# Rate Spider-Man 2 [No Spoilers]



## Kai Lord (Jun 29, 2004)

Well, a friend and I already have tickets (yee ha!) for the midnight show later today, so I figured its about time to get the poll ready.  I've been avoiding most of the previews, but from what I've seen it looks like this might be one of greatest superhero films of all time, if not the greatest.  

Rate Spider-Man 2 on a scale of 1-10 and be sure to be careful with the spoilers for those people who just want to peruse and get a feel for various people's impressions before seeing it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 29, 2004)

I will also be there at midnight...man I can't wait for this! Just saw The Terminal yesterday and I'm ready for some action!


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 29, 2004)

i'll race you guys home :-D

i already know ill miss any after-credits extras because my ride is an impatient yutz. so who wants to stay just in case?


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 30, 2004)

I'm on the west coast so you guys will beat me but I'll definitely be staying through the credits.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Jun 30, 2004)

Just got home and all I can say is WOW.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 30, 2004)

Psychotic Dreamer said:
			
		

> Just got home and all I can say is WOW.



 Wow isn't enough. I also just got in...by the GODS. Best movie of the year. One of the best movies I've ever seen. INSANELY great action...lots of near tear-jerking moments...EVERYTHING Spiderman should be. Ending was PERFECT. Everything was. If ANYONE had doubts about Toby, Sam Raimi, or any of the cast...this movie kills all doubts.


----------



## stevelabny (Jun 30, 2004)

i second that WOW

A few thoughts:
The fights scenes were AMAZING.
near flawless special effects.

the whole movie reeked of comic-book. from the fights, to the fact that everything was layed on just a wee bit too thick. a perfect translation of a very good comic book story.

so after the 2 spidey and 2 x-men movies, theyve suceeded on every level at translating very good comic book stories. all thats left is to make an absolute GREAT comic book story. 

I have more comments that I'll save for the spoilers thread, but I gotta go help someone move.

And one more note: here in NYC, the whole theatre was kinda puzzled by the above-ground subway in Manhattan. Yay creative license.


----------



## orbitalfreak (Jun 30, 2004)

Amazing movie!  9/10

The final scene is too perfect... the look on [that character]'s face just shows how much [that character] sacrifices.  Not to mention the set-up for Movie 3.  The train scene was amazing, the end of which had me in my seat, feeling the strain and pain that Spiderman was feeling...

The visuals were astounding, near to the point of not realizing that it wasn't real.  The wall-crawling fight, and the later fights as well, were so chock-full of acrobatics and dextrous feats that I was left breathless.  Some of the best action scenes I've seen in a long while.

And the guy that plays Jameson?  He's amazing.  I love the little in-jokes made by him and the heavy-handed homages to the comics.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Jun 30, 2004)

Cheezy Comic Action? Check!
Fake Science? Check!
somewhat contrived, yet touching Romance? Check!
Improved fightscenes? Check!

Occasional forgetting of abilities whenever convienent to the plot? Check!

Great Comic Book Romance. Lighter on the action than my roomates were expecting, but I greatly enjoyed it.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Jun 30, 2004)

orbitalfreak said:
			
		

> The visuals were astounding, near to the point of not realizing that it wasn't real.  The wall-crawling fight, and the later fights as well, were so chock-full of acrobatics and dextrous feats that I was left breathless.  Some of the best action scenes I've seen in a long while.




The fight scenes were better, but I was hoping for a little more Hong-Kong style fightscenes. I mean, we've got a super agile guy who can climb walls. Good action, yes, but I wouldn't say best. Though there is that one fight...


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 30, 2004)

Wow.  Awesome.  I loved it, but I'm not sure I liked it better than the first.  Doctor Octopus, holy crap, hands down the best performance by an actor playing a villain in any superhero movie ever.  No contest.

It seriously blew me away, but I don't think anything in this movie surpassed the "iconic" moments of the first film (the upside down kiss, MJ on the bridge, etc.)  And I thought the finale with the Green Goblin was more cinematic and satisfying than Doc Ock's.

But they did move the story forward, and in spectacular fashion.  The scene from the trailer with MJ and Peter in the cafe (I won't spoil it if you don't know what I'm talking about) was executed _perfectly._

And "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head".... Classic!  Just an awesome all around movie, and I'm already anticipating the story they'll obviously tell in the third film more than I did for this one.  To date, the best superhero sequel ever made, by far.  Even though its derived from an ongoing comic, the best film stories are those that have an end and I sincerely hope they close it out after #3, and oh what a movie it looks like _that_ will be....  

EDIT: Oh and in case any parents are wondering, this is NOT a movie to take little kids to.  There's a scene that takes place in a hospital that would have given me nightmares for weeks.  Seriously.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 30, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Doctor Octopus, holy crap, hands down the best performance by an actor playing a villain in any superhero movie ever.  No contest.




I can't get over the fact that Alfred Molina played Satipo in Raiders of the Lost Arc.  "Throw me the idol, and I'll throw you the web shooters."


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 30, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I can't get over the fact that Alfred Molina played Satipo in Raiders of the Lost Arc.  "Throw me the idol, and I'll throw you the web shooters."



 Hehehe, yeah. Part of me wanted him to say something like that.

And Kai Lord...your are sure has heck right about that hospital scene. It was creepy even if you're NOT a kid.


----------



## idarii (Jun 30, 2004)

My thoughts, copied and pasted from elsewhere.

I just got back from a midnight show, and I wanted to come on and post that what you've heard is true- the movie's fantastic. The action took a back seat to the characters and the result was everything I want in a serial super hero installment. Toby Maguire didn't even bother me this time. I hated him in the first, but he performed nicely... though he should never be called upon to make strenuous faces for the camera. Never.

When the movie's funny, it's really, really funny. There are some gags and bits of timing in there I haven't seen the likes of since John Landis' heyday. 

I've been keeping away from spoiler material on this and any SM sequels, so 



Spoiler



I was quite surprised to see the scene wherein Harry discovers his father's private stash of goblin-goodies. It looks like he'll follow along, which is fine with me, as long as we don't get the green armor suit again. Eurghh. ...and John Jameson... I'm thinking Venom, next movie. He goes up and comes back with the symbiote. I know this isn't groundbreaking positing, but in case I'm right, I'd like to have proof someday.



In MY comic book movie heirarchy, I've had a very tough time weighing Superman, X-Men 2, and Unbreakable against each other for the top position. I think- and all apologies to Superman- my current candidate for best comic book movie is still X2. Spider-Man 2, now, is right up there, fighting with the others. It may well be placing above Superman. I'll need to digest a bit more. 

I can't believe I forgot to say that Doc Ock was astounding. 

 The tentacles- Wickedly fearsome and impressive to watch. Those things are so cleverly designed, whereas the Green Goblin costume was so wretched... this time a great-looking Spider-Man isn't unbalanced by a poor looking villain. Those tentacles writhing in the background of some of the dialogue shots just steal the show. They're SO cool looking, but more, they're scary- and I mean that.

 The Acting- I'm convinced that Alfred Molina may just have been the best actor in the world for the job. He's SUCH a great compromise between what Doc Ock looks like in the comics and what'll work on screen.

 The Villain- Imposing. I didn't think Doc Ock could seem to be more dangerous than the Green Goblin, but he's terrifically imposing. Raimi treats him like a movie monster, with crowds of people running and screaming before him. When he's approaching, you can hear the distant booms (which sound bipedal, but we'll let that slide). Doc Ock is alive and furiously threatening.

Whoof... Marvel and Avi Arad are doing great things, despite The Hulk, Daredevil and The Punisher. It's a golden age for comic movies.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 30, 2004)

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> The fight scenes were better, but I was hoping for a little more Hong-Kong style fightscenes. I mean, we've got a super agile guy who can climb walls. Good action, yes, but I wouldn't say best. Though there is that one fight...



 Why Hong Kong style fighting? Spidey's never been like that...crazy acrobatics and good old fashioned fist to jaw is what I always think of with Spidey.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jul 1, 2004)

Amazing... Spectacular...   

P.S. there is nothing after the credits, so no need to wait.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Jul 1, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Why Hong Kong style fighting? Spidey's never been like that...crazy acrobatics and good old fashioned fist to jaw is what I always think of with Spidey.




True. Crazy acrobatics and ridiculous amounts of dodging are what I remember from the comics. I want more dodging, like the one really good scene.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jul 1, 2004)

Wowee zowee.

 That was darn near flawless.  I concur with every positive thing written about this movie.  9/10.  Now that I think about it, I'm not even sure what I'd change to get a 10.  Maybe Aunt May's "Hero" speech to Peter and Peter's Uncle Ben dream was laying it on a bit thick.


----------



## Thief of Always (Jul 1, 2004)

Sam Raimi has proved himself once again.

I know this has been said already before, but it's the truth: this was a near flawless picture. It's been a while since I've seen a movie this good.

I saw the 12:25 AM showing Wednesday. It was awesome.

Favorite scenes of mine were the one with the usher (groovy casting there) and the train sequence.

Jameson is hilarious. He's great. I keep getting in my mind his Schillinger character from Oz. He also does the voice of the yellow peanut M&M in the M&M commercials, although that doesn't get to me as much.

Kudos to Danny Elfman as well...he never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 1, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> P.S. there is nothing after the credits, so no need to wait.



I like sitting through the credits listening to the last overture of the musical score, though!


----------



## Wombat (Jul 1, 2004)

I liked the film quite a bit, possibly even more than the first one (still debating this).

The one thing that bothered me, though, was that I saw several people bringing very young children (as young as two or three) to this film.  Although there is no serious blood or anything, the film is _VERY _ intense, both in terms of physical and emotional violence.  I would _strongly _ suggest not taking young children to it; wait for the small screen, where the impact will be at least somewhat lessened!

That being said, once again, I think this was quite a fine film!


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 1, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> The one thing that bothered me, though, was that I saw several people bringing very young children (as young as two or three) to this film.  Although there is no serious blood or anything, the film is _VERY _ intense, both in terms of physical and emotional violence.  I would _strongly _ suggest not taking young children to it; wait for the small screen, where the impact will be at least somewhat lessened!



Depends on the kid.  I'd have agreed with you, not long ago, based on my two older ones.  But my third, who is still not three years old, is not at all bothered by intense images at the movies; in fact, he eats them up.  He also eats up superheroes and general (and Spiderman and Hulk in particular, and from the previews he's got a good idea of who Doc Ock is now as well) and would have a blast.  Ironically, my 6-yo probably couldn't handle it, though.


----------



## The_Universe (Jul 1, 2004)

Great flick.  Definitely the best this year, in my opinion.  

It was so good, that I _did not want it to end. _ Everytime it seemed like something would be resolved, I would silently _beg _the screen to stop it from happening.  I was afraid to look at my watch, for fear that it would tell me that my two hours were almost over...

Wow, is all I can say.  And Sam Raimi--I can't imagine a better match.  Emotional where it needed to be, and positively frenetic (in true Raimi style) when it needed to be that.  

The thing I found most amazing, looking back, was that there was *no blood* AT ALL, except on Pete/Spidey's wounds.  Not a single drop in the whole film.  Strangely, I did not feel its lack.  It was so artfully, purposefully done that I cannot imagine it having been otherwise.


----------



## The_Universe (Jul 1, 2004)

Oh yeah - 



Spoiler



Hoffman is played by Sam Raimi's brother.


 I frickin' love that.


----------



## BuddhasFist (Jul 1, 2004)

My group and I went to see it last night...         

It's just too bad that they didn't have any cameos a la X2 when they were interviewing Henry McCoy on the TV, or even when the name "Remy LeBeau" and a file named Omega Red came on the computer screen at the Weapon X lab. Mention of Kassidy and maybe Felicia Hardy would have been nice but I was glad Doc Connors was in there, the Lizard was always such a badass. Go team Reptile. over all it was a good movie.

9/10 for sure.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 1, 2004)

Very good movie, I never thought that Doc Oct would be that good.  Simply amazing, best film of the year I've seen.


----------



## Navior (Jul 1, 2004)

One word pretty much sums it up for me: WOW!

If I had to be really nit-picky, there are a couple of moments where the cheese-factor is laid on just a little thick. Nevertheless, I still gave it a 10. Absolutely incredible movie.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 1, 2004)

This looks to me to be the highest any movie has rated on ENWorld...even better than the LotR movies.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 2, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> This looks to me to be the highest any movie has rated on ENWorld...even better than the LotR movies.



Eh, 99% of the people who gave LOTR lower scores on forums like this were those unable to recognize the difference between capturing the spirit of the novels and capturing the letter.

Spider-Man's story has been retold in so many different comic book series and cartoons that there isn't any one version for so-called fans to get in a tizzy about if the film doesn't follow it to the letter.

What _is_ interesting to note is that Spider-Man 2 shares the _exact_ same rottentomatoes.com approval rating as Return of the King:  95% approval with 97% cream of the crop approval.  Very impressive.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 2, 2004)

Good point...but still, I've not ever seen this many 9s and 10s(especially 10s) on a poll here at ENWorld. I was almost surprised to see myself selecting 10...then I realized I was seeing the movie again that day at 4PM. Twice in one day! Woo!


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 2, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Good point...but still, I've not ever seen this many 9s and 10s(especially 10s) on a poll here at ENWorld. I was almost surprised to see myself selecting 10...then I realized I was seeing the movie again that day at 4PM. Twice in one day! Woo!



Yeah, I'll definitely be seeing it again.  It was just an amazing achievement.  Its a movie that just stays with you.  Two days after that midnight showing I was still pondering it throughout the day.  A nearly perfect blend of action, drama, comic book whimsy and engaging emotion.  One of the great genre films of all time.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 2, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'll definitely be seeing it again.  It was just an amazing achievement.  Its a movie that just stays with you.  Two days after that midnight showing I was still pondering it throughout the day.  A nearly perfect blend of action, drama, comic book whimsy and engaging emotion.  One of the great genre films of all time.



 Wonder how many times I can see this!...my record is 11 times(oh yeah) with Fellowship of the Ring. Can I beat that with Spidey? Probably! Will I? Dunno...it might take too much effort.


----------



## Greylock (Jul 2, 2004)

Awesome flick. I wish my other comic-book heros (Batman, Phantom) had had someone like Raimi at the helm.


----------



## Jeremy (Jul 2, 2004)

I thought the movie was very very well done.  I didn't come out of the theater very happy though. Not 'wow' or excited or anything.  I recognize that it was a well done movie.  I recognize that May's speech and the ghost car talk weren't any more over the top than things I've read in Spiderman comics, and Spidey had quips and action and sacrifice and even his ever-sought appreciation..  I thoroughly enjoyed Otto before and after, his journey and his ideas.

I love Spiderman and I'm very happy that it was brought to the screen and continues to come to the screen in an extremely profitable and respectful way...

So why aren't I excited about it?

I was shouting and preaching to passer-by's about X2.  I remembered every detail and drew parallels to the most minute minutiae right down to the set of Scott Summer's jaw in the dark oval office as he dealt with his loss.

I remember being wow'd by the feeling of power in Doc Ock's arms, cheering our good friend the usher's cameo and Stan Lee's second close brush with falling objects, enjoying some of Spidey's lines and more of J.Jonah's jibes...  But...

Ah well.  That's what I get for going to a matinee surrounded by 10 year olds who's parents felt no need to teach their children to be quiet at a movie.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jul 2, 2004)

I literally couldn't beleive how good Alfred Molina was as Doctor Octopus. I always thought ot a lot of Spidey's rogues gallery to be kind of so-so...Doc Ock heads that list (Maybe the Rhino does actually).

But Molina brought it all to life.

J. Jonah Jameson was great again. Perfectly cast. He ws so great in the last one I was worried they would overuse him in this one.

SPOILER



Spoiler



Nice to see Willem DaFoe "taking one for the team" and doing a nice little cameo....it would've been dead-easy to just do the goblin voice rather than have HArry "see" his dad


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Jul 2, 2004)

It's not running where I live (Germany - it starts next week). Nevertheless I had to check this thread out, seeing that the first Spider Man was my favorite superhero flick so far, hands down.

Haven't voted but checked the results. Wonder if we could get Diaglo to post some comments, as he only gave a 3...




			
				idarii said:
			
		

> Whoof... Marvel and Avi Arad are doing great things, despite The Hulk, Daredevil and The Punisher. It's a golden age for comic movies.



Daredevil sucked, big time. I absolutely despise Ben Affleck, but in this movie he's actually the highlight :\ 
Punisher... well, at least he had his skull. And Thomas Jane was cool. I loved the fight with the Russian 
The Hulk's actually one of my favorite movies ever (granted, the list's pretty long). But I've had so many arguments about this film... maybe it's just me, but I loved it.




			
				The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> P.S. there is nothing after the credits, so no need to wait.



Even if there's no "hidden scene" (hey, the _best_ part in Daredevil  ) I usually sit there 'til the end, because otherwise it feels just... wrong. Don't know why. Guess I don't like to be rushed 




			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Wonder how many times I can see this!...my record is 11 times(oh yeah) with Fellowship of the Ring. Can I beat that with Spidey? Probably! Will I? Dunno...it might take too much effort.



I know I'd do it


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 2, 2004)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> . Jonah Jameson was great again. Perfectly cast. He ws so great in the last one I was worried they would overuse him in this one.




You just like his hair.


----------



## Mercule (Jul 2, 2004)

Saw it last night.  Friggin' amazing!  I was ready to see it again immediately.  And I just don't do that -- ever.  This DVD will be owned by me.

As everyone has said, the character-building is fantastic.  The thing that really struck me, though, in retrospect, was the action.  The action in this movie is my new image for Epic Level goodness.  It was as over-the-top as Hong Kong theatre, but without some of the trademarks there-of.  And the way Spidey moved and dodged and weaved was perfect.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 2, 2004)

Good stuff!  I wish, in the many moments when we were looking at various "soulful stares" they could have worked in a smidge more dialogue. But overall, quite excellent.


----------



## Datt (Jul 2, 2004)

Know the Toe or diaglo, either one of you care to say why you didn't like the movie?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 2, 2004)

The only reason I didn't give it a 10, is that next Christmas or so when I have this on DVD and have seen it a few times, I'll probably want to skip through large portions of the more slow-moving sections.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Jul 2, 2004)

Datt said:
			
		

> Know the Toe or diaglo, either one of you care to say why you didn't like the movie?



Isn't it obvious?
Diaglo wanted to be different*. And KnowTheToe simply wanted to beat diaglo.



* Glad he didn't post to this thread so far, honestly. Because when he does, it might well be something like this: "The only true Spider Man is the Spider Man by Lee and Ditko (1st edition). All other Spider Mans pale by comparison."


----------



## Welverin (Jul 2, 2004)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> The Hulk's actually one of my favorite movies ever (granted, the list's pretty long). But I've had so many arguments about this film... maybe it's just me, but I loved it.




It's definitely not just you, I like, as does my brother, and the owner of the comic store I go to, along with Ebert.

I think Ang Lee did a great job of capturing the feel of the Hulk, the only real problem I have with it is Bruce's father turning into super absorbing man at the end.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jul 2, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> I think Ang Lee did a great job of capturing the feel of the Hulk, the only real problem I have with it is Bruce's father turning into super absorbing man at the end.




Yeah, that really bugged me, too.  Anybody else think when Nick Nolte's hand first started turning all 'starfishy' that he was going to turn into the Abomination?


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Jul 2, 2004)

I saw it today and it was-



			
				The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> Amazing... Spectacular...





I give it a 9.  It wasn't perfect but it sure was close.

You can tell that Raimi is a fan.  I loved it.  Molina was perfect.  I do think it was better then the first.

Was it just me or did Rosemary Harris look more like her comic counterpart this time around?

I hope that Raimi didn't already choose the next villian for SM3 since a certain character found some equipment.  I'm hoping for a reptile-arachnid fight!  But that's just MO.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Jul 3, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> It's definitely not just you, I like, as does my brother, and the owner of the comic store I go to, along with Ebert.
> 
> I think Ang Lee did a great job of capturing the feel of the Hulk, the only real problem I have with it is Bruce's father turning into super absorbing man at the end.



Ang Lee did a great job, as did Eric Bana (btw, loved his hulk routine in Troy (on the ship back to, well, Troy)), Nick Nolte, Jennifer Connelly and Sam Elliott - perfect cast!
Heck, even Lou Ferrigno did a great job! 

But agreed, Super-Dad I could've done without.





			
				Alaric_Prympax said:
			
		

> I hope that Raimi didn't already choose the next villian for SM3 since a certain character found some equipment. I'm hoping for a reptile-arachnid fight! But that's just MO.



Has it been announced that Raimi will be the director again?


----------



## buzzard (Jul 3, 2004)

Excellent movie. Better than the first. I really can't think of anything notable I didn't like about it. I gave it a nine. I will, of course, own the DVD, but then I'm a movie junkie. 

Though as for Diaglo, I would expect the line to be:
"the only Spiderman is the original 60s cartoon all else is a pretender"


buzzard


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 3, 2004)

I gave it a 9.

I thought the first movie was more of a 10 because I never EVER thought they would completely nail Spidey and they did. So this time around it didnt have as much wow factor for me. 

I expected it to be great and it was.

That said, the fight scenes and Spidey's crazy agility were more on display in this one.

Very awesome flick.

Chuck


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jul 3, 2004)

Anybody else get the impression that Spider-Man's powers in the movies are almost wholly psionic, since they were so dependent on his frame of mind and confidence level?  Super-strength, wall crawling, and agility are all limited versions of telekinesis.  His webbing's ectoplasm, a visible, tangible representation of his telekinetic abilities.  Spidey-sense is *clearly* psionic...  It all fits, I think.


----------



## Richards (Jul 3, 2004)

An interesting view, but it was demonstrated in the first movie that his wall-crawling ability is derived from tiny, sharp "spines" on his fingertips (and presumably his feet).  I guess they must be retractable, or else he'd be unable to NOT stick to anything he touched.

Johnathan


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Jul 3, 2004)

This was much much better than I had any right to expect, better than I deserve! I laughed, I cried, it became linked to my higher brain functions via nano-wires.

Ditto everyone who gave big ups to Sam Raimi. This is his best film ever, a great synthesis of Evil Dead eyeball kicks, Army of Darkness comedy, A Simple Plan depth and melodrama, and For the Love of the Game romance cheese. What good cheese this movie has! Just about every scene had a moment when I thought "this is too much", and then they redeemed it by going even farther over the top.

I think an equally important contributor to the movie's genius was one of the screenwriters, Michael Chabon. Start reading his _The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay_ right now. When you're able to put it down again three days later, bleary-eyed and euphoric, you'll see where the deep insights into comic book history and psyche in the _Spider-Man 2 script_ came from.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jul 3, 2004)

Richards said:
			
		

> An interesting view, but it was demonstrated in the first movie that his wall-crawling ability is derived from tiny, sharp "spines" on his fingertips (and presumably his feet).  I guess they must be retractable, or else he'd be unable to NOT stick to anything he touched.
> 
> Johnathan




That's just what Pete *thought* he saw--he's rationalizing his powers.  Or they could also be like the webbing and be ectoplasm that he creates.  It still fits.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 3, 2004)

It has been I long time...I was totally blown away by Spider-Man 2, it had passion, action, story, plot...  You could see a lot of comfort in the roles this time about.  Doc Ock and J. Jameson were done to perfection.  

Solid 10!


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Jul 3, 2004)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> Anybody else get the impression that Spider-Man's powers in the movies are almost wholly psionic, since they were so dependent on his frame of mind and confidence level? Super-strength, wall crawling, and agility are all limited versions of telekinesis. His webbing's ectoplasm, a visible, tangible representation of his telekinetic abilities. Spidey-sense is *clearly* psionic... It all fits, I think.



It works that way in _Ultimate Spider-Man_, didn't you know?

And that's how they introduced Venom recently - he's a manifestation of Peter's split personality. And it seems his mental disorder's getting worse - can you say "Carnage"?


(Only joking, of course.)


----------



## Jeremy757 (Jul 4, 2004)

I saw it last night. I loved the movie but only gave it an 8.

This movie was a little heavy on the angst filled love story for me, a kind of superhero chick-flick.

I wanted to see less lovie dovie and more of Doc Ock kicking the crap out of people and puppies.    

I can't wait till Batman Begins comes out.  Batman's a guy I can respect. He doesn't let no dame get in the way of smashing teeth.  Ken Watanabe better get his dentures ready.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Jul 4, 2004)

To quote Petere Griffin: Holy crap! C'mon Spidey 3! 

Before going to the movie, I was singing the old 'Spider Man' song and after the movie I may ask a doc about having some mechanical tentacles surgically attached, especially if I get to do all that spiffy stuff with 'em.


----------



## Korgan26 (Jul 4, 2004)

I vote 7/10.
Very middle of the road movie.
Not as good as the first, but great as far as sequels go.

Z


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 4, 2004)

What a delight.

FINALLY, Sam Raimi delivers on the promise of _Evil Dead_. Finally we see that crazed, utterly fearless talent take a big honkin' blockbuster budget and turn out that rarest of all things: a big-budget movie that DOESN'T feel like it was made by a committee.

Finally, Sam. You've done it. Congratulations. We've all been waiting a long time for this. You've rewarded us for our faith. Now we know we were right all along about you.

It was nearly perfect. I gave it an 8 -- docking it points for a too-long ending (and those AWFUL helicopters), the colour of MJ's hair and Molina's failure at the critical moment.

Yep, I said it. Alfred Molina, although brilliant throughout the picture, let me down in that critical moment where he goes from grief-crazed to revenge-mad. 



Spoiler



When the arms come writhing up around him (and weren't they AWESOME? Holy crap they scared me) and he decides, "No, maybe I won't throw myself into the river just yet," -- it doesn't fly.


 He didn't reach me with that moment and take me on his little journey and that was disappointing.

And the ending was WAY too long. What is this, _Return of the King_? Sheesh. Final battle, roll credits. Enough already.

But what a movie. One of the proofs for me of how good it was is how I don't divide it into "sequences" -- it all seemed to flow together in a constant run. It wasn't an action movie where you sit back and wait for the next "sequence" to kick in -- it just rolled right along without a pause.

And it was SO Spiderman. His life is so bleak and unrelentingly mundane, and no matter how successful he is at beating the bad guys he still can't pay the rent, hold down a job or finish college. It was great. Jameson makes your ticket worthwhile by himself. And Dunst and Maguire are just amazing -- man can they act. Oh, yeah. And how is it possible that Rosemary Harris looks EXACTLY like Aunt May? That's just creepy.

MJ's hair is supposed to be darker than that. It bugged me.

Okay, I didn't dock it points for the frickin' HAIR COLOUR, but it still bugged me. I always had a thing for MJ's dark shiny hair, I guess.

The usual Sam cameos were in evidence, and delightful as always (though we didn't get to see the Classic underway -- perhaps it no longer runs?).

Absolutely top-notch. Not the film of the year (_Kill Bill Vol 2_ I liked better, and _The Passion of the Christ_), but definitely the "must-see" film this summer.

See it, folks. You gonna love it.

Hurray for Sam!


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 4, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> FINALLY, Sam Raimi delivers on the promise of _Evil Dead_. Finally we see that crazed, utterly fearless talent take a big honkin' blockbuster budget and turn out that rarest of all things: a big-budget movie that DOESN'T feel like it was made by a committee.
> 
> Finally, Sam. You've done it.



Are you saying, "finally" as in "finally Sam himself has made a big budget film without the committee" or "finally _someone_ has made a big budget film without the committee"?  Because if its the latter, I can think of a number of examples in recent years.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 4, 2004)

Went and saw it yesterday afternoon.  Loved it.  I gave it a 9 out of 10.  The only thing I didn't like was that it got a little over-angsty at points.

Bring on Spider-Man 3!


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 5, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Are you saying, "finally" as in "finally Sam himself has made a big budget film without the committee" or "finally someone has made a big budget film without the committee"?



The former. I don't think Sam has ever quite (until now) lived up to the promise of _The Evil Dead_. I think it's taken him this long to figure out how to focus that manic vision through the lens of studio production.

A big-budget film that feels personal is certainly a rare bird, but not entirely unknown. It's those few appearances that keep me coming back to the theatre...


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 5, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The former. I don't think Sam has ever quite (until now) lived up to the promise of _The Evil Dead_. I think it's taken him this long to figure out how to focus that manic vision through the lens of studio production.



I'm curious as to what you thought Sam did specifically in Spidey 2 that he didn't in Spidey 1, as far as delivering on the "promise."


----------



## nHammer (Jul 5, 2004)

I rated the movie an 8.

7.9 for the action and fight scenes. .1 for the script writing. 

Why do these movies always feel a need to reveal a hero's secret ID? I'm tired of it.

I'm also tired of the villian dying at the end. It made sense in the first movie...not in this one.

It would be so nice if Hollywood would come up with an original superhero movie script. Although I will say Spidey 2 was a hundred times better than Spidey 1.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 5, 2004)

Doctor Octopus did NOT die. Not by comic book standards especially. Did we see a body? Was that body autopsied? Brain removed? Heart in a jear? 

Even THEN in a comic book there can be a come back, but sinking into the water with a big fusion bomb blowing up on top of you is not NEARLY enough to qualify as "death" in a supers context 

And to address your other question- "why MJ finds out his secret ID"... in this case its because it happened that way in the comics. It is 100% canon. She knows in the regular universe, she knows in the Ultimate universe. 

Granted it took a lot longer for her to find out in the standard Marvel U, but movies move (pun intended) at a faster pace than serialized comics, which must draw things out forever.

Also, this telling of Spider man is more of an Ultimate U telling anyway, and in the Ultimate U she knows right off the bat.

Chuck


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 5, 2004)

A perfect 10. Some of the speeches about heroism are just.. tear-jerking. The various plot twists were a complete surprise to me, and made the movie just that much better. It has the best superhero fight scene I've ever seen, and one of the best 'saves' as well.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jul 5, 2004)

Actually, it's been established in regular Marvel continuity that Mary Jane ALWAYS knew that Peter was Spider-Man, even before they'd ever met.

I love that issue of _Amazing Spider-Man _ where the Puma tracks Spidey down by scent only, bursts into his apartment where they have a big brawl and all the while Mary Jane is on the other side of the door, beating on it, trying to get Peter to open it because she's so worried about him.  When she finally does see him again she tells him that she's tired of his excuses and lets him in on the fact that she has always known that he was Spider-Man.  Geez, when was that?  1986?  Even earlier?  Later, in _Untold Tales of Spider-Man_, Kurt Busiek details exactly when MJ learned Peter's secret--I think it was the same night that Uncle Ben was killed that she saw Spider-Man crawling out of Peter's bedroom next door and she put two and two together, but it's been quite some time since I've read either comics.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 5, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> P.S. there is nothing after the credits, so no need to wait.




Hey!  If you worked as third Best Boy, or the Key Grip's second assisstant twice removed, you'd want someone to stay and watch the credits. 

A movie is a big undertaking.  Lots of people do deserve a little bit of credit, but they don't get it if you don't sit still for an extra couple of minutes.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 5, 2004)

Wow, was that amazing. One of the best superhero movies EVAR. 

Amusing note: one of the negative reviews I've seen claimed that Peter giving up being Spidey was a rip-off of Superman 2, which is made even more amusing, since a good chunk of the plot "Spiderman No More", the trash can, the selling of the costume to the bugle and subsequent stealing of it back all came from Spiderman #50....in 1967.


----------



## MarauderX (Jul 5, 2004)

IMO, it was good, but I still like Chronicles of Riddick better.  The depth of the writing seemed to be lacking, and there were a few things left unexplained but the springboard for Spiderman 3 was added.  Everything was done as clear-cut motivations, and I guess I like a movie with a little less trustworthyness to the character.  The fight scenes were awesome, even impressed my wife who normally calls them boring.


----------



## nHammer (Jul 5, 2004)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Doctor Octopus did NOT die. Not by comic book standards especially. Did we see a body? Was that body autopsied? Brain removed? Heart in a jear?
> 
> Even THEN in a comic book there can be a come back, but sinking into the water with a big fusion bomb blowing up on top of you is not NEARLY enough to qualify as "death" in a supers context
> 
> ...




So instead of doing something even a little original, they were lazy and just rewrote what has been done in the comics.

I did think the movie kicked ass action wise, but the was nothing original or interesting about the story.

And please don't mention Marvel's Ultimate comics, they are proof that Marvel lacks in original ideas.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 5, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to what you thought Sam did specifically in Spidey 2 that he didn't in Spidey 1, as far as delivering on the "promise."



A number of things. First off, Spiderman 1 only intermittently feels like a Sam Raimi picture. Most of the time, it feels flat, like a movie anyone could have directed. Only Sam could have made Spidey 2. 

Secondly, there's a couple of bad performances in Spidey 1 (Willem Defoe most outrageously) that make the film unsatisfying to watch. One of the great things about _The Evil Dead_ is how honest Bruce's performance is. He doesn't really know what he's doing, but he's nailing every moment regardless. In this film (Spiderman 2), everyone is firing on all cylinders (except for that one Doc Ock moment, but we'll let that slide).

Thirdly, the heart of the story is so open and out on the sleeve of this picture. It teeters on the verge of sentimentality -- which is right where a Sam Raimi picture ought to be -- and is always saved by a dark, angry sense of humour that posits an unfriendly, unmerciful world in which bad things happen for no reason. That's my Sam. The first film didn't achieve that -- largely due to a lackluster script that loses its energy in the second half and never really hits Peter with the sort of emotional wallops that this film does. 



Spoiler



Once Uncle Ben dies, the film really falls apart.



That's all I can think of right now. I wouldn't watch Spiderman 1 again (though I've seen it three times already), but I'll be buying 2 as soon as the DVD comes out.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 5, 2004)

Uhhhh- I dont consider it lazy in the slightest when a movie based on a comic is TRUE to that comic. I consider it intelligent. 

That's like slamming Romeo and Juliet for not surprising you with the ending 

And as for the ultimate line... I happen to like them (along with many many others- every ultimate title is in the top ten of ALL comics every month- this means that ALL comic fans like them as well as they frequently comprise 3-6 of the top ten titles including Marvel, Dc, Top Cow, and all the other smaller companies)... and they are pretty darn different from the originals.

Tastes can differ, and it doesnt bother me that you dont like them, however its a mistake to assume that your specific tastes translate into universal quality when the Ultimate line is the most successful comic line in the last 20 years.

Chuck



			
				nHammer said:
			
		

> So instead of doing something even a little original, they were lazy and just rewrote what has been done in the comics.
> 
> I did think the movie kicked ass action wise, but the was nothing original or interesting about the story.
> 
> And please don't mention Marvel's Ultimate comics, they are proof that Marvel lacks in original ideas.


----------



## Richards (Jul 6, 2004)

Originally posted by Vigilance, about Marvel's "Ultimate" line of comics:







> This means that ALL comic fans like them as well as they frequently comprise 3-6 of the top ten titles including Marvel, DC, Top Cow, and all the other smaller companies.



You, sir, are quite incorrect.  I have been collecting comics since 1978 or thereabouts.  I am a die-hard comic fan, and the vast majority of my collection is made up of Marvel titles.

I do not like the "Ultimate" books.

Therefore, not ALL comic fans like them, as you stated above.  I can't argue against their apparent success, but just because they sell well does not mean that they have universal appeal.  By your logic, everybody likes the Backstreet Boys and Brittney Spears because their music CDs are (or were) top-sellers.

Johnathan


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 6, 2004)

Quite pleased with it - a 9.

The cameos sealed the deal for me - excellent!


----------



## nHammer (Jul 6, 2004)

Richards said:
			
		

> Originally posted by Vigilance, about Marvel's "Ultimate" line of comics:You, sir, are quite incorrect.  I have been collecting comics since 1978 or thereabouts.  I am a die-hard comic fan, and the vast majority of my collection is made up of Marvel titles.
> 
> I do not like the "Ultimate" books.
> 
> ...




I've been a comic fan for 20 years now, and I don't like them. So his statement is false. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to continue the discussion because it has nothing to do with the thread (or the movie).


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 7, 2004)

*sigh*

Yeah I really meant *all* literally. Sorry to make the semantically deficient go into brain lock when they saw that ONE word of my entire post.

To restate the INTENTION of my post (and to pick up on your bad analogy)- I think if a band, ANY band, even one you do not care for that has EVERY SINGLE ONE of its songs enter the top 10 on the Billboard charts (as every Ultimate title has done) then I would say you must acknolwedge it has value to the majority of the listening public. 

Similarly a comic line that consistently accounts for 30-50% of the top 10 of the Diamond best sellers list BY ITSELF must be acknowledged as not just being a "tired old retread" ad nHammer referred to it whether YOU SPECIFICALLY like/read/enjoy it or not.

Chuck



			
				Richards said:
			
		

> Originally posted by Vigilance, about Marvel's "Ultimate" line of comics:You, sir, are quite incorrect.  I have been collecting comics since 1978 or thereabouts.  I am a die-hard comic fan, and the vast majority of my collection is made up of Marvel titles.
> 
> I do not like the "Ultimate" books.
> 
> ...


----------



## nHammer (Jul 7, 2004)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> Yeah I really meant *all* literally. Sorry to make the semantically deficient go into brain lock when they saw that ONE word of my entire post.
> 
> ...





Why should how well the books sell have anything to do with what I think of them?

I don't care how well they sell. I've read lots of issues of Ultimate Spiderman/X-men/Avengers(Ultimates). I found they just redo stories that have been done. Marvel really needs to do some new stories and make a few new characters. And why the hell start a New Universe with old characters? If you want to do something different with the characters use their books that are already being made.


----------



## Richards (Jul 7, 2004)

As for me, I must just be "semantically deficient."     I understood your meaning perfectly well, and I agree 100% that the "Ultimate" line is quite obviously successful.  But I drew the line at letting you get away with stating that ALL comic fans like the "Ultimate" line.  (You should be more, uh, _vigilant_ about posting absolutes like that!)  

Likewise, I don't think my music analogy was bad.  You're arguing that if a band has all of its songs on the top of the charts, I have to acknowledge that it has value to the majority of the listening public.  If you look, I'm not arguing that they wouldn't have such a value - my whole point with the band analogy is, not ALL of the listening public would necessarily like them, just like not ALL comic fans like the "Ultimate" line, as you originally stated (in error).

My problem with the "Ultimate" comics is that I think they're "fixing a problem" that doesn't exist - they're restarting the Marvel Universe so people won't be intimidated by the decades of backstory.  So what happens a couple of years down the road, when the "Ultimate" line has years of backstory?  Start over again?  I had no trouble understanding what was going on in the Marvel Universe when I started collecting comics in 1978 - granted, there was less of a backstory then than there is now, but I still don't see most people refusing to buy a current Spider-Man comic today because there are decades of Spider-Man comics that came out before that one.

Furthermore, I really disliked what they did to a lot of my favorite characters in the "Ultimate" line.  I hate Peter Parker's new "grunge look" and his parted-down-the-middle hair; I hate the fact that Wolverine is now a teenager with an attitude (and a stupid-looking goatee); I really despise the new, younger Fantastic Four (and don't get me started with "Victor Van Damme"); I could go on, but I won't.  Suffice to say I really hate the "Ultimate" line.

On the plus side, I was overjoyed that those who wanted to "rebuild" the Marvel Universe were given their own line to monkey around with, so they would leave the original Marvel Universe - the one I'd been reading about since 1978 - alone.  Had they just scrapped the old universe for the "Ultimate" line, that would have been it for me as a (Marvel) comic book collector.

But what was this thread about originally, anyway?  Oh yeah -- rate Spider-Man 2.    I gave it a "9," on the assumption that a "10" would be just about perfection.  There were a few things I found troublesome in the movie (most if not all of which have already been discussed in this thread), enough to knock it down from a "10" but no lower.  All in all, I think this is my favorite superhero movie to date.

Johnathan


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 7, 2004)

I gave it an 8. 

Great movie but a little slow at times.  About equal to the first flick which means it's a great movie.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 7, 2004)

Richards said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I really disliked what they did to a lot of my favorite characters in the "Ultimate" line. I hate Peter Parker's new "grunge look" and his parted-down-the-middle hair; I hate the fact that Wolverine is now a teenager with an attitude (and a stupid-looking goatee); I really despise the new, younger Fantastic Four (and don't get me started with "Victor Van Damme"); I could go on, but I won't. Suffice to say I really hate the "Ultimate" line.
> 
> Johnathan



Please tell me Victor Van Dammne isn't Doc Doom or anything like that.  When you mention that name so close to the FF I got worried.


----------



## Richards (Jul 8, 2004)

Flexor:  I could tell you that Victor Van Damme isn't the "Ultimate" Dr. Doom...

...but I'd be lying.  You have every reason to be worried.  Worry away!

Johnathan


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Jul 8, 2004)

I gave it a solid 9, since practically nothing gets a 10.  That said, it was very very good and far and away better than the first (and the first was really good).  Definitely the best movie I've seen this year so far.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Jul 8, 2004)

Wow. Color me fanboy, but that movie blew me away.

Once again: wow.

Granted, a 10 would mean perfection, but hey, this movie was perfect - IMHO 

It had its flaws (Aunt May's speech in the backyard for instance - didn't like that) but it's still closer to 10 than 9.

I'll watch it again. And again. And..


----------



## ShadowX (Jul 9, 2004)

I gave it a 9, much better than I expected.  May surpass Unbreakable as my favorite superhero movie.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jul 10, 2004)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> It had its flaws (Aunt May's speech in the backyard for instance - didn't like that)




Funny, I really liked that scene.  As far as the "non-action" scenes go, it was one of my favorites.  (You are talking about the "boxing up her stuff; neighborhood kid who helps needs a hero" scene, right?)

Anyway, I dragged my wife to this movie when we went, to make it a family event.  Even she (who hates comic book movies) liked it.  I think this one has great appeal, even for people who don't normally like this genre.


----------



## haiiro (Jul 11, 2004)

Just saw it tonight, and I really liked it. I'd give it a very solid 8 (would have been a 8.5, if halves were available) -- this is a thoroughly enjoyable movie, a great sequel, and a fine example of good superhero flick.

I'll leave it at that to avoid treading on spoiler territory.


----------



## Zerth (Jul 12, 2004)

Easily the best movie I've seen this year. They had involved more romance and other non-action stuff than I expected, but it was mostly very well done. I gave it a 9.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 13, 2004)

I gave it a 7. I really enjoyed the film, but I felt that perhaps a few elements left in the final cut were not as well-explored as they should have been.

For example, Peter's relationship with his landlord's painfully-thin daughter. I think this should have either been cut entirely or followed to some kind of conclusion; it was not clear in the final cut of the film what this friendship meant to Peter. I mean, I personally think of it as demonstrating that there *are* other women in the world who Peter could date, but that's just a guess - there's not enough on the screen to make it clear, but at the same time it's a little too obvious to be considered a subtle point, considering how long the cake-eating scene takes. 

The action was very good, and everyone's performances were excellent, but it was perhaps a little bit too long. A second viewing (which might happen tomorrow) might cure me of that feeling, but I'm not sure.

I rate the original as a 6, so this is a cut above it - in hindsight, it might qualify as an 8. For comparison, I give the Burton-Keaton _Batman_ a 6 and _Batman Returns_ a 7, and _Spider-Man 2_ is a cut above the latter, so I guess it does deserve an 8.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 13, 2004)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I gave it a 7. I really enjoyed the film, but I felt that perhaps a few elements left in the final cut were not as well-explored as they should have been.
> 
> The action was very good, and everyone's performances were excellent, but it was perhaps a little bit too long. A second viewing (which might happen tomorrow) might cure me of that feeling, but I'm not sure



 Man, if you go twice to a film you give a 7, how many times do you see a 9 or a 10?


----------



## papa_laz (Jul 13, 2004)

Am I the only one that thought this movie sucked? Everything about it was either cheesy, cliched or just plain dumb. I mean the octopus man, jesus christ, wasn't he the stupidest looking villain ever. I don't expect much from these sort of movies, but they couldve at least been consistent in their stupidity. Otto takes about 50 punches to the head from someone who can support a 20 ton girder and doesn't even bleed. And why didn't the police just get a sharpshooter to put a bullet between the villains eyes? I know its just a movie, but they couldve come up with something at least slightly plausible.

Two words for what this movie and the next shouldve been about, VENOM and CARNAGE. I gave this 4 becasue I did actually get a little bit of enjoyment from the film, mostly because MJ is so hot.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 16, 2004)

papa_laz said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that thought this movie sucked? Everything about it was either cheesy, cliched or just plain dumb. I mean the octopus man, jesus christ, wasn't he the stupidest looking villain ever. I don't expect much from these sort of movies, but they couldve at least been consistent in their stupidity. Otto takes about 50 punches to the head from someone who can support a 20 ton girder and doesn't even bleed. And why didn't the police just get a sharpshooter to put a bullet between the villains eyes? I know its just a movie, but they couldve come up with something at least slightly plausible.
> 
> Two words for what this movie and the next shouldve been about, VENOM and CARNAGE. I gave this 4 becasue I did actually get a little bit of enjoyment from the film, mostly because MJ is so hot.



I think you may be.   Doc Ock looked like Doc Ock did in the comics. A portly guy with four mechanical tentacles. What was he supposed to look like?

For the record I hope they don't do Venom or Carnage, never cared for either villian.  I would like to see Spidey wear the black suit though.


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 16, 2004)

*re*

Great Movie! Loved the train scene and Doc Ock looked really cool. Perfect combination of action, drama, and comedy. It really felt like a movie based on a Spiderman comic book in a good way.


----------



## Krug (Jul 19, 2004)

Liked it though I felt it sagged in the middle. Also felt the scene with the neighbour didn't come to a conclusion. The action was definitely fantastic though, and the movie was at it's best using big, bold strokes. 

Hope they don't use too much of a 'science' villain for part 3. I think it'll probably be Green Goblin manipulating another villain or vice versa.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 19, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> Hope they don't use too much of a 'science' villain for part 3. I think it'll probably be Green Goblin manipulating another villain or vice versa.



 Well, I'm assuming that Harry will be the primary villian in the third movie, and that they'll tie up all the loose ends at that point, one way or the other.  The three primary actors (Macguire, Dunst and Franco) were signed for a three picture deal.  Raimi may want to move on to other projects after the third picture, as well.

 I'll be real suprised if Macguire or Dunst expresses interest in doing a fourth movie...and quite frankly, I don't think Harry will be around for Franco to have a choice to make.


----------



## nikolai (Jul 19, 2004)

papa_laz said:
			
		

> I don't expect much from these sort of movies, but they couldve at least been consistent in their stupidity. Otto takes about 50 punches to the head from someone who can support a 20 ton girder and doesn't even bleed.




This is a pet peeve of mine too. It cool to have superheroes who are indestructable being thrown about loads (like X2 & Superman 2). But when you get morals being wacked around without any consequences it's just weird. MJ would have had several broken bones in the real world. Spoiler 



Spoiler



The car through the window was also strange. If PP hadn't been Spider-man, he'd have been splatted, and Otto's plan would have been aborted.



Underworld Spoiler


Spoiler



This was particularly bizarre in Underworld. Kate Beckinsale's character got thrown around loads without any consequences, and then died after being tapped very lightly.


----------

