FILM: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Spoilers)

[gkgyver 1,645]

Ok, so, this is going to be a little harder than I suspected it would be.

First things first. Judging this film by the trailers doesn't do it justice. However,if you think from the trailers and reports that Electro is utterly stupid and pointless, then you're spot on. Without his inclusion, or if he was replaced by something else, this would be a pretty nice movie. Everything about his storyline is either awkward, out of place, or purely ridiculous, even by comic book standards.

Gus Gorman from Superman III sprung to mind a few times.

I realise this is an over the top movie, but the whole concept of the character Max Dillon is just psychologically unbelievable and seems contrieved, from the moment he is "born", to the moment he "dies". Jamie Foxx does a very good job, but he goes nowhere, and in the end, his story just kind of fizzles away. Not unlike Venom in Spider-Man 3.

Now for something positive. The relationship between Gwen and Peter is lovely, and Andrew Garfield really owns the character. I would rate his performance as Peter Parker higher than Maguire's, easily. It's also, in my eyes, closer to the character in the comic books. Unfortunately, that's as close as this movie gets to the original comic book series. Given that, according to the people behind the scene, this series was also made to get closer to the original, it's astoundng that in the end, they became even farther removed from the 60s comic books than the Raimi films.

And that is also what hurts this film the most, namely that on one hand, it is in large parts too close to the Raimi films, and on the other hand, it takes tons of liberties with the Spider-Man story that are meant to set it apart, but don't really make up for any of it.

Really, this film in many moments makes exactly the same points the Raimi films made, just that the name "MJ" is replaced with "Gwen". Even the situations are not that different. For starters, did Webb really have to knock off the graduation scene from Spider-Man? It doesn't do the film any service. It also revamps the "get to Spider-Man through Peter Parker" scheme for Harry. Ironically, when the film does deviate from the Raimi version and the comics and does its own thing, and tells us Peter and Harry haven't seen each other for almost 10 years, it diminishes the Harry-Peter arc, which should get its spice from their long friendship. Also, the subplot with Peter's parents doesn't seem necessary to me, unless it sets up the next movie. I just don't see what they point is of including the Parkers at all in this one. Peter's character development doesn't need it at all in this particular film.

It all comes down to the fact that really, the thing which makes the film worthwhile is the story of Peter and Gwen. Even though it is reminiscent of the previous film series (and one could actually ask if this is really Webb's fault, since it was Raimi who imposed Gwen's story, minus her death, on MJ), Garfield and Stone do a great job of making it real and sweet, while the screenplay also does a good job of making it seem more modern, and not like a soap opera.

And because of this, even thought it is, in typical Hollywood fashion, robbed of maximum drama by including needless action, Gwen's death at the hand of the Goblin does hit the mark. I just can't imagine the dry Maguire in this scene. What follows is a series of beautiful shots, and the sequence in which Webb shows Peter standing before Gwen's grave in spring, summer, autumn and winter actually got to me.

It beats me though why they didn't have Goblin throw Gwen off the top of the bridge like in the comic, linking it to the scene earlier on at the same spot, when Peter swears to never leave her side.

The finish of the film starts out promising, with Harry, locked away at the Ravencroft Institution, teasing the Sinister Six, but then becomes pretty silly. This is one thing I won't spoil, but jeez ...! And people complain about Desolation of Smaug's cliffhanger.

A few words must be lost about Zimmer's score. As with the story itself, the Electro stuff irritated me, the English whispering detracts from the film. I didn't notice any significant material for Harry or the Goblin, which seems strange. The score collects plus-points from me in the soft and intimate moments, which Zimmer underpaints rather lovely. The big trumpet "hero" theme is something I still don't care for. It's not that the character doesn't need a hero theme, which he does, and it's not that it's too over the top, which the movie could stomach, it's just that it doesn't capture the spirit of the film or the character at all. It's as if it was written without having actually seen the film. But on the upside, in the film, it's worlds less irritating than the last few Zimmer scores. I can't really understand the criticism towards the score, being annoying or anything like that. What I can't understand, however, is why Zimmer was hired, who more or less did the same thing Horner did, just with a lot less panache.

The visuals of the film are quite appealing, especially cinematography. Electro itself looks great, the lightning effects, however, especially in the big end scene, are far too video-game like to really get into it.

Overall, I would give Amazing Spider-Man 2 a strong *** / *****

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What's funny to me is that you spend months and months spewing your bile on every aspect of the film, and when you finally see it....it's not bad actually.

[gkgyver 1,645]

So ...? I never said the film IS horrible, I said it looks like a bad film. And it did. That's why I specifically pointed towards the fact that nobody should judge the film on its horrid trailers. The main aspects of the trailer, Electro especially, that looked stupid also turned out to be stupid. But it doesn't take away from the fact that the acting is thoroughly competent and good, and that the human aspects of Peter's story are well-told.

I wouldn't watch the film again for Electro, but for Garfield.

[Arpy 4,145]

I concur with a majority of this review. I loved Foxx's performance but he was woefully scripted which seems a terrible waste. I also dislike the sinister six sequels sneak shot. Marvel should slow down and get one movie right first.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

It was an okay film, but Foxx was pretty awful, he definitely got the Superman III, Richard Pryor treatment. And Zimmer's noise was just the worst. The film works best with the two leads on screen. They have big time charisma.

[Arpy 4,145]

The film works best with the two leads on screen. They have big time charisma. 

Yes, their chemistry is what just saved the film for me.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

What's funny to me is that you spend months and months spewing your bile on every aspect of the film, and when you finally see it....it's not bad actually.

Actually it was bad. I thought it was okay but that was high praise undeserved.

JAMIE Foxx is terrible. Purely awful. One of the years worst performances. He out Pryored Richard Pryor. It's Sups 3 all over.

The direction of the film is weak.

The acting of the three leads is the films saving grace. The chemistry between the two leads was incredible. Absolutely the best aspect of the film.

And HZ showed he cannot follow Williams or Horner and look good.

oh well I suppose I will go see the next reboot now that Andy is being canned as Spiderman.