Best of the Decade #20: Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Like it or not, comic book movies have sort of defined popular cinema throughout this decade. Marvel (and DC to some degree) have been pumping out multiple superhero films a year, taking advantage of the initial success of X-Men and Spider-Man, and completely dominating the summer box office. While the formula may have gotten stale and uninspired for the most part, there is the occasional comic book film that has managed to elevate the source material beyond a simple franchise cash cow, looking to secure a long line of sequels, prequels and reboots. One of those films, in my opinion, is Spider-Man 2. (Yes. A Sequel.)
I’m not entirely sure what it is about this film that worked so well for me. Maybe its rewatchability has bumped it up a bit as merely the “super hero film I’ve watched the most”, but I truly do feel that Sam Raimi’s second shot at the Spider-Man story packs some emotional punch and brings some seriously awesome action sequences to the table. The effects definitely improved on the first one, and I think Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock was a far superior villain to Willem Dafoe’s Power Rangers-esque Green Goblin. The performances are real and believable without undercutting the tone of the comic book story and the script — based partially on an early draft by Michael Chabon — treats the material with respect. Not to mention Bill Pope’s awesome cinematography (Raimi’s first choice for Spider-Man 1) and the totally awesome, Evil Dead tribute: Doc Ock’s hospital room attack!
Overall, I’d say Spider-Man 2 competes for a close first place spot on my list of the greatest comic book films of all time, and certainly deserves a spot in our top 20 of the decade.
Comments (39)
i wanted that hospital attack scene to go on forever
Posted by Mike on December 2nd, 2009I loved this movie and i’m glad too see it on the list. I’m kind off hoping comic book movies (and giant franchise films like Transformers) slowly die away in the new decade though, but it probably won’t happen.
Posted by Drew on December 2nd, 2009LOVE this movie.
Posted by Matt Keith on December 2nd, 2009this is what a blockbuster should be like!
Posted by Napalm on December 2nd, 2009This had the right balance of humor in it… They should of dialed back want a be humor in the third one big time.
Posted by BigHungry on December 2nd, 2009Good choice. The action scenes in this rock my world.
Posted by Henrik on December 2nd, 2009Agreed. I’m ashamed that I overlooked this off of my list. It’s top-notch Raimi and a perfect comic book movie
Posted by jim the movie freak on December 2nd, 2009I agree with the quality of this Spiderman, yet, I still feel the first Spiderman was the best comic book origin story ever done. (I know the web shooters are mechanical in the book)
Posted by rus in chicago on December 2nd, 2009I’m one of the rare ones, I HATED this movie. The back-and-forth relationship was boring. The villian decides to sacrifice himself to save the millions he planned on killing? And a nuclear ball has the power of the sun, but can be destroyed with water? And Spiderman could barely keep his mask on throughout the movie. The humor was over-the-top cheesy.
I was shocked so many people liked this movie.
Posted by Chris on December 2nd, 2009I havent seen any of the Spiderman Movies. Ive heard you guys go on about the 2nd a lot so I may actually check this out!
Although i cant see this being as good as Hellboy 1 or 2, which I really like..
Posted by AdamH on December 2nd, 2009Jay,
Posted by cronenfly on December 2nd, 2009I just re watched this for proabably the eighth time a couple weeks ago. I have to agree that it does it better and better. I think the reason why it might have worked so well is that it just feels like classic Raimi. Where as in my opinion the first feels like studio Raimi. Maybe the success of the first Spiderman granted Raimi more freedom on the second? idk. nice post.
Yeah rus, the origin story of Spider-Man is pulled off perfectly. It’s amazing that something so iconic was only 10 pages. By far the best origin out of any Superhero, in my opinion.
Posted by Henrik on December 2nd, 2009“And a nuclear ball has the power of the sun, but can be destroyed with water?”
This bothered you, yet somehow the idea of a guy getting powers from a genetically enhanced spider didn’t raise an eyebrow?
The thing that makes Spider-Man 2 an even better as an ADAPTATION than The Dark Knight is that it is the perfect cinematic equivalent of the comics. Nolan’s Batman wouldn’t look right fighting wackier villains like Poison Ivy or Clayface; but Raimi’s Spider-Man could feasibly encounter any foe in his Rogue’s Gallery.
Posted by Ryan M. on December 2nd, 2009Ryan M. – you are not fighting fair. Nolan and the filmmakers involved with the new Batman chose to develop a “realistic” film version of the comic, were as, Raimi and those filmmakers chose to keep Spiderman’s tone more in the vain of the comics. Remember, Batman already had multiple film versions. Stating that the new Batman would look foolish against the comic villains as they stand is missing the point. The difficulty in the new Batman is finding a villain that can be effectively adapted to the real world rules established.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 2nd, 2009I think it’s fair to say that what they did with Spider-Man much more effectively preserves the spirit of all the comics, and that they more succesfully created a universe where whatever they have done in the comics, could work in the films. Just like Burton did with his Batman.
The new Batman started off horribly, in my opinion, because they weren’t confident in what universe they were creating. With the second one they had a much better grasp of what would work, but just because they did something good with it, doesn’t mean it’s impervious to the observation that what they did, effectively ignored alot of what the comics were.
It’s not missing the point at all, it’s a valid argument. Disregarding wether you like one movie over the other, it could be a completely valid criticism that the universe of one adaptation doesn’t account for all of the subject matter as well as another adaptation.
Posted by Henrik on December 2nd, 2009The Dark Knight better not make this list.
Posted by face on December 2nd, 2009in the context of the argument Ryan put forth it is very valid. he criticized the current Dark Knight film for creating an atmosphere that wouldn’t work with the outrageous/comical characters of the Batman comics and he’s right. the filmmakers would say the same thing. the joker in this film is a wild reinterpretation of a comic book character. it worked because a real life psychopath could be seen doing what Heath Ledger did in the film. all characters of the batman comics would have to be wildly reinterpreted to work in the context of THIS Batman. that is the series structure – criticizing it on this aspect is missing the point. that would be like comparing tennis and table tennis and complaining one is smaller on a table – your missing the point.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 2nd, 2009WOW, Because you said so, IT must be true.(NOT)
Posted by jaime on December 2nd, 2009“in the context of the argument Ryan put forth it is very valid. he criticized the current Dark Knight film for creating an atmosphere that wouldn’t work with the outrageous/comical characters of the Batman comics and he’s right.”
“that is the series structure – criticizing it on this aspect is missing the point.”
I’m afraid you lost me. Is it a valid argument, or is it missing the point? Again, I think since nobody is talking about the quality of the movies, but rather the differences in the rate of success adapting a universe, everybody is getting it.
Posted by Henrik on December 3rd, 2009Personally, I find Bruce Wayne fighting crime in his Batman suit pretty unrealistic.
Also I don’t think it’s easy comparing the movies to the comics, because The Batman comics have varied in tone throughout the ages. Batman dealt with some wacky things like space aliens during the ’50s and ’60s, but I think The Batman comics have been serious since then. Many of Batman’s rogue gallery of villains can be seen as basically mentally ill people.
And if Spider-Man 2 can make it into the top 20, then The Dark Knight should be there as well despite what “face” thinks.
Posted by Reed Farrington on December 3rd, 2009I’ve recently realized that what I like best about the recent comic book movies is not the action sequences (which I still do enjoy), but the scenes showing the characters behind the masks. Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, Tony Stark in Iron Man and Peter Parker in Spider-Man 2 are all developed in the non-action scenes of their respective movies.
Posted by Brendan on December 3rd, 2009The characterization of Peter Parker as a “real” person with human feelings and problems comes through especially well in Spider-Man 2. That’s what makes him an interesting character in the comics and Raimi managed to capture that in the second movie.
All of the Spider-man movies are overrated. The second is ufcourse the best one, but deserves nothing more then 6/7 out of 10.
Posted by asdasd on December 3rd, 2009Best of the decade? Hell no!
what is hard to understand Henrik?
Ryan stated the current Batman, in his opinion, would not work with the outrageous characters of the comics.
I stated the filmmakers agree.
So, the filmmakers reinterpret each comic character to fit the structure of the their films. Therefore, taking the old comic book villains and placing them in the current batman films WITHOUT reinterpreting them is misguided.
Therefore, complaining that these films won’t work with with comic characters AS THEY STAND NOW is missing the point.
And Reed is right, the silliest thing about the current Batman, within the structure the filmmakers created, is the bat suit. It works because the character is so iconic the audience thirsts for the look. It also works so well because Batman’s look is equal parts “fear inducing” as it is functionally.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 3rd, 2009“And if Spider-Man 2 can make it into the top 20, then The Dark Knight should be there as well despite what “face†thinks.”
no because the dark knight suffers from the same flaw the last Spiderman did: too many villains, not enough back ground. the part with two face should have been either a different movie, or just not in it at all. Ledger is amazing but it doesn’t save the film. The film is a jumbled mess of things that just look stupid: the tv’s where morgan freeman can see everything in the world? dumb. The tumbler exploding and turning into a motorcycle? dumb. two face? poorly executed.
What made Batman Begins so good was the idea that batman was just a normal guy, fighting normal criminals and thus, almost, realistic. DArk Knight was messy, poorly written, and jumbled, saved only by ledger’s performance.
Posted by face on December 3rd, 2009So you’re saying that Batman Begins is more realistic than The Dark Knight? I don’t know about that. The Scarecrow’s scheme to vaporize all of Gotham’s water was a little more out there than Batman tapping into cell phone signals. And Batman Begins also has at least 3 villains, if not more.
Posted by Sean on December 3rd, 2009Dark Knight also had three costumed villain. Joker, Two Face and Scare Crow
Posted by Rusty James on December 3rd, 2009face you are clueless. the whole point of The Dark Knight (Its in the title and the last line of the film) is Batman’s quest to find a replacement so he didn’t need to be the vigilant anymore. two face is the pawn batted back-and-forth between batman and joker – with the villain winning and forcing the hero to soldier on! you have no film without two face!
anyone that didn’t find the bat pod cool needs to turn in their film fan membership.
what do you mean “not enough background”. Batman’s background was given in the first film. In the Dark Knight the lack of background for Joker, multiple stories about the scars, is one of the most effective character background expositions done in the last 20 years – the lack of information and lies adds more depth to the character than if actual facts were given.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 3rd, 2009Also, this idea that there’s one correct version of these characters is just wrong. Many of what are considered definitive comic book runs where done by creative teams who were free to reinterpret the characters and take liberties. For instance Frank Miller rewrote Dare Devil’s origin. Prior to FM, Dare Devil was more of a swashbuckling Erol Flynn type.
Both Nolan and Raimi paid homage to certain aspect of their characters but ignored other aspects (spider-man’s wise cracking for instance).
But most importantly they both made characters that worked on screen.
Posted by Rusty James on December 3rd, 2009This was by far one of the greatest super-hero films ever. They surpassed the first by a wide margin. Defoe was not scary and did not seperate his Osbourne persona from the Goblin one very well. Molina was spot on as Octavious and as Doc Ock. MJ was better in this than the first and third but Dunst was a terrible choice as MJ is a Supermodel in all the comics and stories, and her emerald green eyes were always a feature. Dunst’s eyes are blue… Contact lenses would be an option. The fight sequences and story far surpasses the original. This film easily is up there with the best ever and even surpasses The Dark Knight for not dragging like it did
Posted by Grit on December 3rd, 2009It was hard to understand because you state that it is a valid point, then that it is missing the point.
Let me rephrase the observation so that it hopefully sounds less critical, and will not provoke another misplaced defense of the Dark Knight. The universe that Spider-Man creates is more likely to serve as comforting and appetizing to a larger number of fans, than the universe of Batman Begins. It just seems more organically developed from the comics to the screen, the Spider-Man movies feel like they could be either comic books or graphic novels, the Batman movies feel like they could only be graphic novels.
Posted by Henrik on December 3rd, 2009One little thing that bugged me about Spiderman 2 when I watched it again a couple months ago, is the scene where Doc Ock goes to get the tridium or whateveritscalled from Harry, and POOF he’s gone like he’s Batman, despite every other time he walks around he’s making shitloads of noise and tearing the sides off of walls and floors.
The same shit kept happening in Terminator Salvation, where all these giant noisy robots can swoop in undetected out of nowhere.
Posted by Goon on December 4th, 2009“The difficulty in the new Batman is finding a villain that can be effectively adapted to the real world rules established.”
There’s a comic book treatment of a modern Riddler that is clearly styled with the intention of Johnny Depp playing it, wearing Kurt Cobain bug sunglasses, shoulder length red hair, a cane, and with question mark tattoos on his stomach, that would probably work well, and assuming the right casting could very well match the Jokers “cool” factor.
Image:
http://chromix.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/jokerhc081.jpg
Posted by Goon on December 4th, 2009“Doc Ock goes to get the tridium or whateveritscalled from Harry, and POOF he’s gone like he’s Batman, despite every other time he walks around he’s making shitloads of noise and tearing the sides off of walls and floors.”
Yeah, I watched the film not to long ago, and laughed at that.
Posted by Matt Keith on December 4th, 2009Which comic is that from Goon?
Posted by Henrik on December 4th, 2009Henrik – http://thepullbox.net/2009/02/10/joker-graphic-novel-review/
Posted by Goon on December 4th, 2009nice Goon nice, have to buy that. hope Nolan is reading this board. I see no problem bring Two Face back in the next film. easy fix, he wasn’t dead and Gordon and Batty hide him deep in Arkham Asylum…no?
Posted by rus in chicago on December 5th, 2009I watched this a month or so ago and still think it’s overrated. The MJ elements to the story are cringeworthy, and the principal threat (a giant nuclear magnetic ball in need of a good dousing) is a bit too bizzarre. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Watchmen, X-Men are all better in my book. Still, it seems to be popular,
Posted by Paul Andrews on December 5th, 2009” I see no problem bring Two Face back in the next film. easy fix, he wasn’t dead ”
Nolan confirmed that he was dead. If you ask me bringing him back after its been confirmed would be nothing more than a cheap cop-out.
Posted by Matt Keith on December 5th, 2009Yeah, on a similar note regarding the “death” of Two-Face, I’m with Nicholas Meyer in thinking that they should have kept Spock dead after The Wrath of Khan.
Posted by Reed Farrington on December 5th, 2009Leave a Reply