Nothing you haven't seen before

Rating: 2/10 (3 July 2004)

In all fairness, Spider-man 2 is not that bad. Mostly it's just dumb and overplayed, just like its much ballyhooed predecessor, which people also liked more than it deserved. I don't have anything against Sam Raimi (except Darkman) or Spider-man the character, but folks, these films just aren't that good. Spider-man 2 has moments where it takes off and is exhilarating, but only moments; most of the movie is like your overweight uncle who talks too much at the holidays. You don't really mind him but you wish he'd shut up and leave.
After roping in the heart of every fanboy by starting off the movie with copious artwork by their anointed Michaelangelo, Alex Ross (who is admittedly talented but does the same thing over and over), or someone paid to imitate his work, they recap the first tepid adventure of Spidey and then proceed to make mostly the same mistakes they did the first time. We get all the histrionics of a relationship between Peter (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), but none of the build-up; these two have spent four minutes together on screen and they talk like they were lovers for years. Then we're saddled with Harry Osborn (James Franco), who really should have completed, or started, his acting lessons. The first half hour of the film is one painful scene after another in a pointless attempt to establish Peter Parker as Charlie Brown. Ziggy isn't as much of a loser as this guy. It gets old, really fast, and I was checking my watch after the thirty-five minute mark.
Thankfully Alfred Molina comes in as Doc Ock to give a little oomph to the proceedings. Long one of the lamest characters in comics, Ock here is a pretty decent guy who just wants to make things better. Molina's pretty good until of course he has to go on the necessary rampage, which is inspired by the death of a loved one and some splashy special effects, and then finally we get a chance for the film to get good. Spidey and Doc Ock's first fight is really terrific  it zings, it soars, it wakes you up from the wincing half-slumber you'd fallen into. Sadly, Spider-man then takes off his costume again, so we get a bunch of Dawson's Creek reject scenes with him and Mary Jane, who has obviously fallen in love with him even though she's only exchanged seventeen words of dialogue with him (and she has a hunky new beau played by Daniel Gillies). When Spidey and Ock go at it again, the movie once more comes to life, and follows that pattern; Spidey okay, Peter dull.
Trouble is, they have a pretty strong ending that is only slightly overdone (subtle by this movie's standards) and gives the audience exactly what they want. So those few who are going to spot the film's many and obvious flaws are going to forget them in the admittedly wonderful ending. Aside from a juvenile throw-away scene promising the next villain will be as retarded and uninspired as the first, the last twenty minutes of the film are by far the strongest of the piece. If only that inspiration could have spread to more of the film.
Okay, here's the real problem with Spider-man 2. Though the New York Times, and others, bill it as 'the greatest superhero movie ever,' it is in fact not only not the greatest superhero film ever (which would still be 1978's Superman), it's one you've already seen before. In no significant way is this film any different from 1981's Superman II. All of the plot elements are the same, you have two villains, it all revolves around the hero's secret identity, etc. I could go on (and on) with this argument but will cut it short to avoid spoiling Spider-man 2 for you in case you haven't seen it.
And I'll go you one better. Not only is this film Superman II, it's also Smallville, the Movie (it should be, it was written by the same guys). Osborn is nothing more than Lex Luthor, the head of a wealthy corporation bankrolling villains. Peter and Mary Jane mouth the same sentiments as Clark and Lana, down to some of the very same lines that those two characters have said. If this is the 'greatest super hero movie ever,' you could have seen it for free by watching Smallville every week.
I was harsher to this movie than it deserves; it really isn't that bad, and it doesn't make me angry, like that turd Stepford Wives did. But I'm annoyed that I'm going to have to hear everyone else crow about a mediocre film that's a rehashed remake/rewrite like it's the best thing since the Bard. If this is all that moviegoers in this country really want, then they get exactly the cinema they deserve. There's really no harm in going to see this film; the only harm is in thinking it's especially good or original.