SpiderMan 2 Review
by Richard A. Zwelling (razwee AT yahoo DOT com)July 7th, 2004
SPIDER-MAN 2
** 1/2 (out of ****)
a film review by
Richard A. Zwelling
I'm starting to feel like a black sheep here.
Critics almost unanimously praised Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I thought it to be one of the worst movies I have seen this year (which isn't saying much), fraught with poor acting, horrible pacing, and computer-generated effects that generated minimal emotional effect (if any).
A great majority of critics, and most of my friends, hailed Kill Bill: Volume 2 as a step up from its predecessor. Not only did I disagree, but I found Kill Bill: Volume 1 to be a potential Top 100 all-timer for me, while Volume 2 will be lucky if it doesn't make my ten worst list at the end of this year.
Now comes Spider-Man 2, which has similarly garnered almost unanimous (and very high) approval from critics and friends. I hate to stand out, but if I must, I must.
Let me start with a complaint that might sound overtly harsh: if I have to see one more repeat of that stupid transitional shot sequence of Spidey zooming from building to building while the camera goes in front, behind, above, and under him, I am going to scream bloody murder. It was slightly exhilarating the first time (in the first movie, by the way), but now it's just irritating.
Tobey Maguire returns in the dual role of awkward adolescent Peter Parker and web-slinging vigilante superhero Spider-Man. He urges to tell the truth about his identity to his beloved Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) and thus build a solid relationship with her, but he knows that this would result in putting MJ in harms way, so he remains silent.
Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) is a well-respected physicist who has a brilliant idea for utilizing a rare metal for fusion to the end of providing abundant and cheap energy for the city. Of course, Octavius suffers from huge ego and minimal self-restraint, and the idea goes awry, resulting in Octavius's transformation into the octoped "Doc Ock".
The foundation is now set for a deeply involving story that poignantly explores the confusion and ambivalence of adolescence, the inevitable consequences of hubris, and the conflict within a protagonist who wants to lead his life as he sees fit, without interference from the outside world, and yet cannot deny that his gifts imbue him with certain obligations he cannot so easily dismiss.
Without a well-designed script and sufficiently nuanced dialogue, these elements exist flatly without resonance, maybe striking a chord here and there, but never leaving an indelible mark on the psyche. Such is unfortunately the case with Sam Raimi's direction and the screenplay based on the comic book concept from S tan Lee and Steve Ditko.
Whatever the film's intentions, I never felt the exhilaration or unique dynamic for which I felt this story had potential. Often, I felt myself drowning in elaborate, but overdone CGI that I did not find as convincing as others have. Despite the fact that I could feel the film reaching for a "wow" response, I never shook the feeling that I had seen this sort of thing a thousand times before. Same stuff, better technology. (Then again, in my opinion, after seeing the virtuoso CGI display in The Lord of the Rings, not much surprises me anymore in the way of modern special effects).
Not only did I find the dialogue to be nothing special, but I actually cringed at its banality. The love declarations are saccharine and cloying, the morals spoken in blunt, trite aphorisms.
In addition, the lighting schemes, shot selections, and acting displays radiated an intangible, yet very present mainstream ambience that I felt detracted from the story's more grave, tragic material. The more dramatic moments seem lifted from a soap opera, rather than from an effective narrative.
Although there are some standout moments of action and some well-executed, death-defying stunts, I felt the more racy sequences growing repetitive as the film plodded along. By the end, I was craving the sort of minimalist film that has no budget and takes place in just a few rooms, because I needed a serious respite from mind-numbing eye-candy overload.
I would think that I am turning into a bitter old man at the age of 24, since I cannot seem to think positively of many films this year. If it weren't for my viewing many other films from the past and realizing that I was truly enjoying them, I might be convinced it is true.
This is one of the most disappointing years for film (both mainstream and independent) in recent memory. At this point last year, I had three four-star films on my yearly list. On my current list, I have zero, and I see no prospects on the horizon that look like serious contenders to break the drought.
Immense disappointments include: The Passion of the Christ, Kill Bill: Volume 2, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, The Stepford Wives, Fahrenheit 9/11, and now Spider-Man 2.
Let me conclude by saying this: it's gonna be really sad if the most memorable film event from 2004 ends up being the extended-edition DVD release of my #1 film from 2003.
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
