I liked "Spider-Man" a lot, but there were things about it that I didn't like. The CGI wasn't believable, the costume for "The Green Goblin" was awful, and Kirsten Dunst was miscast as "Mary Jane." And speaking of "Mary Jane," I felt that they shoulda had "Gwen Stacy" in the movie instead of "Mary Jane." They used a lot from "The Death of Gwen Stacy" storyline, and I felt they shoulda gone all the way, utilizing the character and including the tragic ending. Then again, that's just nitpicking from a comic book geek, because only a comic book geek would care about any of that. What REALLY sent comic book geeks into a tizzy was that "Peter Parker" could shoot webs himself. In the comic book, he invented a device that allowed him to shoot the webs. I was actually okay with that change, though. It made perfect sense to me.
Despite all the petty little gripes, "Spider-Man" is very faithful to the comic book it's based on, and that's something I can really appreciate. In a couple of weeks, Warner Bros. will be releasing "Catwoman," and later this year, "Constantine." Both films are based on DC Comics characters, and neither of them will be anything like the comics they're based on, and that pisses me off. I'm especially pissed off about "Catwoman," since that's my favorite female superhero. WARNER BROS. IS EVIL!
So anyway, I saw "Spider-Man 2," and I really enjoyed it. I liked the movie a lot, perhaps even more than the first, but it has a lotta problems. For one thing, it has serious flaws in logic. I know, it's a comic book movie, and suspension of disbelief needs to be in overdrive, but where do you draw the line? Another big problem is a major plot point that's brought up, and then ignored, never having a resolution. This plot point is really big, and quite a bit of time is spent addressing it, but then it drops out of the movie without an explanation. I don't wanna say what it is, because this review is intended to be totally spoiler-free, but I have a real problem with the way it was left unresolved. However, I should point out that the issue I speak of was brought up in the comic, and there WAS an explanation. I just wish that explanation was mentioned in the movie. Otherwise, why introduce the plot point at all?
I know it might seem like I'm ripping on the movie, but I really did like it a lot. The CGI has improved dramatically, the action sequences are better, and there were a lotta cool surprises. And if you're a comic book geek, there are a lotta clues to look for, hints of things to come.
The first half of the movie was surprisingly depressing, "Peter Parker" isn't living a happy life. It's hard not to feel for the guy while watching the movie, he's got it rough. Yeah, he has the cool Spidey powers and all, but the sacrifices he makes in order to be a superhero make you wonder if it's all worth it. Thankfully, and this isn't a spoiler since it's a necessity in a Hollywood film, things get a lot better for him towards the end, and by the time the movie's over, although things may not be totally hunky-dory, things are a lot better than they were at the beginning of the film. There are a lotta major story turns towards the end of the film that I didn't expect, and I was pleasantly surprised with all of them. The less you hear about the movie, the better. Try to avoid spoilers, and assholes who are prone to ruining a movie's ending.
By the way, I urge comic book geeks to come to the movie on time, because the opening credits feature some great art by Alex Ross. For all the non-comic book geeks out there, Alex Ross is one of the best comic book artists in the world. His photorealistic painted art is incredible, and it's cool that with "Spider-Man 2," there are people other than comic book readers who will get to see his fantastic work.
"Spider-Man 2" was directed by Sam Raimi, who also directed the first one. Sam Raimi has come a long way since directing "The Evil Dead" (which isn't a knock against "The Evil Dead," which is one of my favorite movies from Raimi). He's a great director, and he did a good job, but I think he should have done something about the unresolved plot point I mentioned earlier. He shoulda offered an explanation, or gotten rid of it entirely. The movie is over two hours long, so it coulda been trimmed a little bit. Still, the movie never drags, and the time flies by.
As for the writers, well, the screen story was written by Alfred Gough & Miles Millar (this isn't their first foray into superheroes, they also created the TV show, "Smallville") and Michael Chabon. It's pretty interesting that Chabon was one of the writers. He's actually a novelist, and he's also a big comic book geek. He won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Literature (Fiction) for his novel "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay," which is about two young cousins who create a comic book superhero named "The Escapist," and by doing so, they help bring forth the golden age of comics. I bought the book a couple of weeks ago, and I look forward to reading it. Anyway, the screenplay was written by Alvin Sargent, who would seem to be an odd choice to help write a comic book movie. His screenplays include "Ordinary People," and "Anywhere But Here." He also helped write "Unfaithful." Either way, "Spider-Man 2" is a great movie, and the script is really good, too, with the exception of the issues I mentioned a few paragraphs ago. Oh, and I gotta give credit to the originators. This movie wouldn't even exist if not for Stan Lee (who makes his obligatory cameo) and Steve Ditko, the creators of the "Spider-Man" comics.
Tobey Maguire returns as "Peter Parker" and "Spider-Man," and that almost didn't happen. The official story is that he hurt his back during the filming of "Seabiscuit," and because of that, he couldn't work on "Spider-Man 2" unless it was postponed. Then it was announced that Jake Gyllenhaal would be taking his place (I think he woulda done a pretty good job, too). Miraculously, Tobey was feeling better, and he was ready to work. I'm sure that there's a lot more to the story, but let's just leave it at that. To be honest with you, even though I think Gyllenhaal would have been good, I'm glad that Tobey Maguire reprised his role. He plays it without a hint of irony, and he seems to understand the dilemma of the character. I don't know if he reads the comic, but he seems to truly understand the character as portrayed in the "Spider-Man" comic books. Well, the GOOD comics. The storyline with the clone never happened, dammit!
I'm still not sure what I think of Kirsten Dunst as "Mary Jane." She's a really good actress, but I can't see her in that role. She neither looks nor acts like the comic book character, I simply don't buy it. However, I really liked the way she said "Go get 'em, tiger."
For this sequel, the villain is "Dr. Otto Octavius," also known as "Dr. Octopus," also known as "Doc Ock." He's played to utter perfection by Alfred Molina, what a brilliant casting decision that was! Alfred Molina isn't a huge name, but he's been in quite a few movies, including "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "The Perez Family," "Boogie Nights," "Magnolia," "Chocolat," "Frida," and many others. He's a very reliable character actor, and it's cool to see him in a big role in a big summer blockbuster.
James Franco returns as "Harry Osborn," and the character takes a few interesting turns. I don't wanna give anything away, but comic book geeks know where he's headed, and he's heading there fast. James Franco plays him well, but I think he should be more likeable. In the comics, he truly was a good friend to "Peter Parker," but in the movies, he seems like a guy who hangs out with "Peter Parker" to remind himself how good it is to be rich. Rosemary Harris is back as "Aunt May," J.K. Simmons is back as "J. Jonah Jameson" (and he's AWESOME), and Bruce Campbell is back to make another cameo. Also making a cameo is the legendary yellow 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88. Sam Raimi fans know what I'm talking about.
Categorically, "Spider-Man 2" is better than the original. The action is better, the special effects are better, and the story is better. Unfortunately, the flaws are bigger in this one. I don't think that matters, though, I don't think anyone is gonna walk away from "Spider-Man 2" feeling disappointed. It's a fun ride, and it's wildly entertaining. Just don't think too much, okay?
Scale of 1-10: 8