![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Hard to say man: Tobey looks like such a kid!
One doesn't expect an "action" film to have so much emotional underpinning, and that's the secret of this film's success: you care about the guy and Kirsten---and their romance.
The fx are hokey: really!
One last observation: please count how many Tobey closeups in which he gazes for what seems like endless minutes at Kirsten. Not since Chaplin has such a doleful expression been seen.
![]()
Follow Ups:
nt
![]()
...the ones that walked him around, and purred to him, were magnificent. Never did I think the laws of physics were being subverted. Ditto with Spidey's flips and soars.Overall, quite the best use of CG I've ever seen, can't understand why some found them so terrible. And by the way, I *hate* CG!
And wasn't J.K. Simmons as the editor a trip? Those who remember him as Vern on Oz are in for a neat surprise. "...buildings toppling, monuments destroyed, panic in the streets -- if we're lucky."
clark
PS SPOILER! BEWARE!
I had not heard that his identity would be revealed to so many. Boy will that change the game.
![]()
Tin,I thought the first film was terrible, but I liked "2" a lot more. The FX are much better this time around and I agree that the emotional games worked. Sam Raimi finally figured out that CGI can work if not abused.
I thought Alfred Molina was excellent as Dr. Oc. He gave the bad guy some depth.
The subway fight was really well done, although the concerned citizen thing "we promise not to tell" was total BS.
As an aside...
I picked up the DVD box-set of the 1967 cartoon series and when I have the time...I'm going to watch all 1,200 minutes in a row.
Spiderman....Spiderman...does whatever a spider can...
Tosh Jonah Jameson
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell them you're Jewish"
![]()
ToshiroMeyers,
but now you're giving me second thoughts. I will, just to connect the dots.
Absolute agreement on the evil "Dr. Ock". Antagonists are more important than heroes---and its harder to make a "good" one. He has to be evil, yes, but it's much more effective if some part of him is likeable or, at least, admirable (thinking of the excellent Alan Rickman in "Die Hard.").
![]()
Tin,The problem with the original is that Willem Dafoe is a lousy bad guy. He's not sympathetic, charming, nor cool. The other issue is that Kirsten Dunst is a terrible actress.
Alfred Molina is a good guy, who loses control due to a lack of humility.
Alan Rickman was incredible in "Die Hard". Bruce Willis' lines are completely forgettable in comparison. The manner in which Hans Gruber takes control, loses control, gets it back, and proves to be a coward was the best part of the film.
I always root for the bad guy with minor exceptions.
Tosh
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell them you're Jewish"
![]()
"Kirsten Dunst is a terrible actress."
believe it's the Die Hard guy.
The movie almost is sunk by a guy I assume is Ben Kingsley's son. He is terribly "cute." Too terribly...
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: