The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

500 character mini-reviews cramping your style? Share your thoughts in full in this forum!
MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by MmzHrrdb »

When you read this review, consider this perspective: While I acknowledge their flaws, I do legitimately like all 4 Spider-Man films preceding this one. Spider-Man 3 has its laughably bad moments, but it's entertaining enough to enjoy, and The Amazing Spider-Man - while lacking the intelligence of the previous entries - remains good fun. So it was a cruel surprise when I realized with great dismay that this not-so-super sequel playing before me is fairly bad. To put it kindly, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will not be found on anyone's list of favorite super hero films anytime soon.

Let's keep the plot section simple, yes? This is a super hero after all, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 makes no attempt to transcend the genre cliches, so what reason have I to dress things up? A worker at Oscorp falls into a vat of electric eels and is conveniently transformed into a electrical-powered villain dubbed Electro. Naturally, Spider-Man (mild-mannered secret identity is, of course, Peter Parker) must go off to fight him. There's also a subplot with Harry Osborne that's kind of glossed over, and relationship troubles with Gwen Stacy (because everyone was waiting with bated breath for more poorly written romance scenes, apparently).

Let me address the positives before I begin the shredding. The first 10 minutes are very enjoyable, despite (or perhaps because) of its silliness. The special effects look good, the Spider-Man/Peter Parker character remains likable, and there's one or two good performances, which I'll detail later. I wasn't bored for most of the 140 minute run-time, and therefore, I find it hard to hate this movie. But make no mistake; this is a bad movie. In fact, more so than being merely bad, it's a stupid movie.

There is no such thing as logic in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Every minute of this film poses a new question, typically falling under one of these categories: "Why in the world did [insert character name] do that?" "How does that make any sort of sense?" "Someone got paid to write this script?"

The Spider-Man films have never been revered for their romantic bits. In Raimi's trilogy, capable actors managed to make the sometimes dubious dialogue work. In Mark Webb's reboot, the romance did not work. In the case of this sequel, it's just plain awful. If you found yourself chuckling at the infamous line from 2012's The Hunger Games ("I watched you walk home from school everyday. Everyday."), you'll be in stitches during some of these scenes. Even outside of the romance scenes, there are unintentional laughs aplenty. One such part can actually be found in the trailer: Observe Rhino's terrible aim.

And speaking of the trailer, you could save a good deal of money and time by just watching that instead of the film. The entire movie is essentially in the trailer. All the funniest bits are in the trailer as well. Most people are coming to the cinemas to see more of the Green Goblin and Rhino. Won't they be disappointed when these characters get a grand total of, perhaps 10 minutes of screen-time altogether?

Even more unfortunate is this film's total predictability. It doesn't do anything to build upon the typical formula of super hero films. Other than a sort of twist at the end, the closest thing to an innovation this film makes is that Peter Parker switches from using Bing to Google.

The characters and performances really do go hand-in-hand here, so let's discuss them together. Andrew Garfield is as likable as ever in the role of Spider-Man. His quips in battle and his overly-friendly nature keeps the character itself a cut above the Spider-Man from Raimi's trilogy. The performance itself is just on par with Maguire's. Emma Stone portrays Gwen Stacy. Her entire role consists of her doing a lot of looking sad and crying occasionally. Jamie Foxx does what he can with a poorly written character. Foxx is Electro, and the entire character is dealt with very badly. He will probably evoke unpleasant memories of another sympathetic spidey villain; Sandman. Dane DeHaan is surprisingly wooden in his role as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin, until he makes the inevitable transformation. At this point, he's not over-the-top enough, nor menacing.

The best performances in this film belong to the supporting crew. Sally Fields as Aunt May improves over her performance in the predecessor. And while some will find Paul Giammati's Rhino unbearably corny, I was always smiling when he was onscreen (though brief this time is). The best bit, however (and the best part of this movie), is Marton Csokas as a German doctor, and head of Ravencroft Institute. He is hilariously campy and over-the-top. It's just a shame that his big scene lacks the fun it initially promises.

And then there's the music. Ugh. Replacing James Horner (who did a perfectly fine job on the 2012 reboot) is Hans Zimmer. One must admit that Zimmer's score, while unpleasant, is intelligently developed, and is unlike his usual work (despite the occasional dash of Inception popping in). It's simply bizarre to hear him writing a theme in a major key. And speaking of, this is Spider-Man's theme, which sounds more akin to a local news report fanfare, than for that of a super hero. More interesting is Zimmer's clarinet theme for Electro, which is only pleasant to hear until the whispering rap vocals come into play. And if I haven't lost the film music community yet, here's two more horrors of this unfortunate score: the infamous Horn of Doom (albeit, less bombastic than normal) and dubstep. Need I say more?

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 feels like a middle film. It's simply there because it has to be. No one is going to remember this film among the other, better Spider-Man films. In fact, I daresay this might knock Spider-Man 3 off its pedestal as the unanimous worst Spidey-film. Deservedly so.

At the end of the film, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 sets itself up for another sequel (and hits you over the head with a suggestion of a 'Sinister Six' film). Sony is clearly excited to reveal all of its ideas for sequels and spin-offs. It's enough to make one wish that Sony had focused a bit more on making The Amazing Spider-Man 2 a film worth being excited for, as opposed to the planned add-ons.

Score: 4/10

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by Stewball »

I pretty much agree with most of J's negatives, it's the worst big-budget superhero ever, but after watching the previews that accompanied it, that record probably won't last the summer. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles looked particularly hideous. There's even a preview of X-Men tacked into the middle of the end credits featuring Jennifer Lawrence that was nothing special.

The first scene shows them killing spiders in containers with fog or something. I say to myself, those look like real spiders. I sat through the end credits (see above) to see if the ASPCA signed off on it. Nothing. (Awwwww.) But then they wouldn't have signed off on cockroaches.

Now in defense of my sweetie, Emma Stone, Hollywood's #3 best actress (I forgot to mention in my "Best Actor" thread that Amy Adams and Scarlett Johansson aren't my type). This may be the performance of her life, having to act like she even likes, much less loves, Andrew Garfield. I imagine she saw the writing on the wall and wanted to take her money and get the hell out of Dodge before her career was permanently trashed. So I'm sure she must have insisted that they [spoiler]kill off her character in order to extricate her from this train wreck, so she wouldn't have to have him breathing on her any more, and, she told me*, "now I can get rid of this damned blond hair".[/spoiler] Who he hell's idea was that anyway?? G'em hell Emmy.

Y'know, she lives right here in Valley of The Sun. 8-)

The sequence about the secret subway to Roosevelt Island was interesting, but even that was undercut by the facts that the island wasn't even connected to Queens by a bridge until 1955, when the name was still (get this) Welfare Island; and the subway to it wasn't built until 1989, and is still in operation. But it was re-named in "honor" of FDR...appropriately.

Breathtaking. 3/10

*that may have been in a dream.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by ShogunRua »

Haven't seen it and don't intend to, but is there any reason why both Spiderman and his main nemesis are incredibly frail, sickly metrosexuals?

And why is Jamie Foxx, one of the most embarrassingly awful actors in modern Hollywood (and that's when playing a version of himself!) trying to portray a scientist? It might not as bad as Tara Reid being cast as a scientist in an Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark, but it's damn close.

I feel like those are the two main questions any review should attempt to answer!

hellboy76
Posts: 446
6339 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:53 am

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by hellboy76 »

ShogunRua wrote:Haven't seen it and don't intend to, but is there any reason why both Spiderman and his main nemesis are incredibly frail, sickly metrosexuals?

And why is Jamie Foxx, one of the most embarrassingly awful actors in modern Hollywood (and that's when playing a version of himself!) trying to portray a scientist? It might not as bad as Tara Reid being cast as a scientist in an Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark, but it's damn close.

I feel like those are the two main questions any review should attempt to answer!


Well Parker was a science nerd when he was bit. His comic book persona was wiry, not a big musclebound type. He could however lift 10 tons. So, uh... science.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by Stewball »

ShogunRua wrote:And why is Jamie Foxx, one of the most embarrassingly awful actors in modern Hollywood (and that's when playing a version of himself!) trying to portray a scientist?


Well, it's a superhero blockbuster, so the only quality expected is in the VFX, which was also pretty crappy as well.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by ShogunRua »

hellboy76 wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:Haven't seen it and don't intend to, but is there any reason why both Spiderman and his main nemesis are incredibly frail, sickly metrosexuals?

And why is Jamie Foxx, one of the most embarrassingly awful actors in modern Hollywood (and that's when playing a version of himself!) trying to portray a scientist? It might not be as bad as Tara Reid being cast as a scientist in an Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark, but it's damn close.

I feel like those are the two main questions any review should attempt to answer!


Well Parker was a science nerd when he was bit. His comic book persona was wiry, not a big musclebound type. He could however lift 10 tons. So, uh... science.


I've read the comic books. There is a big difference between "wiry" and "frail and sickly". They didn't need to cast a muscular guy in the main role, but preferably not an anemic wimp.

Out of curiosity, I looked up Andrew Garfield's height and weight, who is actually the less frail of the two, online. Guy is listed at 5' 10" and about 140 pounds. Holy hell. I was 5' 6" and 140 pounds, with a wider, more muscular chest, when I was 12 years old. (Right before a growth spurt, too) And I'm a skinny motherfucker whose muscles were and still aren't that big!

There is a visual element to superhero characters, and while I can physically believe the actors playing Thor, Wolverine, and Batman, I can't for Spiderman. By the way, none of the former group is a "big musclebound type" either, not even Liam Hemsworth. The guy is a solid 6' 3" and 209 pounds, which is a decent proportion, but definitely not a musclehead.

Focus-

This is a good review!

http://www.filthycritic.com/

hellboy76
Posts: 446
6339 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:53 am

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by hellboy76 »

ShogunRua wrote:
hellboy76 wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:Haven't seen it and don't intend to, but is there any reason why both Spiderman and his main nemesis are incredibly frail, sickly metrosexuals?

And why is Jamie Foxx, one of the most embarrassingly awful actors in modern Hollywood (and that's when playing a version of himself!) trying to portray a scientist? It might not be as bad as Tara Reid being cast as a scientist in an Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark, but it's damn close.

I feel like those are the two main questions any review should attempt to answer!


Well Parker was a science nerd when he was bit. His comic book persona was wiry, not a big musclebound type. He could however lift 10 tons. So, uh... science.


I've read the comic books. There is a big difference between "wiry" and "frail and sickly". They didn't need to cast a muscular guy in the main role, but preferably not an anemic wimp.

Out of curiosity, I looked up Andrew Garfield's height and weight, who is actually the less frail of the two, online. Guy is listed at 5' 10" and about 140 pounds. Holy hell. I was 5' 6" and 140 pounds, with a wider, more muscular chest, when I was 12 years old. (Right before a growth spurt, too) And I'm a skinny motherfucker whose muscles were and still aren't that big!

There is a visual element to superhero characters, and while I can physically believe the actors playing Thor, Wolverine, and Batman, I can't for Spiderman. By the way, none of the former group is a "big musclebound type" either, not even Liam Hemsworth. The guy is a solid 6' 3" and 209 pounds, which is a decent proportion, but definitely not a musclehead.

Focus-

This is a good review!

http://www.filthycritic.com/


You're right, none of them are body builders, but they did get sufficiently ripped.

Image

Image

Image

When we look at some of the more iconic art from Spider Man, he most asssuredly is not a wimp.

Image


5'10" 140 lbs, seems really frail. Even Tobey Maguire seems a little more muscular if memory serves.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by ShogunRua »

hellboy76 wrote:Post


Yep, agreed. On an unrelated note, is that a 375 pound deadlift or a 405 pound deadlift by Hugh Jackman in that picture? Either way, that's between "intermediate" and "advanced" on the strength chart for his weight. Not bad.

hellboy76
Posts: 446
6339 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:53 am

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by hellboy76 »

ShogunRua wrote:
hellboy76 wrote:Post


Yep, agreed. On an unrelated note, is that a 375 pound deadlift or a 405 pound deadlift by Hugh Jackman in that picture? Either way, that's between "intermediate" and "advanced" on the strength chart for his weight. Not bad.


Yes, he apparently went through some sort of freakshow training with this guy.

Image

Hopefully it was all natural.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Post by Stewball »

OK, this is getting creepy. And people criticize me for doting on females.

Post Reply