Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spider-Man 2

This is topic Spider-Man 2 in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000796

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 06-30-2004, 03:09 AM:

Well, I have to admit that it was better than I was expecting. I think the elevator scene was the best part. However, it had the feel of a sequel and got a little tedious in the middle of the movie. pretty good overall though.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-30-2004, 03:27 AM:

In a word, WOW! This was a spectacular couple hours of fun that stayed true to the original film. As many critics have been saying, the special thing about both these films, and especially this one, is that we can all really feel for the Peter Parker character. He's a human, just like us. He has trouble at work, school, and with love. We want him to prevail at everything, but we know it will be tough. Sure, he has superpowers but they come with a price. What a great story and character.

Also, Doc Oc was one great villain. The visual effects with his tentacles are seamless and really do frighten the audience. I heard that Christopher Walken and some others were considered for the role, but I think Molina nailed the part. He had the perfect balance of likability and the essence of a villain we want to root against.

The sound mix was also great. Everything was very spacial and there was a nice use of low bass to rock the house. The only thing I found lacking was the opening credits music. In the first film, it seemed louder and more pronounced. In this film, it was too subdued and a tad boring. Maybe it was the SRD mix. Any thoughts?

The opening credits overall though were great. I liked the fact that they kept with the same theme and style as the first film, with the addition of the artwork. Very nice touch.

I highly reccomend this film...to EVERYONE!

AJG

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 06-30-2004, 04:25 PM:

To me, the opening seemed a little dull....and the 8 Channel SDDS didn't kick that much until after the opening sequence...it sounded pretty good though from there on

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-30-2004, 10:30 PM:

I fell asleep after about a half hour during this overly long very dull film. Even the effects were very poor, bordering on being laughable. The Danny Elfman score was the only memorable point of the whole film.
Ther preview of "Christmas With The Kronks" was very funny though!!

Mark

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 06-30-2004, 11:14 PM:

I agree, Mark. What a disappointment of a film. The more-than-generous critics must have been paid-off. [Big Grin]

It's waaaaay too long, with a very clumsy tempo to the whole thing. Worst of all, it's almost totally humorless .. a fatal flaw, in my view. Dreary is indeed the word. Not my idea of a good-time summer movie at all.

Ron Yost

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-01-2004, 06:03 AM:

I was a bit disappointed. It wasn't a _bad_ film, but it felt a bit too perfunctory and didn't have enough quite as much as excitement as I would have hoped. It could have been edited a bit more "tightly" as well. Not that it was a bad film, just that it didn't live up to my (high) expectations.

For a truly crappy presentation, I recommend seeing this in cinema 2 at the NA Circle Cinema in Brookline, MA. This is the right half of what was once a large auditorium; in the current incarnation, the seats are still oriented toward the (now nonexistant) larger screen rather than the current smaller screen, with a (now) center aisle, which makes watching the film uncomfortable from many of them. Other "fun" aspects of this house include: scope lens misaligned, lackluster optical Dolby sound (optical Dolby can sound very good, but it didn't here), opaque splices, lab splices not removed, mix of flat and scope NCN ads, pre-show slide projector way out of alignment, horizontal and vertical keystone distortion of image, minor print damage on opening day (lab errors?), and a crowd of People Who Will Not Shut Up.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 07-01-2004, 01:01 PM:

quote:
This is the right half of what was once a large auditorium; in the current incarnation, the seats are still oriented toward the (now nonexistant) larger screen rather than the current smaller screen, with a (now) center aisle, which makes watching the film uncomfortable from many of them. Other "fun" aspects of this house include: scope lens misaligned, opaque splices, lab splices not removed, mix of flat and scope NCN ads, pre-show slide projector way out of alignment, horizontal and vertical keystone distortion of image, minor print damage on opening day (lab errors?), and a crowd of People Who Will Not Shut Up.

LOL. Are you sure you weren't at the UA Stonestown Twin in San Francisco?

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 07-02-2004, 01:02 PM:

For the record, I'm pasting here what I think is an honest review of this film .. found on BoxOfficeMojo:

“Shudder Bug”
by Scott Holleran
©2004 BoxOfficeMojo, Scott Holleran

"An interesting theme about the role of choice in man's actions is lost in a dull, slow-moving sequel that reduces Stan Lee's Marvel Comics hero to the level of a traffic cop. Action movie addicts wait a long time to get their fix and, like the plot, the conflict is familiar stuff.

Director Sam Raimi, who appeared to enjoy explaining Peter Parker's story in the pleasant Spider-Man, returns with a determination to depict Spidey as flawed. This time, Parker (Tobey Maguire) is a struggling student, freelance photographer and pizza delivery man who can't afford to pay the rent. Riding his bicycle through New York's clogged streets, Parker strives to bring pizza to a city of rude, snarling people who aren't worth saving.

This movie's notion of humor is a homeless woman singing Spidey's theme song off-key -- twice. The slice of life posture pervades the movie, except for a few minutes of ballet-like movements through Manhattan, which keeps Spider-Man's feet encrusted in clay.

Even New York City's skyline -- which provided Spider-Man's better scenes -- is muted and downsized, with clipped shots of Spider-Man gliding through the air between skyscrapers; he spends more time falling off walls, getting knocked around and slamming into buildings.

Deprived of both a world worth saving and a heroic hero, Spider-Man 2 relies on Alvin Sargent's script, which is threaded with an idea that holds the web together: volition. Each character faces a fundamental choice -- Parker must decide whether he wants to save the world, actress Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst, trying too hard) must choose between Parker and her astronaut boyfriend and Parker's best friend (James Franco) faces his destiny. Mr. Sargent's fragmentary theme of free will also applies to Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and the movie's villain, played by Alfred Molina, yet another mad scientist.

Theme, plot and characters are lost in ear-splitting action -- Spider-Man takes on mechanically-armed Molina in some nonsense about fusion -- and several diversions, including the movie's low point, a scene using Burt Bacharach's "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head." Saving New York as a burden more than as a favor, Spider-Man is stripped of heroic motives and, since his attempt to stop a runaway subway is perfunctory, it is boring. Heroes do not show up begrudgingly out of some vague sense of duty.

With a lackluster hero and villain -- Molina's lunatic can destroy the city yet he robs a bank to finance a project -- a girlfriend who can't act and a city that shuffles more than it bustles, all that's left to care about is how the choices play. Spider-Man gets some swoop in his swing late in the picture but, by then, things are awfully sticky. While it is not 100 percent anti-heroic, Spider-Man 2 works best for those who like to see their protagonists bloodied, humbled and unmasked.

Grade: C"

Ron Yost

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-03-2004, 11:02 PM:

I'll vote with Aaron. I thought it was excellent. In fact, compared to the prior film I was stunned at how much better it was. They really did a good job with some interesting compositions, camera angles, and moves. Someone who is looking for mindless, wall-to-wall action might be bored but this is a more sophisticated film than that. Sorry.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-04-2004, 10:57 AM:

Ron, that review was only honest in your opinion because it mostly and apparently reflected your own dissapointment.

To those that didn't like the film... Phooey on you!

I love movies. I love many movies. I really loved this movie!!!

It truly is one special flick that does hold a special place in my heart, and not becuase of the movie itself.

The troubled romance between Peter and Mary Jane is much more special in my eyes than any part of the film. Probably because it actually reflects a part of my own life, where I do have this person I know that for some reason actually looks A LOT like mary jane, and I fail at every job just like Peter, but I break easier that spiderman.

I have always been known by those that know me to be self sacrificeing to the point of having no personal joy, just making sure everyone else is taken care of to the detriment of myself. The other person in this personal story is with someone else simply because it is easier, but really doesn't enjoy it and would rather be.... elsewhere... if only I could open my own damned mouth and voice it... DAMN MY PERSONAL ETHICS>>>> DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!

SO for me it was rather poignant, and meant so much more. Maybe it will give me the personal courage to take a little enjoyment for myself, while not losing who I am in process.

Maybe there are more people who have lived this kind of story than meets the eye, or maybe there are more people who feel this way. Either way, this movie does speak on a more emotional level than an action level, a bit of a turn off for the true to form comic book geeks that think superman should wear those god awful colors or that batman really looked good inthe 60's.

Hey, it's raimi's movie, love it or leave it. Most loved it, and theaters are banking. Reviewers love it, 92 percent of the audience just loved it, and they will all pay out the nose for the next one.

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-05-2004, 07:05 PM:

Loved the movie. Probably better than the first movie because the villain does not have the cheesy moments we had to endure with the Green Goblin.
RANT ABOUT THE PRESENTATION:
The presentation however was mediocre. It was in my favorite house - Auditorium 8 at Regal Perimeter Pointe 10. The trailers were out of focus and jittery. In my past experience, the sound and picture of the trailers didn't necessarily match the quality of the feature presentation. Why is this? Aren't the trailers on the same platter? Anyway, so I wasn't sure if things would go right when the feature came on ,so I complained just to be sure. The bored looking Asst Mgr lady and took my complaint. This theater management is horrible when it comes to the technical stuff. I had to complain about Kill Bill2's horrible projection in their best auditorium(there was a lot of jitter, obvious in the B&W scenes) and the general manager blew me off saying it was fine. In any case, Spidey 2 starts and the movie titles seem to be a little less jittery and more in focus(but not perfect) than the trailer credits. But one problem still remained. The sides of the movie had this debris like outline like the edges were frayed and loose fragments were lined up on the side. It took me a few minutes to tune that crap out of my view.

THE MOVIE REVIEW:
I don't know how much humor one needs in a movie. While I dont like a self important overly serious tone, I also don't want to see the tone be jokey jokey wink wink. It was not as dull and full of itself like some of the batman movies or any other comic book movies which have way too many nighttime scenes set in gothic set pieces and few scenes in the day. This movie had a nice balance of situations. The movie improved on the action in the first movie. It had nice melodrama. I was moved by the ending of the train sequence where spiderman is passed along to the middle of the train. I thought it was done very well.

Yes, Tobey can sometimes overdo the Andrew McCarthy school of acting when it comes to staring with bug eyes. But I liked it. I liked the casting. Molina is one of my favorite character actors and he didn't disappoint. I liked the casualness in the dinner scene with his wife and Peter Parker. Molina didn't ham it up. I liked some minor casting choices like the gawky skinny neighbor girl(And no, I am not talking about Kirsten Dunst [Wink]

).

It is nice to see that despite all the fuckups Hollywood can engage in, they are getting some clue about hiring directors for comic book/genre movies a lot of the time these days. Sam Raimi, G Del Toro (Hellboy), Cuaron(Harry Potter), Bryan Singer (X Men), Peter Jackson (LOTR), Nolan(Batman Begins) are all choices to be commended and makes one forget choices like the upcoming C**twoman movie with Halle Berry.

By the way, if anyone has a question about Bale as Batman, watch Equilibrium, and you will know the guy fits the role.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2004, 12:03 AM:

Watched the 4:00pm show today at the Carmike 8 in Lawton, THX/DTS presentation. Pretty good show. I don't think I would give it four stars like Roger Ebert; for me it's at least a solid three or maybe three and a half if I'm going to be really generous. I did enjoy this one more than the first "Spiderman" movie, which only seemed to work in fits and starts.

I didn't mind all the depth of character probing storyline showing Peter Parker to be "flawed." I think it showed him to be more human really. What guy is going to be able to fight bad guys in the middle of the night and still be able to hold down a job and complete homework through lack of sleep?

I would agree the "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" thing really didn't belong in the film. I kept expecting to see Paul Newman ride past on a bicycle. Outside of that, the film was refreshingly without a lot of stupid camp and pop culture references. That may go a long way to allow this movie have a more timeless quality to it than so much of the other throwaway fluff we see.

The only other nitpick I have with the film is the totally not believable way he stops the subway train.

Outside of that the movie was pretty cool. Doc Octopus is definitely a better, more scary villain than Green Goblin was in the first installment of Spiderman. I only wish there were more scenes with him. Perhaps some of that had to do with budgeting for CGI.

Picture quality was pretty good for Super35. Not very grainy at all, which may point to use of a digital intermediate. I wasn't expecting a 'scope film. Wasn't the first Spiderman movie flat? I really liked the renderings involving the fusion ball, which appeared like a miniaturized sun. The sound mix thumped pretty good in DTS. I imagine the DVD will be pretty loud.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-06-2004, 07:56 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The only other nitpick I have with the film is the totally not believable way he stops the subway train.

You mean the rest of the action was believable?

I wonder if the closeups of Spider-Man were digitally manipulated to make it look more like the CGI character? He always looks a little shiny.

I liked the movie very much. A great achievement, especially for a sequel. I like the newspaper boss. I found the raindrops sequence very funny - did anyone notice there is a shot where Maguire walks happily down the street and everybody in the background is watching him?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-07-2004, 11:39 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
You mean the rest of the action was believable?

Even with super heroes there has to be some limit to their super powers. After all, you're still trying to maintain some level of the suspension of disbelief. At some point you risk losing the audience by going too far. A subway train weighs hundreds of tons. With the thing speeding out of control, just think about the physics involved just to be able to stop it. I've heard of frieght trains taking as much as a mile to make an emergency stop after plowing over some dumbass in his car when he tried to run the crossing.

One could respond by saying, "well super heroes have super human powers." Yes, but only to a point to keep things interesting. If you make the character too powerful you take away any dramatic tension in the film. The guy just becomes invincible. And boring.

To add to this, I don't remember Spiderman being quite that powerful in the comic books I read when I was a kid. There's also other inconsistencies between the Spiderman movies and the comic book. For instance, Spiderman did not catch up with the guy who killed Ben Parker until the 200th issue of the Amazing Spiderman (I have that issue tucked away in a small collection of comic books).

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 07-08-2004, 09:56 PM:

I wasn't THAT impressed with this one.

I can't really describe it, but I just didn't get into it as I was trying to do.

Very disappointing.

1.56783254692/5

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-09-2004, 01:43 AM:

One comment I wanted to make on the cgi is that sometimes they look too much like a video game. Almost every time spidey is swinging between buildings, I think I'm playing a giant play station. It seems like they cgi'd the buildings instead of filming real buildings and inserting the cgi spider man. It would look 100 times more realistic if they filmed real buildings, filmed a stunt double swinging on a sound stage and then mated the two images digitally. Those helicopters at the end really looked awful. What's odd is I thought the metal tentacle effects were pretty good.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 07-12-2004, 01:16 AM:

I got really bored watch it... Yes, some scenes were cool. But I swear it felt like I was watching a really bad soap opera. I started making hand gestures where it looked like my hands were talking during the really drawn out dialogue scenes. It was hilarious seeing my friends agreeing with my talking hands. [evil]

Also, in almost every scene it looked like Peter Parker(Tobey) was about to cry. Yes, he is supposed to have issues but someone needs to redirect Tobey that this is not for the Oscars.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 07-12-2004, 03:33 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Almost every time spidey is swinging between buildings, I think I'm playing a giant play station. It seems like they cgi'd the buildings instead of filming real buildings and inserting the cgi spider man.

At a Columbia presentation way back, we were shown an unfinished trailer of Spiderman flying thru blocks of cheese. So yes definitely they cgi-ed the buildings.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-12-2004, 04:43 AM:

That was probably Cheddar-Man.

Posted by Nicole Halper (Member # 2299) on 07-15-2004, 12:15 AM:

Ok- so I thought the movie was actually very good- but of course I have several peeves about it:

1. He can pull off his mask- YET in all the scenes where he is in full costume- there is NO seam what so ever.

2. They ate vanilla cake NOT chocolate cake- (though it had chocolate icing)

3. In the train scene- shouldn't the people have shifted their weight to the back of the train car...not all pile into the front to watch?!

4. Now this one REALLY got to me, almost as much as the mask. When there were close-ups of his face- YOU COULD SEE HIS CONTACTS. So much for keeping up with the illusion.

Haha- but otherwise it was very good- VERY predictable ending- but it's Hollywood- and a Marvel Comic...what did you expect?

*/done over analyzing*

Posted by Robert L. Fischer (Member # 2424) on 07-16-2004, 04:05 AM:

I hated the movie, but I hate comic books too. Maybe that explains it. [Confused]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-16-2004, 08:01 AM:

quote: Nicole Halper
1. He can pull off his mask- YET in all the scenes where he is in full costume- there is NO seam what so ever.

I noticed that too!
Here's one other thing which puzzled me. Apparently he normally wears the costume (well, it's not really a costume since he doesn't dress as Spider-Man, he is Spider-Man, so it's probably called the spider suit or something like that), anyway he wears the spider suit under his normal clothes so he can quickly change. But where does he leave his clothes? His wallet, his cell phone?

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 07-16-2004, 11:01 AM:

Well that is easy enough to answer. He can just leave his clothes webbed to any corner of any building and come back to them later (I don't think that he can afford a cell phone however).

I should also point out that the first time I watched the movie, I enjoyed it for what it was. The second time I was looking for any mistakes (like the cake thing) that being said, I specifically looked for contact lenses and I didn't see Toby wearing any in the close up scenes.

Posted by Nicole Halper (Member # 2299) on 07-16-2004, 11:29 AM:

Oh, but I guarantee you he did. Look again- I only saw it once, and I noticed it more in the close ups in the second half of the movie. But he's wearing contacts for certain.

Yeah- and on the suit changing as well- so does he never wear T-shirts or shorts? (due to the long sleeves and leg coverage of the suit) [Wink]

Oh yeah- this is a comic- so it doesn't have to all be explained. Oh well. - I just find it too fun to over analyze~

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-16-2004, 01:20 PM:

I always thought it would be kind of funny to have some major disaster happen that could have been averted if the superhero hadn't had to take time to change clothes. (Or maybe a zipper could get stuck or something.)

This is the kind of "edgy" material they ought to think about for the next one.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-16-2004, 01:44 PM:

The trailer for "The Incredibles" hints at gags like that:

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/incredibles/nonflash.html

quote:
Incredibles website (Flash required)

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-17-2004, 12:25 PM:

Isn't this a movie review section? What's with all the anger?

You are bitching about a seamless suit? Maybe perhaps this is the way the spiderman people wanted it?

Yeah I noticed LOTS AND LOTS of things that are wrong with the movie, technically and perhaps things INTENTIONED by the people who actually payed 200 million dollars to make this movie.

So did it make a difference in my enjoyment of the movie? You might as well ask me if fat people can have a good opinion! What does one have to do with the other. You either liked it or not. Quit your bitching! [Big Grin]

No really though, we really ought to have a section for people to bitch about mistakes or issues of technical errors. Because really, if your enjoyment of a movie is based on wether or not the spideysuit has a seam around the neck, maybe you were just looking to bitch in the first place. [Razz]

I actually bitch about all these issues too, but I never attach the enjoyment of a film to it. I hope you don't either. I loved the film, technical mishaps and all.

Then again, If I had 200 million to make a film, I bet I would make a few errors, regardless of how many times my people went over it. It usually takes a million viewers to spot three or four ACTUAL mistakes. It may seem like these things would be obvious, and maybe they are intentional, who is to know?

So I loved the film, all three times. loved it more and more each time, and will go again this next week, possible on tuesday. Maybe I will hate it by then???? [evil]

NEVER

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Nicole Halper (Member # 2299) on 07-17-2004, 09:45 PM:

Sorry if my critique made it seem like I hated the movie, because I felt quite the contrary. I did love it. I just have an issue with pointing out inconsistencies. It's a habit. I don't think it takes away from the enjoyment however, I think it makes it seem more "human" to have mistakes.

So here's a non-mistake targeted critique:

The movie was wonderful- predictable story line- (but what did you expect?) The effects were very well done- and made it very enjoyable. It is definitely worth seeing (and even seeing again)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-18-2004, 12:40 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
He wears the spider suit under his normal clothes so he can quickly change. But where does he leave his clothes? His wallet, his cell phone?

Shit, I'm still trying to figure out how the Hulk blasts up to giant angry size without ripping out of his purple pants! I guess that movie would have sold fewer tickets if you had military attack helicopters chasing after a giant naked green man with his tallywacker flopping out in the open!
[Big Grin]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-18-2004, 06:02 AM:

The Hulk would probably have sold more tickets (at least a few more than the 137 it sold across North America) if that had been in the movie.

Jennifer: I was surprised you didn't write "Tobey was really hot though". You normally write that in each review.

Quiz: what movie's soundtrack is heard on the "Incredibles" trailer linked to by John?

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-18-2004, 04:51 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
Quiz: what movie's soundtrack is heard on the "Incredibles" trailer linked to by John?

That is of course from the soundtrack to "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-18-2004, 08:19 PM:

Yes.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 07-21-2004, 10:05 PM:

Like the first Spider-Man movie, this one could have used a little editing. There are some unnecessarily long speeches and too much repetition. But on the whole, this is a far superior movie to the first one. I've already seen it twice and will likely see it again.

Even the opening credits are an improvement on the first movie. The music is exactly the same as before, but the hand-drawn images of poignant scenes from the first movie make it far more interesting to watch. I've heard comments even from those who did not like Spider-Man 2 that they at least enjoyed the opening credits. I did notice this sequence looks like it has been time compressed just slightly. Some of the motion is somewhat jerky in that particular manner time compression causes.

I also enjoyed the moment when Peter Parker is on the street and shakes his head in annoyance at the lady singing the animated Spider-Man theme song. That's one of those moments that pays off only if the movie has constructed its own internal reality so strongly it can survive little in-jokes that might otherwise destroy it.

Of course, what any adventure movie needs is a strong villan, and this one has it. Doc Ock really delivers, along with Harry. The motives are clear, the appearances menacing, the fights difficult. I also liked the setup for the sequel. Should be a good one, although I suspect this might be the pinnacle of the series already. Here's hoping part 3 doesn't disappoint!

Oh yeah, and I have to say this movie looks really good. And no wonder, it employed a 4K digital intermediate. Here is an article discussing how the process was done at EFILM, although it is a little light on the technical details:

http://colorfront.com/index.php3?n=10&m=20

The article mentions how SFX shots were still done at 2K, even though the final digital master for the film was 4K. I think this shows in some places, especially the end credits, which exhibit a lot of aliasing. But overall, the image quality is really quite good.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-25-2004, 10:41 AM:

I finally caught up with this last night, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene. The presentation was very good with the exception of the sound dropping out for a few seconds at the start of the Regal roller coaster (still no 2wenty here in the boondocks). The print was in pristine condition, no dirt or scratches. I didn't notice any lab splices or crap code. It's been hot as hell here the last couple days, and business seemed to be great what with people going to a movie to get out of the heat (I guess).

I enjoyed this a little more than the first one, and that's saying a lot. If other movies of this genre would spend a little more time on character development (like in this film), they would be the better for it. The CGI stuff is mostly very very good, esp Spidey swinging from building to building through the city - done much better this time around. The image quality generally looked excellent -- very sharp and detailed.

Oh yeah, Danny Elfman's score over the opening credits still rocks. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-01-2004, 12:47 AM:

Mary Jane is an evil bitch-whore! She waited all the way up to her wedding day to ditch the guy she was gonna marry. Ditching someone at the alter is evil. Hopefully she will die a slow, painful death in the guaranteed-to-be-horrible Spiderman 3 (as suggested by one of the last scenes in part 2). And why didn' Peter Parker hook up with that chick who made him chocolate cake/pie/whatever? She looks 10 times better than Kirsten Dunst and isn't such an evil bitch-whore!

The lady plucking the Spiderman tune on the violin was just retarded. Why do filmmakers insist on putting idiotic stuff like that in movies? This scene, which is played TWICE ruined my whole day by getting that tune stuck in my head. It was not funny when it appeared onscreen. Nobody laughed.

Anyway, besides those few issues, this was better than the first movie, which struggled to be mediocre. This one is a litle better than mediocre. The first hour or five are slow and boring. It seems like Doctor Octopus isn't even created until the 3rd or 4th hour, and he is given very little to do in the movie. He was a way better villian than Dennis Leary/Willem Da-Foe (same guy) as hobgoblin. But I never really cared for any of the characters. I knew Peter would save New York, I knew Peter would get his stupid bitch-whore in the end, and I knew there would be next to no onscreen deaths. Also, a guy strong enough to stop a train would absolutely pummel Doc Oc to death very quickly as he was punching him in the face. Also, what was with the freeze frame at the end of the li'l musical montage?

My guess what Spiderman 3 will be:
It will have another uninteresting goblin character played by that punk. But he certainly isn't enough to carry the movie. So they'll go the Batman route and have more than one villian. I'm getting in line for tickets now!
[av=h]
About the presentation:
The AMC video projector looked far better and sharper than the movie. Granted I could see scan lines, but it didn't bob and weave like the film did. The film was very soft and lacked the detail that was provided in the video preshow. The sound had actual bass, which is a first for any AMC theater on the planet. But of course it was not turned up enough. There were many morons in the audience. I was one of them simply for seeing the movie! Lots o' lab slices and CAP code to help ruin the theatrical presentation, ensuring that the best presentations will always be had at home on HD-DVD. I seriously am starting to hate the theater experience. Very few places can get it right, and they don't want to put forth the money/effort in order to do it right. Also, until we can get rid of the CAP code, theaters just cannot compete with home video.