$40.5 Million Payday for New and Improved 'Spider-Man'

Yahoo, Entertainment, US Today ^ | 7/4/04 | Scott Bowles

[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."

[DameAutour]

I saw it last night. It was excellent, excellent, excellent. I think it hit every note, there were tender moments, funny moments, thrilling moments, "ooh" "ahh" moments, highs and lows, romance, just everything. The movie was consistently good from the very beginning (the opening credits are great) to the very end (a moving final shot).

The "Raindrops keep falling on my head" sequence? Laugh Out Loud funny. The train sequence? Thrilling and touching.

There is PLENTY of action but also a lot of comedy and drama. The movie is not in love with CGI and special effects, but uses them wisely.

There is nothing leftist, nothing PC, no sneering at America, not even a little bit. This movie deserves all of the kudos it gets.

However, you can't please everybody.

[birbear]

I loved S2! I wasn't a big fan of S1, I enjoyed it, but not as much as others seemed to. But I enjoyed every second of S2.

It grabbed the very essence of what Marvel superheros are all about -- everyday people blessed/cursed with magnificent powers. DC heroes (like Superman and Batman) have very little flaws. They never have to worry about the day to day stuff. In Spiderman, Peter has to worry about keeping a job, paying his rent, helping aunt may make the mortgage payment, keeping commitments, day-to-day stuff that we all can relate to.

And Marvel super villains aren't entirely despicable. Doc Oct is actually an enjoyable character before the accident, and he really doesn't want to hurt anybody even after he becomes a villain, he's just driven by his need to see his creation work. Same way with both Osbornes -- both are compelled, not because of any sense of wanting to do wrong doing, but for pride.

The Mary Jane character is a little shallow, but she's a little shallow in the comic books. I think Kirsten Dunst is perfectly cast as some nice eye-candy.

The Aunt May character is a bit too strong, in my opinion. I always got the impression that she should be a bit weaker than she's portrayed in the movie. But it's a minor criticism.

Awesome movie. I too almost cried.

[Frapster]

I saw it and was completely blown away by how awesome this movie turned out to be. The story line was touching and even a little inspiring. The special effects were not over done and the huge fight scene was not only fantastic but had an amazingly touching end to it. It was funny at the same time. Great movie - best I've seen - frankly I enjoyed it more than the Return of the King.

[I_dmc]

The Hobgoblin is the third incarnation of Goblin characters, created when Roderick Kingsley discovered an abandoned secret lair of the supervillain known as the Green Goblin. Using the Green Goblin's equipment, Kingsley adopted the identity of the Hobgoblin and set out to plague Spider-Man. Eventually, he framed Peter Parker's friend and co-worker Ned Leeds as being the man behind the Hobgoblin's mask, and retired; Leeds was killed while wearing the Hobgoblin's costume, and was believed for several years to have actually been the Hobgoblin.

source: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hobgoblin%20(Spiderman%20Villain)

[I_dmc]

A futher note. When Harry becomes the Goblin, he does so as his father, not as himself. The tipoff is the mirror scene. In this sense, it is "Norman Osborne lives again!". A side note. The films combine the characters of Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson into one. In the comics, the bridge scene from the first film truely is a deadly choice for Spiderman, as his attempt to first save the group and then save Gwen, fails.

[I_dmc]

Hmm. Sorry, make that fourth incarnation. I had forgotten about Dr Barton Hamilton, who learns the Green Goblins secrets by treating Harry.

[birbear]

Thanks! Call me mis-informed! :)

[WhiteGuy]

I saw it last night.

I enjoyed it. I was genuinely interested in the characters and the story had enough twists and turns to keep me watching.

Now, I don't really think anyone gives a crap about MY opinion of some movie.

But I wouldn't spend $8.50 to see it again.

[Othniel]

Yeah, I have a feeling that MJ might have some Gwen Stacy elements in her, as far as meeting her doom at the hands of the Goblin. S2 surpasses the original. You could take the special effects out and it would still hold up as a great drama.

I agree on the Connors/Lizard connection, but I want to see Mysterio hit the big screen.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Great movie - best I've seen - frankly I enjoyed it more than the Return of the King.

I thought Return of the King was way too long.

[TRY ONE]

"I thought Return of the King was way too long."

Wasn't that "My Life .... William Jefferson...?

[Jalapeno]

Van Helsing was pretty bad. No, really, really bad. Great trailer though. Riddick is not too bad, because you know what to expect there with Vin Diesel, and it delivers.

As you can see there are alot of folks here who liked the film. If this was another country, I would probably have my eyes taken out or something like that...I would definitely be interested in your thoughts after you see it.

[Sally II]

Saw it yesterday. It was excellent, and I plan to see it again. I don't normally like seeing movies twice, and I don't normally love comic book inspired movies. But Sam Ramie topped himself with this one. Well told story. Has a lot of feeling... right blend of action, humor, drama, and romance.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

As you can see there are alot of folks here who liked the film. If this was another country, I would probably have my eyes taken out or something like that...I would definitely be interested in your thoughts after you see it.

I really liked the movie, especially the ending. I love nice endings, and the fact that Peter Parker is such a moral guy. (At times, I thought the monster was silly, but overall I liked it, and I was happy to pay my money in the hope it would get F-9/11 off the front page.)

I plan to see it again in the future when it comes to the historic theater near me. We want to take family members then.

[Jalapeno]

Hey, I saw Robot the other day, and you were mostly right about Smith. They toned the one-liners down a bit, but it was obvious the screen play was more written around him and not the original story.

It was definitely not the right part for him, and the film dragged due to it. It's a shame too, there were some good elements to it.

[Thoro]

Hey, I saw Robot the other day, and you were mostly right about Smith. They toned the one-liners down a bit, but it was obvious the screen play was more written around him and not the original story.

I was pleasantly surprised with it. My brother drug me to it, and I found that I got my five bucks worth out of the movie. Walking in, I expected tons of one-liners and tons of foot-to-the-floor action sequences with tons of explosions because that's all the preview shows. It did have all that, but, thankfully, in acceptable doses, not tons like I was lead to believe. It was a decent action murder mystery.

It was definitely not the right part for him, and the film dragged due to it. It's a shame too, there were some good elements to it.

It would have been a better movie with a more subdued actor in the part. Smith was trying his best to not be the "Men in Black" guy, but it slipped out from time to time, and as a result has a tendency to yank the viewer out of the seriousness of the situation the movie presents. His robot paranoia kind of came off as overdone as well.

Also, I never read the original book, but from what I understand it dealt with the concept of a robot soul and free will. This movie only touched on that, and only sufficiently enough to tie all the mystery parts together so there were no loose ends. Although I would still like to see a movie based on that. Kubrick's "A.I." was supposed to deliver that, but Spielberg didn't pull through on the execution, and "Bicentennial Man" was so saturated with sugar and Robin Williams quirks that it was completely absurd.

[Jalapeno]

I would agree 5 bucks is a good price for it.

I told rintense I did like King Arthur for what its worth, and would recommend that. She said she liked it too.

Next up - the Borne sequel I believe.

[rintense]

Yep, liked King Arthur. It may be cast as a Gladiator wanna be, but did very well with themes of country and freedom. I enjoyed it a lot. Very different from Excalibur.

[Thoro]

Yep, liked King Arthur. It may be cast as a Gladiator wanna be, but did very well with themes of country and freedom. I enjoyed it a lot. Very different from Excalibur.

I really enjoyed Excalibur. Although I realize that it's look and style hasn't aged well, I think it did a nice serious and reasonable take on the Arthur legend.

I saw Jerry Bruckheimer's name on King Arthur and decided to pass and wait until video as projects he's associated with have a tendency to be too "Hollywood"ish for my tastes. I'll definitely rent it, especially after hearing some positive comments. However, seeing Arthur in that Roman-esque outfit in the preview is kind of off-putting to my five dollars.

I still need to see the previous Bourne flick. It has been a decent year for movies, I think. Next on my must-see list is "The Village".

[rintense]

Yep. The Village is on my list as well. I think M. Knight Shamalan is a genius.

As for Excalibur, did they dub the voice of King Arthur? His voice never sat right with me.