Wednesday, June 30, 2004
I Found Time
That was quick. But I don't know how long I'll have, so I'll start with Spider-Man 2 and see how far I get.
The movie was good. However, I don't think it deserves all the hype it's receiving from the critics. I thought it was much more "comic-book-y" than the first one, and this both helps and hurts it. It helps it because hey, it's a superhero movie and that means the audience is willing to accept more outrageous events in the script without thinking they're stupid. However, the whole style of directing at times got on my nerves. Too many shots looked like they were straight out of a comic book, and I for one feel they look a lot better on the printed page. In the film they just look out of place.
Also, the acting was way over-the-top. Alfred Molina (Doc Ock) said that he felt fine working with a bluescreen, but it's obvious that it hurt his acting. This guy is supposedly great in movies like Frida, but I just couldn't get into his character here. Then again, some of the dialogue is really cheesy. I had to keep reminding myself: "It's a comic book movie, it's a comic book movie, it's not real, it's not real, give it a break, give it a break." Tobey Maguire did a decent job, but I felt Kirsten Dunst provided the best performance. She was surprisingly good.
Action-wise, the movie's great. Loved the subway sequence. Though I couldn't help thinking that if Spider-Man's suit ripped any more, he was going to be in a very embarassing situation. Emotion and character-wise, it's a mixed bag. Some scenes really connected with me, others just didn't. The first half honestly wasn't very good at all, but it got better.
I keep reading about how Doc Ock is a terrific villain. Don't believe the newspapers - he's not. Molina's performance wasn't great, and the script just didn't develop him enough. Just because he was kind of a friend to Peter before turning evil, doesn't make him a good villain - I mean, come on, wasn't it like that in the first one? There wasn't enough of a struggle between his "true self" and the machines that were controlling him. People criticized Willem Dafoe in the first one, but I think he made a much greater villain. He was much more sinister, and more developed. The whole split-personality thing was great - that scene with the mirrors is awesome. An internal struggle can really add depth to a villain, and Doc Ock just didn't have that.
Also, what's with the Spider-Man movies and subtle eroticism? We've got the upside-down kiss in the first one (am I the only one who finds that slightly perverse, in a strange sort of way?), and in this one Spider-Man and Mary Jane lie down on a web-bed, with her showing a ton of leg. Perhaps I'm just analyzing it too much from a psycho-sexual point of view.
I'd recommend it to people though. It's very good, for a summer movie. Just kinda overrated by the critics.
I have more to say about the movie experience, but I've got to go now. Adios.
The movie was good. However, I don't think it deserves all the hype it's receiving from the critics. I thought it was much more "comic-book-y" than the first one, and this both helps and hurts it. It helps it because hey, it's a superhero movie and that means the audience is willing to accept more outrageous events in the script without thinking they're stupid. However, the whole style of directing at times got on my nerves. Too many shots looked like they were straight out of a comic book, and I for one feel they look a lot better on the printed page. In the film they just look out of place.
Also, the acting was way over-the-top. Alfred Molina (Doc Ock) said that he felt fine working with a bluescreen, but it's obvious that it hurt his acting. This guy is supposedly great in movies like Frida, but I just couldn't get into his character here. Then again, some of the dialogue is really cheesy. I had to keep reminding myself: "It's a comic book movie, it's a comic book movie, it's not real, it's not real, give it a break, give it a break." Tobey Maguire did a decent job, but I felt Kirsten Dunst provided the best performance. She was surprisingly good.
Action-wise, the movie's great. Loved the subway sequence. Though I couldn't help thinking that if Spider-Man's suit ripped any more, he was going to be in a very embarassing situation. Emotion and character-wise, it's a mixed bag. Some scenes really connected with me, others just didn't. The first half honestly wasn't very good at all, but it got better.
I keep reading about how Doc Ock is a terrific villain. Don't believe the newspapers - he's not. Molina's performance wasn't great, and the script just didn't develop him enough. Just because he was kind of a friend to Peter before turning evil, doesn't make him a good villain - I mean, come on, wasn't it like that in the first one? There wasn't enough of a struggle between his "true self" and the machines that were controlling him. People criticized Willem Dafoe in the first one, but I think he made a much greater villain. He was much more sinister, and more developed. The whole split-personality thing was great - that scene with the mirrors is awesome. An internal struggle can really add depth to a villain, and Doc Ock just didn't have that.
Also, what's with the Spider-Man movies and subtle eroticism? We've got the upside-down kiss in the first one (am I the only one who finds that slightly perverse, in a strange sort of way?), and in this one Spider-Man and Mary Jane lie down on a web-bed, with her showing a ton of leg. Perhaps I'm just analyzing it too much from a psycho-sexual point of view.
I'd recommend it to people though. It's very good, for a summer movie. Just kinda overrated by the critics.
I have more to say about the movie experience, but I've got to go now. Adios.
# posted by Andrew Johnson : 6/30/2004 09:56:00 PM 
