The Goblin had to, of course, do the stupid "join me or die!" thing every bad guy ever does, in the process passing up several free chances to kill Spiderman. Given the fact that he was a murderous megalomaniac, I didn't really see why he would care about having anyone join him; he was clearly a go at it alone type of guy. But of course he had to capture and talk to his enemy, and then spare him, when everyone on earth knew Spider-Man would fight him, and end up destroying him.  Of course if the Goblin killed him first chance he had, it wouldn't have been much of a movie, but I'd have written it differently.

Spidey was supposed to be all brilliant and studious, but he didn't appear to give a second of thought to how the Goblin could have known who he was, or think anything unusual about Norman rushing out of the dinner once he saw the cut on his arm.  Which no one on earth but the Goblin would have found remarkable.  The general level of inquiry into the death of Osborne's head scientist, the theft of their best equipment, and the subsequent destruction of their main rivals for the government contracts were also given zero thought. The movie didn't really have room for another character, perhaps a reporter who was trying to figure out who Spider-Man was and unravel the whole mystery.  But anyone investigating things would have seen instant links between the major events.  And shouldn't Peter Parker have spent a bit of time trying to figure how how the Goblin knew who he was?

What purpose did the Goblin serve by frightening, but not hurting/killing, Aunt May?  Yes, he had his little talk to the mask scene with the "go for his heart" strategy resolved upon, but what purpose did that serve? Besides pissing Spiderman off.  Now taking Mary Jane prisoner was useful, since that drew his enemy to him.  The Aunt May thing was pointless, other than as a way to tug at heartstrings and have a hospital room scene.

The Goblin had a dozen kinds of awesome instant death bombs, but he never used them when they would have killed Spiderman.  He threw ones full of little knives, or used knock out smoke, or low explosives.  He eventually had his enemy hanging from a bridge, with a cable car in one hand, and he flies by about ten times, punching him, rather than just killing him, which was what he planned all along.

However as I said above, you can explain most of these away by the fact that the Goblin was insane.  Evil supervillians always torment the good guys, and almost always end up dying because of it, in the same way that good guys always end up able to kill the bad guys, but don't, since they're noble, etc.  And then the bad guys return later and kill another thousand innocent people before the good guy captures them again.  But just because every stupid movie has the same stupid character types doesn't mean it's less dumb that Spider-Man does also.

The movie isn't as bad as all this picking would indicate -- Spider-Man was more intelligent than most action films, with better acting than most action films.  Unfortunately, the action wasn't, so while it's a good movie overall, it isn't one I'd recommend to action fans. Which leaves a mediocre love story, a few okay fight scenes, and good acting... for a comic book movie.

In some quick movie news, Spider-Man 2 opened on Wednesday, which is probably news to none of you. Despite the fact that Malaya and I check out most of the big budget action movies that come out, we haven't been paying this one any attention. She never saw the first Spider-Man and wasn't much interested in the sequel, and I did see the first one and that's why I'm not interested in the sequel.

The trailers for the second one don't suck, but they hadn't done anything to change our opinions either. The nearly-unanimous critical mass might, however. As of Wednesday afternoon, Rotten Tomatoes has 122 reviews listed, of which 117 are positive, and most of those are glowingly positive.  That's 95.901% positive, if you were waiting for some math. Thinking back to the first film, I didn't dislike it, but I was just kind of bored.  It was basically an adequate super hero movie with very subpar action.

I did review it at the time, and you can see what I said here. To briefly quote myself, with slight reformatting:

Spider-Man Genre: Action Acting : 7 Script: 6 Replayability: 4 Overall: 6

Spider-Man was more intelligent than most action films, with better acting than most action films.  Unfortunately, the action wasn't intelligent or better, so while it's a good movie overall, it isn't one I'd highly recommend to action fans.

We may see the new one anyway, due to it getting such great reviews, or we may just go rent the first one and see if that inspires us to view more of the same. I'm curious to see if I'd enjoy it more with a second viewing, and Malaya would sit through it, if we had it here. And since I got a $20 blockbuster card for my birthday and we never rent anything at all, it would be free.  Free aside from the 2 hours of our lives we can never, ever get back, at least.

The experts are predicting SM2 will make a fortune, shattering every opening week record, and I suppose that's a pretty safe bet, given that the first one set most of those records, and that 1) sequels generally make less than the first film, while 2) earning almost all of that money the opening weekend.  I obviously didn't care much for the first film, but quite a few people did, judging by it's $400m+ gross in the US, so I'm not going to argue with the $100m weekend and $150m opening week predictions.

While it will be hugely-profitable, there's no way SM2 will break the opening weekend records, for the same reason Shrek 2 didn't; they both opened on Wednesdays. All of those people buying tickets Wed and Thur would otherwise have been buying them on Fri-Sun, as they did for Spidey1, which crushed the previous Fri-Sun opening weekend record. SM2 is a good bet to break the Matrix 2 record of $144m in 5 days and $152m in 6 days though, with the 6th day of release falling on Monday the 4, which is a holiday in the US.

While we find the box office results and rave reviews interesting, they're doing nothing to increase either Malaya's or my interest in seeing the film, so while we might catch it at a matinee next week, I wouldn't count on it.

It's surprising (to me, anyway) that not only didn't they do a huge worldwide opening (like the Matrix LotR, etc did) since most hit movies now make 2 or 3x more internationally than they do in the US. Take Troy: it made $131m in the US, which is actually a loss, given the massive movie and promotion cost. However it's pulled in another $328m worldwide, so far, giving it a total of $460m, and making it a huge hit. What's Spider Man 2 waiting for? It hasn't opened anywhere outside of the US and Canada yet.  The first Spider Man made around $400m in the US, and another $400m world wide; what are they waiting for?

All box office talk aside, is the movie any good? It's still at 94% on RT, with 151/160 reviews positive, and most of the geeks seem to love it. I'd throw in my opinion, but I don't have one. Neither Malaya or I seem to have any interest in it, and despite my comments from last week that we might check it out at a matinee this week, I don't see much likelihood of that happening.

July 8, 2004

I mentioned Spider Man 2 in a recent blog, and wondered why it hadn't opened up worldwide yet. Which was a reasonable thing to wonder... it just wasn't correct.  As a reader in Korea mailed to point out.

Just wanted to point out that actually Spidey 2 did open up worldwide, at least to my knowledge it did o_O i saw it a few days ago at the theater, and overall it's a pretty good improvement over the first. I enjoyed it a lot, although there were the usual "*snort* that so would not happen even to a super hero" scenes and such. All the actors did very well, although I'm not a real big fan of Kristin Dunst (Kristen? not sure). as my friend likes to put it which gets a giggle out of me whenever she says it, "go home please and PUT ON A BRA!"

Overall it's a pretty good movie and I would recommend it. I'm a tad biased since I really enjoyed Dr Oct and his very well done mechanical arms (given an serpentine/"alive" quality to them by the CG effects coordinators and such), but i think it's worth seeing in theater, and if not then definitely for a DVD/VHS popcorny experience.

-Elsha 

Elsha had a few other comments on the movie that I've snipped here, since the last paragraph wraps things up pretty well. And, as she/he points out (I never know what gender anyone is anymore, with everyone using online aliases) Spider Man 2 has opened in many countries around the world, including Korea. It's only pulled in $44m so far, but that's in just a week, and it hasn't even opened in Germany, the UK, and Japan, all countries in the top ten in worldwide box office. I thought it hadn't since I didn't see any international grosses listed online; forgetting that foreign box office returns usually take a week to tabulate and get posted.

July 18, 2004

We watched Spider Man (on tape, from the library) Saturday night. I'd seen it, once, in the theater 2 years ago, and this viewing did nothing to change my original opinion of it, as expressed in this review written in May 2002. It's not a very good review, or a well-written one either, but basically I thought it was a well made movie, but not one that I especially enjoyed, and I thought the action sequences were very lacking, considering it was theoretically an action movie. I also found too much dumb stuff in it to really enjoy it, and didn't much care about any of the characters in it.

My second viewing didn't change my opinion at all, and in fact I was pretty bored through most of the talking. Malaya didn't dislike it, and she didn't get up and walk away cursing as she did 2 days ago, during the abomination that was Austin Powers 3 (AKA Goldmember), but neither did she insist upon going to see Spider Man 2 while it's still in theaters. I don't have any need to see it either, and will be fine waiting for a DVD rental, or waiting a bit longer to see it for free from the library.

Neither of us had any idea why Spider Man 1 made so much money though. I mean what's the big deal? It's a mediocre movie about a pretty cool super hero with mediocre acting, tons of huge plot holes, and mediocre actors. It's better than most comic book movies, but 1) that's not saying a whole lot, and 2) the action in Spidey 1 is very subpar, for the genre.  People seem to think Spidey 2 is better, but most of them loved Spidey 1 in the first place, so their judgment is suspect, in my opinion.

The only revelation I had from watching Spidey 1 was that it's so much easier to be a male actor in most films. Especially a young male. Willem Dafoe had to act in SM1, playing crazy and calm and vulnerable and hard, but he's old.  Spidey's friend, the son of the mad scientist, did nothing in the movie but brood or sulk, while looking pretty. Tobey did nothing but stare blankly, and act angry once or twice.  Anyone could have played those roles, if they looked right for the part.  Meanwhile Kirsten Dunst, like her or hate her (I'm pretty indifferent, personally.) had to act hurt, sad, angry, worried, rejected, loving, terrified, etc. Aunt May didn't do much but look understanding and angelic, but she had to play scared a couple of times, scolding other times, etc.