GONZALEZ:
I say the following being a huge fan of the Spider-Man character: I am not interested in wherever this franchise is going anymore. Much like the recent Superman reboot “Man of Steel”, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is an attempt by a rival studio to catch up to the immense and well-planned formula that Marvel Studios is successfully using currently. And even more so than in “Man of Steel”, that’s all it feels like. This is not a passion project nor is it a film meant to stand on its own merits. It is a product (it’s no coincidence that Sony’s logo appears at the start of the movie before the Colombia Pictures logo) that’s main purpose is to get you hyped for movies that probably haven’t been written yet. Writing! Now there’s something that this film could’ve used!
But hang on, let me first give credit where credit is due. For you see I’m not a cold-hearted bastard and I did actually enjoy parts of this film.
I loved the web-slinging. Spidey’s flights through New York have never looked better. By adding a little bit of fluttering in the looser parts of the suit, a redesign of said suit, and some fantastic physicality, it’s as good as it can get with today’s modern CGI. Here’s a video to better prove my point (Warning: some spoiler images herein):
The main cast is solid overall. As they were in the previous film, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have white-hot chemistry and their sense of yearning for each other is palpable. And they fair on their own just as well, too. Stone’s Gwen Stacy might forever alter the established notion that Mary Jane Watson was Peter Parker’s one, true love for a new generation. And Garfield once again brings a joy and love of life as Spider-Man and twitchy energy to Peter (even if he is a bit too smug this time around). There’s a sequence at the beginning of the film where he squares off against a hammy and under-used Paul Giamatti that is pure Spider-Man quipping bliss. Elsewhere, Sally Field has a few good scenes as Aunt May and I enjoyed Dane DeHaan as Harry Osbourne. Some have said he overplays his scenes but I think it was justifiable given what little we know about his character.
Because of spoilers (though if you’ve read the comics or seen enough of the stupid previews you should be able to figure out how the movie ends) I can’t get into too much detail about the climax of the film. So speaking in generalities, I’ll just say that I thought it was spot-on, devastating, and well-earned. By staying true to the comics, you spend the whole movie waiting for this moment and it does not disappoint.
Finally, I did appreciate that this one was much more colorful than its overcast-looking predecessor and was actually shot on 35mm anamorphic film instead of digital. Film still looks better, people.
But for all the good this movie does, the bad outweighs it in my humble opinion.
I’m becoming more able to sniff out a good popcorn movie from a bad one as I get older. It usually comes down to how invested the director, writers, and cast are in the single film’s success. Notice, I said “single”. One’s focus should always be on making the best possible movie at the time. If you’re planning a sequel, let the elements flow naturally with connections here and there. Because if you don’t, it feels like I’m being sold something, which is not fun to watch.
Throughout “Amazing Spider-Man 2”, there is no shortage of set-up for future Spidey films. Multiple new characters are introduced here and not a one, save for maybe Harry, leaves a lasting impact because none are expanded upon satisfactorily. This is exemplified by Electro. I am definitively not a fan of how this character is treated throughout the film. He starts off as a social outcast (which Jamie Foxx can’t pull off no matter how bad his hair is), gets superpowers, thinks he’s betrayed by his idol, seeks revenge, and is eventually defeated. At no point does the movie try to give him an arc; he stays an undesirable till the end and it’s almost like the film is encouraging you to point and laugh at him. He’s got nothing to him other than the fact that he’s one of Spider-Man’s well-known villains.
That’s not a good enough reason for him to be in the story. Think about Dr. Octopus in 2004’s “Spider-Man 2”. Brilliantly played by Alfred Molina, he’s a character you have immense sympathy for because like Peter, you admire him and feel bad about what’s happened to him. He also ties into the story of having to sacrifice the things you love for the common good. 10 years old and it’s still one of the best superhero films ever (despite what modern day fans will tell you; I’m still baffled by the hate the first two Raimi films get nowadays).
It all comes down to the simple fact that Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci are hack scriptwriters. While I’ll admit to liking their functional work on “Mission: Impossible III” and the reboot of “Star Trek”, these are the guys who brought us “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”, “Cowboys & Aliens”, “The Island”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”. At least one of those movies is a fun flick but they are all dreadfully written with an emphasis on getting to the next action sequence as quickly as possible. And that’s not the kind of writing you need to establish characters for future films.
Say what you will about Raimi’s original trilogy – that it’s corny, sappy, borrows from an older generation of comics instead of the modern version – the fact that they were made by someone with a clear vision and love for the character is plainly evident. If new director Marc Webb (Yeah ha ha, his name. Moving on) is a huge fan of Spider-Man, that only shows in the romantic scenes. Everywhere else, all I see is the love of money. For that’s the main reason this series was rebooted: to keep Marvel from obtaining the character for use in their films. And so Sony has put him in films that they have complete control over; factory-made movies with diminished hearts and only mildly diverting thrills.
My rating is a disappointing 5 out of 10. I might even choose “Spider-Man 3” over it on a weird day. At least that mess still has traces of Raimi’s sensibility here and there.
P.S., I give the marketing for the movie a 2 out of 10. Might be the worst-advertised blockbuster in years with how much they gave away in the trailers.
