire does another phenominal job as Parker as well. The character has more depth in this film, and Parker seems to relish in it. So, there are some very good things in the film. Also, it segways nicely for the introduction of three villians for future films (for those keeping score; The Lizard, Hobgoblin and Venom).
So even though I didn't like the campiness of the film, it is still probably the best thing coming out this summer. I really liked the film. It is extremely entertaining. I guess I just wanted more meat in the movie.
3 OUT OF FOUR STARS
OVERALL SUMMARY: It would have been a four star film, if it weren't for a massive case of deja-vu. It's like the first movie with Evil Dead thrown in. That's not a bad thing, just not a good thing. Just see the film.
_____________________________________
It may be considered high-treason, but I honestly thought Spiderman 2 was not as good as the original movie. Despite the entertainment value of the film, as a movie it just doesn't stand up. There are two major reasons for this though. The first reason is a lack of originality in the story, and the second director, Sam Raimi's blatant use of camp-happy camera moves. Both of these things took so much away from the web-slinger's second outing.
Now just because I found two things that, I felt, hindered the movie, I still liked it. But the story-formula was a rehash of the first movie, where the opposite things happen. Peter Parker (Tobey Maquire) is seriously down on his luck. He can't keep a job, his grades are failing and he is so tired he forgets his own birthday. To make matters worse, his powers are beginning to fail him (rather than he acquire new ones) and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) has gotten engaged (rather than has just broken up, see the opposite). Meanwhile, Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) has an accident with his experiment that causes him to go insane, and causes someone dear to him to die (just like William Dafoe's Green Goblin). During the movie, Aunt May is taken hostage (rather than Uncle Ben) and Spiderman decides to give it up (rather than embrace his powers). Even the ending is the opposite of the first movie. The story is great to fill the seats, and keep the audience in them, but I wanted more depth. The romance between MJ and Peter is nice and all, but more hero action rather than love would have been more appropriate, I think.
I can look past the story's repitition. But the way Raimi directed this film was borderline rediculous. Raimi is best known for his creation of the Evil Dead trilogy. However, so much of the camera-work and atmosphere seemed straight out of the campy, cult classic. One scene his even nice enough to have a close-up of a running chainsaw. Most people won't catch it, but I did. Spiderman is not the place to be reliving past successes. Also, the pacing of the film seemed off. I think a lot of that had to due with the overabundance of Peter Parker and Mary Jane's relationship in the story, but with that I am just being picky.
Even though I had a couple of problems with the film does not mean I hated it, though. The fight scenes are intense and exhilerating. Doc Oc's multiple arms and their power makes the battes so much more appealing. Also, Molina does incredible job as the villian. He was nominated for a Tony in Fiddler on the Roof, and his performance in this movie proves he is worthy of one. Maquire does another phenominal job as Parker as well. The character has more depth in this film, and Parker seems to relish in it. So, there are some very good things in the film. Also, it segways nicely for the introduction of three villians for future films (for those keeping score; The Lizard, Hobgoblin and Venom).
So even though I didn't like the campiness of the film, it is still probably the best thing coming out this summer. I really liked the film. It is extremely entertaining. I guess I just wanted more meat in the movie.
3 OUT OF FOUR STARS
OVERALL SUMMARY: It would have been a four star film, if it weren't for a massive case of deja-vu. It's like the first movie with Evil Dead thrown in. That's not a bad thing, just not a good thing. Just see the film.
