Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ebert: **** Review of "Spiderman 2"
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 6/30/04 | Roger Ebert

Posted on 06/30/2004 6:31:48 AM PDT by Remole

Ebert: "Now this is what a superhero movie should be."

Click on link for full review.

(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ebert; movie; moviereview; spiderman; spiderman2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2004 6:31:49 AM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Remole

Any movie that gets a good review from Ebert is required to have a homosexual subtext to it.

Does Peter Parker come out of the closet or something?


2 posted on 06/30/2004 6:35:57 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remole

Spiderman, Spiderman, does whatever a spider can.....

Anyone see it last night?


3 posted on 06/30/2004 6:36:24 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remole
Hmm...sounds great. It is interesting that he didn't like the first one (which I enjoyed) so I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I usually like what Ebert doesn't and ignore what he does. (But I'm will to ignore that and see this one...sounds like a great flick.)

Gum

4 posted on 06/30/2004 6:37:23 AM PDT by ChewedGum (aka King of Fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Hmm ..so what was the homosexual subtext to The Passion of the Christ since Ebert also gave it 4 stars?


5 posted on 06/30/2004 6:41:11 AM PDT by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChewedGum
I've also found Ebert rave about some film that I found totally boring and vice versa. It has made me question if he isn't like Lauren Bacall who praised some product(s) on talk shows and then turned out she was secretly paid to do it by the manufacturer.
6 posted on 06/30/2004 6:43:08 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dante3
I've also found Ebert rave about some film that I found totally boring and vice versa.

Yup. But I like his reviews. He writes well, and he's upfront about his biases (most of which I disagree strongly with). I don't always agree with his take on a movie, but I almost always find his reviews useful in determining whether a movie is one that I want to see or not. What I'm looking for from a critic is information, and Ebert's consistent enough (IMO) in what he does that I generally get it, even if it isn't the same information that he thinks he's conveying...

7 posted on 06/30/2004 7:05:26 AM PDT by Lyford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ChewedGum
I like this review, lots of info that helps me enjoy a movie even more. And he seems to be in concert with every other reviewer I've read. They all love this movie.

One reviewer I read was silly. He opined Spiderman was the perfect Superhero for post 9-11 America. Before that date, we liked our super heros like we perceived our country to be... invincible. After 9-ll, he wrote, Spiderman better suits us...still strong but full of self-doubt, guilt, and introspection. (Some movie reviewers take themselves way too seriously!)

8 posted on 06/30/2004 7:11:43 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@"Corruption"...thy name is Clinton.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: commish
Hmm ..so what was the homosexual subtext to The Passion of the Christ since Ebert also gave it 4 stars?

Judas...Jesus...kiss...The fat slob would take it from there.
9 posted on 06/30/2004 7:48:39 AM PDT by frossca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
(Some movie reviewers take themselves way too seriously!)

And the movies, too :)

10 posted on 06/30/2004 7:49:57 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Right! Give me straight up entertainment over self-indulgent navel gazing anyday!
11 posted on 06/30/2004 7:59:54 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@"Corruption"...thy name is Clinton.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

I saw it at midnight. Great movie.


12 posted on 06/30/2004 10:06:04 AM PDT by Down South P.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Remole

If freepers go in mass this weekend to see Spiderman them that should tip the scale and push 9/11 to the bottom og the pile.


13 posted on 06/30/2004 10:29:18 AM PDT by FlatLandBeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlatLandBeer
If freepers go in mass this weekend to see Spiderman them that should tip the scale and push 9/11 to the bottom of the pile.

Spiderman will be a doubly great movie, knowing that it will knock Farenheit off the front page.

14 posted on 06/30/2004 3:34:14 PM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FlatLandBeer
We all better go, because Moore will crush Spidey if we don't!:


15 posted on 06/30/2004 11:02:39 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Ni Jesus, Ni Marx..OUI REAGAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Remole

Haven't read Ebert's review, but just wanted to bump this for FReepers.

If you are at ALL a Spiderman fan, a MUST SEE!

Very, very entertaining. And very little reason not to take the kids, except if you or they object to comic- book violence. Nothing in it like the end of the first Spiderman, which was too gory for young kids.

Anyway, Spidey 2 has wonderful themes of self-sacrifice and heroism, confession, love, obsession, and pulls it all off without being hoaky if you can accept the context of a comic book action movie.

**** Four starts from this FReeper!

-- Joe


16 posted on 07/05/2004 12:01:58 PM PDT by Joe Republc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Republc

I have to add this if it wasn't clear before...

Spidey 2 is BETTER than the first movie, which also was great.

-- Joe


17 posted on 07/05/2004 12:05:07 PM PDT by Joe Republc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

"...One reviewer I read was silly. He opined Spiderman was the perfect Superhero for post 9-11 America. Before that date, we liked our super heros like we perceived our country to be... invincible. After 9-ll, he wrote, Spiderman better suits us...still strong but full of self-doubt, guilt, and introspection. (Some movie reviewers take themselves way too seriously!)"

Actually, the reviewer had a good point, but probably drew the wrong conclusion.

Spidey 2 shows Peter Parker eventually getting OUT of self-doubt to become more of a man and hero. And to make others around him more heroic.

-- Joe


18 posted on 07/05/2004 12:07:46 PM PDT by Joe Republc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Remole
As much as I liked the first movie, and I know I'll like the second one as well, the movie just doesn't totally follow the history of Spiderman/Parker.

Take the girls in his life. First there was Betty Brant, then Gwen Stacy, then Mary Jane Parker. I know, I know, the movie wouldn't sell without a beautiful red-head in it, but I would have liked to see it keep to the original storylines.

Flash Thompson does hate Parker in the beginning, but his character also loved Spiderman. Then when Flash came back from Vietnam him and Peter hit it off after Harry (as the Green Goblin) destroyed their apartment they shared.

JJJ. J Jonah Jameson. What can I say? This character seems to be truer to character than anyone. I love it in the first movie where he tries to protect Parker when the Goblin bursts through the wall. It just goes to show his decency and how much he really cares for those work for him.

Joe Robertson. Here is a character they soarly need to use more. He is Peter's mentor in a way, almost the father figure he never had when Ben Parker was killed.

Mary Jane Parker. Nahhhhhh. I don't like Kirsten Dunst and I never will. Her character is probably one of the non-traditional character in the movie now. Heck, her character didn't even get a bigger role in the comics until after Gwen Stacy was killed by the Goblin (well, Spiderman actually killed her, you'd have to read the comics to know what I mean). I was not for using her when the movies started and I don't think she be used now. If nothing else, perhaps both Stacy and Watson could have been used in the first movie and let the Goblin kill her. Then Watson and Parker could have become close cuz of her death. That at least would have been truer to Spidey-dom.

Well, that's my take on things.

19 posted on 07/05/2004 12:15:12 PM PDT by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Frank Rich found the Bush connection in Spiderman. Is there anything the mainstream media won't use to attack Bush. This is almost getting cartoonish...and I don't mean the Spiderman movie.


20 posted on 07/10/2004 9:18:56 AM PDT by Hildy ( If you don't stand up for what's RIGHT, you'll settle for what's LEFT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson