The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

After seeing the first spiderman and pretty much enjoying all the marvel comic's movies i was really looking forward to seeing spiderman 2...especially since it got such good reviews from critics...that being said, what a huge disappointment of a summer blockbuster it was. It's long, boring and just a typical lame sequel...the movie is totally predictable and C movie at best.

First off, it's basically an action movie with no action.
Secondly, they spent way too much time rehashing stuff from the first movie.
Lastly, i guess it's gripe i've had since the first movie..casting, kristen dunst is not hot enough to be mary jane and tobey mcguire is just too much a wuss to be spiderman...

anyways, just curious about what everyone else thought about it....

i guess i couldn't disagree more. i thought it was great, much better than the first. i enoyed the action, character development, and didn't feel that it lame in the least.

what i enjoyed most was how the feeling of the movie was very close to how i remember the comic books; that peter parker is just a kid with real problems just like the rest of us. he has rent to pay, can't get a girlfriend, etc. it makes him much more human than some other superheroes, i.e. superman, batman, etc.

anyway, i thought it was great movie. it fully entertained my little pea brain.

joebagadonuts wrote:i guess i couldn't disagree more. i thought it was great, much better than the first. i enoyed the action, character development, and didn't feel that it lame in the least.

what i enjoyed most was how the feeling of the movie was very close to how i remember the comic books; that peter parker is just a kid with real problems just like the rest of us. he has rent to pay, can't get a girlfriend, etc. it makes him much more human than some other superheroes, i.e. superman, batman, etc.

anyway, i thought it was great movie. it fully entertained my little pea brain.

IT WAS THE SHIZNITTLE BAM BITTLE..........LOL IN OTHER WORDS I LOVED IT. ....

I AM 34 and been reading and collecting Marvel Comics since i was 12. I could not agree more with Joebadofdonuts. In Spidey's early years it was tough, going to school , taking care of Aunt May, trying to work and be independat, trying to be a regular guy with hormones. Too bad the next one wont be out till 2007

gambit187 wrote:Too bad the next one wont be out till 2007

crap.

I agree with Surferskin....it was long, too much love story....she's not hot enough...how long are they going to milk the I'm not sure who I want to be scenario?

I didn't think it was as good as the first and neither did my 9 year-old step-son.

Texas Hog wrote:I agree with Surferskin....it was long, too much love story....she's not hot enough...how long are they going to milk the I'm not sure who I want to be scenario?

I didn't think it was as good as the first and neither did my 9 year-old step-son.

i agree about kirsten dunst. she's not very attractive and too......droopy, if you catch my drift. but the spiderman comics were all about the 'i'm not sure who i want to be' scenario. so it made sense to me that the movie would reflect that.

I enjoyed the movie. Good development of the characters and Dr. Octopus is a better villian than Green Goblin (in my opinion). I liked it better than the original.

Ok...here's some spoilers, so cover your eyes if you haven't seen the movie...cover your eyes!!!!!


Here's a list of things that were completely fake about the movie or just plain gay (now i know that it's only a movie and comic book movie at that but they should try to make somewhat real):

1. Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think that spiderman ever just lost his powers because he didn't believe strong enough..(and i guess you can go back to the first one about spiderman can't magically shoot webs out of his hands)...and that's pretty much a direct ripoff of superman 2.
2. That 3 year old helping lift up peter parker out of the burning building.
3. spiderman making that perfect web at the end for him and MJ out of nowhere.
4. spiderman was never strong enough to stop a moving train especially with his webs.
5. why were they so quick to reveal spiderman's idenity???
6. i do agree that doc oct was pretty cool villian but i thought that he was way under used in the movie.
7. i thought the special effects of spiderman swinging through the city were much more fake looking this time around.

...actually that was probably more than two cents but oh well...probably more like a quarter.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:I loved the movie, but I'm afraid I will have to see it again since I was at a very "ghetto" movie theater, and this hispanic dude decided to carry on a conversation point during a climatic speech in the film. What a jerk!!!

That's why DVDs are soooo great. I just plug into my home theater and off I go, with no idle chatter around me. I will wait once again for the DVD release.

5. why were they so quick to reveal spiderman's idenity??? I know!

6. i do agree that doc oct was pretty cool villian but i thought that he was way under used in the movie.
Agreed.

joebagadonuts wrote:

Texas Hog wrote:I agree with Surferskin....it was long, too much love story....she's not hot enough...how long are they going to milk the I'm not sure who I want to be scenario?

I didn't think it was as good as the first and neither did my 9 year-old step-son.

i agree about kirsten dunst. she's not very attractive and too......droopy, if you catch my drift. but the spiderman comics were all about the 'i'm not sure who i want to be' scenario. so it made sense to me that the movie would reflect that.

ah....I wasn't familiar with the comic so that helps explain that...thanks

I FREAKING LOVED IT!!! If you haven't seen it, then go see it, you won't feel like you wasted money. I felt like I was right there in the middle of the action. The CG was flawless, there is only one time thru the entire film where I was like "dag that looked fake" and that was at the very end when Spiderman jumped in the air. The CG character seem to have no weight.