The Amazing Spider-Man 2-Review

Yes, I finally saw it. You will quickly see that I really didn't like it, so let's just get that out of the way. I think the world is realizing it too, because when your tent-pole movie gets beaten in its second week (after a 60% drop, btw) by a comedy with Zac Efron (nothing against him or the movie which I've heard is really funny) then you have a problem. Sony is really going to have to re-evaluate going forward after this.

What I find most intriguing, however, is how people I talk to say it was "ok" or "good", but then when we start talking details, they really didn't like it as much as they thought they did. That just goes to prove that it is not an awful movie, but has major glaring issues that most moviegoers quickly forget because of the pretty, shiny parts.

I'm going to try and limit spoilers here to things that are at the very least inferred in the trailer, but when you're doing a negative review people are going to want examples so you have been forewarned.

Summary from IMDB:

"Peter Parker runs the gauntlet as the mysterious company Oscorp sends up a slew of supervillains against him, impacting on his life."

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1872181/ 

Technical (2) - I had a difficult time with the scoring here because much of the fault of the movie falls into this category, but so does some of its triumphs. Like I said above, the faults get super-ceded by the wins by most people, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. To me, the editing was a huge problem. Especially early on, the scenes jump frenetically from one to another without much breathing room or time to absorb what you've just seen. I feel like they made a 3+ hour movie, then realized it was way too long and then started to cut out anything that wasn't absolutely necessary to the set-up (not of the main plot, mind-you, but another type of set-up which we will talk about in script). Not good.

Another thing that got annoying quickly was product placement. I've said before that it is just part of movie making, but when you're only showing one brand of product it is noticeable so much faster. Any frame they can do it, the SONY (or VAIO) logo is prominently displayed. I was a little surprised that they didn't shoe-horn in some other products that didn't flow organically into the story, but maybe they realized the mistake in doing that a few movies ago.

There's more problems, but the one that immediately took me out of the movie was the CGI. It actually is really well done for most of the movie. Especially when he's web-slinging around New York. The webs he shoots really look real now (except for one silly moment towards the end) and most of the action sequences look pretty good. There were at least 2 incidences, however, where the CGI was just unbearably bad. I'll only mention the face of Rhino in his suit looks badly photoshopped in. UGH.

Script/Dialogue (1) - This one is just bad. Here's the thing: this is a 2+ hour set-up for The Sinister Six and many other Spider-Man related movies for the unforeseen future. Sony knew this one would make money after the success of the first one, so they just crammed as much name-checking as they could into it. What purpose did Rhino serve in the plot? Nothing. Why was B.J. Novak in the movie? To set up for a future villain. Green Goblin shows up for all of 10 minutes and only serves to do the one thing we all knew was going to happen in this movie and then set-up for The Sinister Six. Electro just kinda flails around causing destruction, but isn't really given a clear motivation or even a reason why all of the sudden he hates Spider-man. Plus, his origin is eerily reminiscent of Riddler in Batman Forever.

Speaking of Electro, why is he suddenly Dr. Manhattan? And how did he suddenly get a costume with lightning bolts on it 10 minutes after his escape? The mind boggles. And don't get me started on the eye-rolling way they come up with to eliminate the threat of Electro. He just absorbed the entire power grid of New York and you are gonna get rid of him how again?

My biggest problem with this iteration of Spider-man is the absence of "With great power comes great responsibility". Yet again, they dance all around it without saying it. And this all-consuming quest to find out what his father did shouldn't be the driving force of who he is, it should be the guilt of not stopping his uncle's killer. Why is GWEN STACY'S FATHER'S ghost haunting him instead of Uncle Ben? GRRRRRRRRRR.

I will say that the Gwen Stacy/Peter Parker love story is actually done fairly well and sets up the payoff at the end pretty good, but there's so much other ridiculousness surrounding it, that it gets lost. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the camp. I can thoroughly enjoy camp done right and even welcome it in a comic book movie (since we're so used to the "realistic" comic book movie now), but this stuff is just plain silly.

Oh, and Peter Parker was never the cool kid. EVER. Period.

Acting (3) - I've been droning on and on, so I will try and keep this portion pretty short because most everyone is decent except Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn (I always want to add an 'e' as in Ozzy) who chews the scenery like crazy, overacting every scene he is in and looks terrible as the Green Goblin to boot. And while the chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield is riveting (giving lots of life to the actual drivel they are reciting) the scenes between DeHaan and Garfield have the opposite effect, just showcasing how idiotic it is that these two guys who haven't seen each other in almost 10 years would call each other besties. Dumb.

Sally Field is great as always (even though she's terribly miscast and Aunt May is not used to correct effect); Jamie Foxx is passable; Colm Feore as always is great, but completely under-utilized; ditto for Paul Giamatti and B.J. Novak; and the rest of the support cast works their roles fine.

Tilt (3) - Can't say I completely hated it. I rolled my eyes and pleaded with the screen saying "oh come on!" more than once, but it wasn't an absolutely awful movie. I had to take it as it was, a set-up for the future. As was the first one. Sony needs to stop thinking with their wallets entirely and if the performance of this movie (which echoes the performance of Spider-man 3, though not with even as strong an opening weekend) isn't enough of a wake-up call for them, I don't know what will be.

Total Score - 2.25