Credit Alex Ross for that..one of the finest comic artists currently on the job
Posted on 07/04/2004 4:44:55 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
The web-slinger is back, and the verdict is in. Two years have served Peter Parker well.
Spider-Man 2 snared a whopping $40.5 million on Wednesday, according to estimates from distributor Sony Pictures. If the number holds, it will be the largest opening day ever, eclipsing the original Spider-Man's record of $39.4 million in 2002. And the superhero is doing it with story over special effects.
Opening to a chorus of glowing reviews and sold-out theaters, Spider-Man 2 is accomplishing what few comic book films manage: winning over audiences not typically drawn to superheroes.
"I saw the first movie on video and didn't like it that much," says Mary Espinoza, 23, who was "dragged" by her boyfriend to the midnight showing Wednesday at the Mann Village Theater in Westwood in west Los Angeles.
"I liked it as much as he did," says Espinoza, a dental assistant. "It didn't feel like one of those big summer movies, with explosions and special effects. I even cried once."
Timothy Redfield, 29, of Austin says the sequel is what "every other comic movie should be."
"It had a real story to it," says Redfield, a video store manager. "Just because it's a comic book movie doesn't mean it has to be shallow. The characters were as good as in any dramatic film."
Reviewers seem to agree. Spider-Man 2 is the second-highest-praised film of the year, according to MetaCritic.com, a Web site that surveys major critics nationwide.
The film scored an 85, second only to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which scored an 87. Both films happen to feature Kirsten Dunst.
The film may be swinging into theaters just in time to save the web-slinger's box office reputation. Shrek 2 is expected to cross the $400 million mark this week and will likely surpass Spider-Man as the fifth-highest-grossing film ever. The original took in $403.7 million, including $114.8 in its first weekend.
Could the sequel return the superhero to the top 5? It's possible, says Paul Dergarabedian of box office tracker Exhibitor Relations, particularly given the strength of sequels recently. Shrek 2 and each installment of The Lord of the Rings surpassed its predecessor, he notes.
"Last summer we had something like 15 sequels, most of them disappointing," he says. "This summer is invigorating the sequel after 2003 almost killed it. If Spider-Man maintains the buzz it's gotten so far, there's no telling how big it will get."
Have any FReepers seen it yet? I may catch a matinee tomorrow morning.
I'm seeing it tomorrow. BTW, I haven't seen it on the front page of my local newspaper. (They put F 9/11 there.)
Its a great movie. AT least as good as the original. To my eye, the effects were "cleaner", especially the CGI.
Great movie. I cried.
Ditto. I noticed the second time a very brief cameo by Stan Lee. For one that grew up devouring each Spidey comic and liking the first installment, this one is a dream come true. Like many say, this is what every "comic book" movie should be. Of course, they couldn't be. Thats why Spiderman is the most popular comic book character ever, for 40 years. Cliche: I laughed, I cried....
My wife spotted Stan Lee in his cameo quicker than I could respond to it. She's really good at faces. My brain registered that there was something familiar about the person, but she had him identified before my brain could sort it out.LOL! See if you can spot him in it (he also had a brief cameo in the first one).
Ditto. Its one of the most moving films I've ever seen. I'm not sure I even completely understand why. But I can think of no better film to have made its debut on July 4th weekend. It shouts in a loud silent voice about the character of America...and Americans.
Credit Alex Ross for that..one of the finest comic artists currently on the job
I will refrain from detailed comments to prevent spoilers, but the first 45 minutes was painfully slow, the last 15 was painfully slow and dumb, and the action in between was all pretty pointless and predictable.
IMHO, it is obvious Hollywood's expectations of what an audience will demand continues to drop. They may even be right.
Happy Birthday America. Good movie is out. That puts stop sign to other disrespectful movie made not long ago about tragic attack in New York.
For my money, the best Spiderman film clip ever is the trailer that shows the helicopter caught in the big web between the Two Towers. Unfortunately this was pulled right after 9-11.
My son liked the sequal, I haven't gotten to see it yet.
BTW, the previews before the movie showed a mini-series about terror in America called The Grid. I think it's a USA or TNT production. It had real Americans battling arab-looking terrorists. Did anyone else see this ad? It gave me hope that some in Hollywood might be ready to call a spade, a spade.
"Ditto. Its one of the most moving films I've ever seen. I'm not sure I even completely understand why.
Check out Lou Luminicks review in the NY post for the answer. In short he said: The producers are showing a great faith in the attention spans of movie-goers in that there is a lot of dialog. They got the guy who wrote "Ordinary People" to write Spiderman II. Think about that for a minute. The guy who wrote Ordinary People to write an FX wet dream like Spidey II
Dialog, at least since Speilberg, is the biggest sin a writer can make--as far as the copycats in H'wood understand. Speilbergs SUBJECTS don't require much of it BUT what the copycats don't notice is that whenever he needs it it is there.
Any storyteller WILL need it to manipulate an audience in the fullest possible way but for some reason (well, I know the reason: it's because so many in the industry are no talents who don't know WHY certain tools are used at any given time)"Dialog" has become out of genere. You know: for stage or books etc, not a visual thing like Film.
I saw the movie yesterday and couldn't wait for it to end. Everything you said was accurate and more, the acting was bad, the cast was wrong, the writing stunk, and the cinematography was lousy. On the plus side the special effects were OK. If it hadn't been for the group that I was with, I would have left early, it was a major waste of time.
There were so many extreme close-ups of Maquires face that it became boring to count the moles, freckles, and scars. Without giving the plot away, a large part of the movie was depressingly spent showing how awful Parker's life was, over, and over, and over again.... ad nauseum.
In short, don't waste your time with this movie.
It was Ross who did the artwork on Marvels, one of the truly landmark comic book masterpieces of the 1990's. And Ross in the last five years did a number of oversized graphic novels for DC Comics that are just gorgeous to look at. 
Sam, Ted, Rob Tapert (also part of the Xena family and married to Lucy Lawless. Lucy had a cameo in the first Spidey movie as a punk rocker who said Spidey was kinda hot) and Bruce Campbell were a 'fab four' of upstart film makers/actors from Michigan. Today, through all their fame, they've still managed to stay together as the best of friends.
I thought it was great, and yes, I cried.
Did you like Spiderman 1? If not, I can't take you seriously. (BTW, give me an example of a movie you like.)
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.