I was eager to see the latest Spider-Man installment of what will surely be the earliest of ad infinitum sequels. I liked the first Spider-Man movie okay, particularly as it came at a time when I needed to be distracted. But I'd heard the second one was what Sam Raimi had really wanted to make from the beginning. It would not only have great special effects and action, but the characters would have depth, the plot would be interesting and better structured, etc., etc. I went to see it with a friend who was also excited about this one. When it ended, we were both shy to admit we were disappointed, especially after all the ravings we'd heard and read. Now, we said, we'd have to defend our reaction to everyone who thought it was great,had loved it, etc., etc.

My first problem, one that nagged me throughout the movie, was why the newspaper editor hated Spider-Man so much. I'd heard the reason was there was a secret subtext that compared the super hero to Bush and his own problems with the press. So, the editor is unmotivated because the real national and international press are unmotivated in their hatred of Bush?

Actually, that is not a rhetorical question. If anyone out there has an explanation, please send it along.

Also, I got a bit tired of the back and forth, dilly-dallying about what sort of life the super hero will decide to lead. The" choice" is a great device. Universal in literature and in life. But I don't think when presented in fiction it should become tedious. (I'm not even that tolerant with my own friends indecisiveness.

I very much liked Dr. Octopus and good bad guys aren't that easy to invent.

Alfred Molina was a great casting choice-and a daring one I thought for Hollywood, given his paunchiness- an actor who gave true gravitas to the part. Here is where the writing shone (as I'd heard it did throughout the movie). His character was cleverly developed and provided with substantial motivation. I always looked forward to his appearances. I'm expecting he'll return in a next installment given his fishy death (sorry).

At this point, I'm telling my friends to see the movie if they need a break from the summer heat and some distraction from everyday life. Otherwise, wait for it to come out on video/dvd.

Matthew Humphreys - 7/25/2004

Don't read this if you haven't seen the movie either (unless you don't mind knowing a big part of the plot...)

I have to say I really enjoyed the movie. Looking at it from an Objectivist perspective, Peter Parker spends most of the movie thinking that he has a choice between his personal happiness (winning Mary Jane, taking care of Aunt May etc) on the one hand and service to others as Spider-Man on the other. He won't tell Mary Jane he's Spider-Man because it'll put her in danger, Mary Jane, not understanding why Peter is so unreliable (from her perspective) is not unreasonably pissed off and begins a relationship with someone else.

Towards the end of the movie, even after Aunt May's (fundamentally altruistic) speech about heroism has started to prick his conscience, Peter still isn't really ready to be Spider-Man again (his attempted roof-jump fails) despite being prepared to give up Mary Jane again. Its only when MJ is kidnapped by Doc Ock, when someone he personally values greatly is at risk that Peter is able to use his powers and become Spider-Man again. The resolution with MJ (now fully aware of the secret) choosing Peter over the other guy, then smiling and happily telling Peter to "go get em" after their kiss is interuppted by passing police cars seemed pretty Objectivist to me also - the "choice" such as it was is shown to be a sort of false alternative: Spider-Man fights for all New York, but this includes those people he values, and he can not truly be a hero without the love and support of the one he values most of all.

David M Brown said something sort of similar about it on the Laissez-Fair Books blog too.

http://www.laissezfairebooks.com/index.php?action=help&;helpfile=blog.html

Scroll down to 7/9/04 (can't seem to link to individual posts)

MH

Jonathan Dresner - 7/22/2004

Well, it's been a while since I read Spidey (not as long as childhood, though; the local comic book store was a great place to avoid dissertating for an hour or two) but Jameson's dislike of him in most of the book series comes from the belief that Spiderman is a vigilante lawbreaker and destructive glory-hound, views which are sustainable given the ways in which a secret-identity superhero operates.

I don't know why anyone who knew anything about the books would equate that with Bush-hatred: it's a long established trope going back to the earliest days of the Spiderman story. Making the editor a cheerleader would be more interesting, and indicative of some kind of subtext; I don't think keeping a time-honored character and relationship is evidence of anything in particular.