A delightful movie and portent of things to come

Rating: 10/10 (8 July 2004)

Spiderman 2 was a wonderful blockbuster movie. Blockbuster movie, of course, is the operative term. It is to be compared to that genre, which places it head and shoulders above others of its ilk (for instance, Troy, or Harry Potter, or the Alamo). These movies are basically identified by their reliance upon special effects, action, and an overall sacrifice of traditional platforms of movie making: story, character development, production quality, etc.
With Spiderman 2, we basically have a tuned up version of Spiderman 1. Of course, with the first Spiderman, we were pleasantly surprised that it stepped out of the usual one dimensional fare and gave us something with good acting, a descent story, and characters that were not just cardboard cutouts, but somewhat realistic. Spiderman 2 does the same thing.
We know that internal struggles, personal relationships, love interests, and emotional drama are going to be the threads upon which the story is hung. We also know that it is going to involve humor, action, and spectacular feats of computer imposed combat scenes to break up the movie's pace. Spiderman 2 does all of that. It gives us what we expect. I am no Spiderman aficionado. I can't tell you if Spiderman would really act this way, or if Dr. Octopus should really be seen the way he is. I just know that the movie is a summer action movie, and it delivers.
Part of the reason for it doing as well as it does is the acting. Toby Maguire is a talented young actor able to convey much with a glance or shrug of the shoulders. He looks older, and a bit more tired, but then it goes with his character's development (though he is beginning to loose the ability to play just out of high school roles). He makes you feel sorry for him, and that is the main spin on his character. While the story essentially rotates around his inner turmoil and love interest, and in truth, the love story doesn't have the same charming innocence than in the first film (possibly intentional), Maguire makes us believe that he is a normal person in the midst of it all.
Kirsten Dunst does her job well, looking a bit leaner than in the first, perhaps intentionally, perhaps not. But be that as it may, she holds her own in a story in which her emotional attachments have to cross the spectrum of a serious love story, while not always having the benefit of a major dramatic story to give her the full run of a deep, emotionally involved relationship.
Perhaps the most pleasant surprise was the chief villain. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Willem Dafoe. I have enjoyed him in almost any movie he has ever been in. He was fun and enjoyable in Spiderman 1. But I must admit, I liked Alfred Molina's delivery better. It was subdued. It was subtle. You knew in five minutes that Dafoe was the villain, just because of how he was played. But, though you know from ads that Otto is destined to become the next villain, you have a hard time believing it at first, and that is a welcome change to recent villain portrayals. He doesn't look like a Hollywood star, he looks human, real. Thus, he is more terrifying to see become a monster as the movie progresses (even my children agreed: Doc Ock was much more 'scary' than Green Goblin, but at the same time, 'looked too nice to be a bad guy'). When most movie villains today are played with the subtlety of an army tank, it was nice to see one use smaller, discrete actions and details mixed with overt destruction to convey menace. And menace is just what was given. Far more terrifying an opponent than Green Goblin, Molina's Doc Ock is a formidable foe that doesn't make it appear a given that the hero will win. Molina is a fine actor, and one of the best most-underrated actors around. He has achieved rave reviews over the years for his work, and is one who can captivate the screen whenever he appears. I hope to see him more often in the future.
Yes, I think all agree that J.K Simmons is funny, if not a bit over the top in this one, and James Franco (another underrated actor) does a good job for the time he has. Would I have liked to see more character development? Sure. Would I have liked to see more action? Perhaps. But, I must admit, Spiderman 2 is showing the beginnings of the solution to the great cinematic problem: In order for a major movie to be able to break all barriers in production values, it must make money; and the only way to do that is to make tons of money by way of the young crowd who wants to see action and special effects. Meanwhile, more and more people are starting to say they would like to see something a little better than a two hour long video game on screen for their money. But to do that means character development, subtlety, plot devices, and worst of all  time  something the CGI-lovers crowd seems to cringe at. Read the reviews here. Some say not enough action. Others not enough character development. And many say too much of one or the other. Eventually something will have to give.
In the meantime, because of more than capable actors, a decent script, an attempt to make a movie with more than computer screen deep characters without apology, and some excellent action thrown in to make it fun, Spiderman 2 more than exceeds what has become the almost dreaded Summer Blockbuster season of entirely superficial, forgettable movies. And in some ways, it is possibly a view to a brighter future for major Hollywood blockbuster films. A future that says a film can be a major blockbuster, and a good movie at the same time.