The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Going off the animated The Spectacular Spider-Man I think Thomas Dekker would have been great. As far as Toby & Garfield. Meh.
I ended up enjoying it although it was a long and inconsistent voyage to get there. Dana DeHaan was awesome as Harry...I don't think I've ever seen him give a bad performance.
The movie is extremely cluttered, rather like Iron Man 2 in its attempts to serve various different corporate purposes, though it's better than Iron Man 2 because the central emotional arc of Peter and Gwen is well-done, and the film has a strong finale.
The plot and the villains, on the other hand, are extremely scattershot. Electro is basically Jim Carrey's Riddler (as noted by Drew McWeeny at Hitfix), by way of Doctor Manhattan. Harry's whole story feels rather rushed (particularly as he acts like he's going to drop dead at any moment when his father lived to be like three times his current age), and the structure of the climax, with him arriving after Electro, feels tacked on. That said, Gwen's death and its aftermath is well-done.
The single-biggest problem is the Richard Parker backstory. Why did anybody think this was a mystery worth dragging out over two films? The "revelation", such as it was, is totally meaningless to the story apart from a I guess a bit of trivia about why the spider-venom only works on Peter, but that really didn't need a whole subplot to explain it. The whole thing could be excised without impacting anything else in the movie. Though I'm glad they at least avoided the idea that Peter was "destined to be Spider-Man" or whatever.
Also, the ending hints at how future Spider-Man villains will be handled: as mooks for OsCorp. It's far from unheard of for OsCorp (or a similar company) to be used as a linking point -- it was in the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, for instance -- and for some villains (like Rhino, in this film, or Shocker) that sort of origin works. But the end of this film suggests that Doctor Octopus and the Vulture are also going to be created this way, which is a terrible idea, as those characters actually have somewhat meaningful origins of their own (especially Otto).
The plot and the villains, on the other hand, are extremely scattershot. Electro is basically Jim Carrey's Riddler (as noted by Drew McWeeny at Hitfix), by way of Doctor Manhattan. Harry's whole story feels rather rushed (particularly as he acts like he's going to drop dead at any moment when his father lived to be like three times his current age), and the structure of the climax, with him arriving after Electro, feels tacked on. That said, Gwen's death and its aftermath is well-done.
The single-biggest problem is the Richard Parker backstory. Why did anybody think this was a mystery worth dragging out over two films? The "revelation", such as it was, is totally meaningless to the story apart from a I guess a bit of trivia about why the spider-venom only works on Peter, but that really didn't need a whole subplot to explain it. The whole thing could be excised without impacting anything else in the movie. Though I'm glad they at least avoided the idea that Peter was "destined to be Spider-Man" or whatever.
Also, the ending hints at how future Spider-Man villains will be handled: as mooks for OsCorp. It's far from unheard of for OsCorp (or a similar company) to be used as a linking point -- it was in the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, for instance -- and for some villains (like Rhino, in this film, or Shocker) that sort of origin works. But the end of this film suggests that Doctor Octopus and the Vulture are also going to be created this way, which is a terrible idea, as those characters actually have somewhat meaningful origins of their own (especially Otto).
Thought it was actually... not that bad. Yeah the villains were pretty generic and unmemorable, and I still couldn't care less about Peter's parents, but Spidey looked really cool doing his thing, and the Peter/Gwen scenes were so damn charming, that it made up for quite a lot of other problems.
And while it wasn't the most gripping story, I still thought it held together and flowed a lot better than critics are giving it credit for (although it definitely could have been about 20 minutes shorter).
The Raimi and Webb films both have their flaws (cheesy villains, paper-thin plots), but ultimately I think I have to side with the Raimi films. Despite their issues, they were just a LOT more light and fun, and Raimi had a sense of comic timing that was so much better and sharper than what Webb has demonstrated so far (where despite some good delivery from Garfield, a lot of the humor continues to fall flat). And that to me makes all the difference.
For that matter, Raimi also did a lot of the heroic moments a lot better as well (Spidey catching a car in mid air with his webs, Spidey holding up the wall to protect MJ, Spidey attempting to stop the train...). Spidey has done some cool stuff in the Webb movies as well, but somehow little of it has really made me want to stand up and cheer.
And for all the complaints about Tobey, Garfield's Peter does just as much crying and moping around in these movies. But Tobey was also so loveably geeky as Peter that I found it a lot easier to root for him in the end.
And while it wasn't the most gripping story, I still thought it held together and flowed a lot better than critics are giving it credit for (although it definitely could have been about 20 minutes shorter).
The Raimi and Webb films both have their flaws (cheesy villains, paper-thin plots), but ultimately I think I have to side with the Raimi films. Despite their issues, they were just a LOT more light and fun, and Raimi had a sense of comic timing that was so much better and sharper than what Webb has demonstrated so far (where despite some good delivery from Garfield, a lot of the humor continues to fall flat). And that to me makes all the difference.
For that matter, Raimi also did a lot of the heroic moments a lot better as well (Spidey catching a car in mid air with his webs, Spidey holding up the wall to protect MJ, Spidey attempting to stop the train...). Spidey has done some cool stuff in the Webb movies as well, but somehow little of it has really made me want to stand up and cheer.
And for all the complaints about Tobey, Garfield's Peter does just as much crying and moping around in these movies. But Tobey was also so loveably geeky as Peter that I found it a lot easier to root for him in the end.
Personally I thought Spider-Man 3 was cluttered, this one, whilst having the same amount of villains, felt much less cluttered for some reason.
I found the interaction between Garfield and Stone to be uncomfortable at times. The whole "well you can't have a pretty wee nose and you can't have deep soulful eyes" scene was cringe inducing. That's just how I saw it at the time - though I see I'm in the minority.
The film's saving grace, honestly, was Gwen's fate. By that stage I felt her and Peter had gotten away with too much without consequence.
The film's saving grace, honestly, was Gwen's fate. By that stage I felt her and Peter had gotten away with too much without consequence.
Yeah, I think I'd probably go with the Raimi films too as they are a lot more fun. Though I like how Garfield's Spider-Man actually cracks jokes when he's in costume although I agree a lot of them fell flat.
Here's hoping Felicia is the next film's love interest. It would be something different and Peter can use all the help he can get. It's unlikely they'll be getting Shailene Wooley back as MJ and they are going to need a hell of an actress to pull of MJ after Emma Stone's Gwen. I think audiences might end up resenting Mary Jane. Stone's Gwen completely blew Dunst's Mary Jane away.
Despite the rush nature (something the recent Spider-Man films have had trouble with) I enjoyed the Peter and Harry friendship.
Here's hoping Felicia is the next film's love interest. It would be something different and Peter can use all the help he can get. It's unlikely they'll be getting Shailene Wooley back as MJ and they are going to need a hell of an actress to pull of MJ after Emma Stone's Gwen. I think audiences might end up resenting Mary Jane. Stone's Gwen completely blew Dunst's Mary Jane away.
Despite the rush nature (something the recent Spider-Man films have had trouble with) I enjoyed the Peter and Harry friendship.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a really frustrating movie because all of the Peter Parker/Spider-Man moments are all fantastic. As a Spider-Man fan, it was great to see Spider-Man move like he does in the comics, to have the sense of comic timing and wit like he does in the comics, etc. I would agree with those that say this movie nails Spider-Man like no other movie does. That's honestly very true. The moments when Spider-Man is swinging around New York were phenomenal and truly captured the essence of Spider-Man.
However, with that said, whenever the film dovetails into the villains... it becomes truly awful. Like Joel Schumacher/Batman Forever bad. Jamie Foxx and Dane DeHaan are absolutely wasted as Electro and Green Goblin. Foxx's whole "No one notices me" shtick was just handled so poorly - it reminded me of Jim Carrey's Riddler in Batman Forever and that's not even remotely a good thing. What's worse is that even when he becomes Electro he's a very cool villain in a visual sense but adds very little to the story. I get what they were trying to do with the under appreciated angle but it was very thinly written and made Electro come off to be a very underwhelming villain. As for Harry Osborn/Green Goblin, while I liked DeHaan in parts he was completely over-the-top in others. It was a very uneven performance and what's worse he only becomes the Green Goblin for like three minutes and he's obviously there as a plot device to do-you-know-what. The same can be said for Paul Giamatti as Rhino - he's absolutely wasted here. I am assuming he's coming back for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 or The Sinister Six but the previews basically just spoiled his entire screen-time in the film. Good job, marketing campaign.
The whole Peter Parker/Gwen Stacy stuff is really good as well. Andrew Garfield & Emma Stone still have remarkable chemistry which made the ending that much more tragic... even though Gwen's fate was telegraphed so damn badly from the very beginning, down to Gwen's expository "immortal" valedictorian speech to Captain Stacy constantly appearing and driving the point home that something bad is probably going to happen. Gwen's fate would probably have been more tragic/dramatic if the writers didn't basically hint at that almost constantly throughout the movie. I will say, though, that the stuff with Peter's parents was well done. The moment where Peter learns about his father, Richard Parker, was handled well if a bit on-the-nose and expository. However, I was glad Webb and the writers expounded upon this because I felt it was something seriously lacking in the previous movie. It's not like the movie is a total mess - Webb manages to deliver some great moments but doesn't know how to string them together to tell a cohesive story.
Beyond that, the movie is visually gorgeous. The action is spectacular and it's all pretty to look at. Marc Webb nails the Spider-Man parts but doesn't understand how to structure a story or script - although I guess you could blame the writers, Orci & Kurtzman, for that. In some cases it is better than The Amazing Spider-Man but others it is on par if not worse. I'm not sure what bothered me more, though - the overabundance of characters or how they are so obviously trying to set up more films such as The Sinister Six that it genuinely takes away from this film's story. It felt like in some areas like I was watching a preview for The Sinister Six in the same way I felt like I was watching a preview for The Avengers while I was watching Iron Man 2. This is why I am worried for Zack Snyder's Batman/Superman movie.
All in all, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is enjoyable but very forgettable and entertaining on a surface level... but that's it. It was like Marc Webb listened to the complaints that the last movie was too serious & dour and tried to lighten things up for this one... but instead of trying to make it more of a comic-book movie, he made it outright cartoon-ish. To me that makes me think Webb doesn't quite understand what makes a good comic-book movie work (not all comic-book movies need to be dark & serious like The Dark Knight or light & fluffy like the Fantastic Four movies - the Marvel Studios movies have nailed the approach perfectly). Oh, well. This doesn't really instill me with any hope for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 although The Sinister Six could be interesting if anything because Drew Goddard is a great writer/director.
However, with that said, whenever the film dovetails into the villains... it becomes truly awful. Like Joel Schumacher/Batman Forever bad. Jamie Foxx and Dane DeHaan are absolutely wasted as Electro and Green Goblin. Foxx's whole "No one notices me" shtick was just handled so poorly - it reminded me of Jim Carrey's Riddler in Batman Forever and that's not even remotely a good thing. What's worse is that even when he becomes Electro he's a very cool villain in a visual sense but adds very little to the story. I get what they were trying to do with the under appreciated angle but it was very thinly written and made Electro come off to be a very underwhelming villain. As for Harry Osborn/Green Goblin, while I liked DeHaan in parts he was completely over-the-top in others. It was a very uneven performance and what's worse he only becomes the Green Goblin for like three minutes and he's obviously there as a plot device to do-you-know-what. The same can be said for Paul Giamatti as Rhino - he's absolutely wasted here. I am assuming he's coming back for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 or The Sinister Six but the previews basically just spoiled his entire screen-time in the film. Good job, marketing campaign.
The whole Peter Parker/Gwen Stacy stuff is really good as well. Andrew Garfield & Emma Stone still have remarkable chemistry which made the ending that much more tragic... even though Gwen's fate was telegraphed so damn badly from the very beginning, down to Gwen's expository "immortal" valedictorian speech to Captain Stacy constantly appearing and driving the point home that something bad is probably going to happen. Gwen's fate would probably have been more tragic/dramatic if the writers didn't basically hint at that almost constantly throughout the movie. I will say, though, that the stuff with Peter's parents was well done. The moment where Peter learns about his father, Richard Parker, was handled well if a bit on-the-nose and expository. However, I was glad Webb and the writers expounded upon this because I felt it was something seriously lacking in the previous movie. It's not like the movie is a total mess - Webb manages to deliver some great moments but doesn't know how to string them together to tell a cohesive story.
Beyond that, the movie is visually gorgeous. The action is spectacular and it's all pretty to look at. Marc Webb nails the Spider-Man parts but doesn't understand how to structure a story or script - although I guess you could blame the writers, Orci & Kurtzman, for that. In some cases it is better than The Amazing Spider-Man but others it is on par if not worse. I'm not sure what bothered me more, though - the overabundance of characters or how they are so obviously trying to set up more films such as The Sinister Six that it genuinely takes away from this film's story. It felt like in some areas like I was watching a preview for The Sinister Six in the same way I felt like I was watching a preview for The Avengers while I was watching Iron Man 2. This is why I am worried for Zack Snyder's Batman/Superman movie.
All in all, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is enjoyable but very forgettable and entertaining on a surface level... but that's it. It was like Marc Webb listened to the complaints that the last movie was too serious & dour and tried to lighten things up for this one... but instead of trying to make it more of a comic-book movie, he made it outright cartoon-ish. To me that makes me think Webb doesn't quite understand what makes a good comic-book movie work (not all comic-book movies need to be dark & serious like The Dark Knight or light & fluffy like the Fantastic Four movies - the Marvel Studios movies have nailed the approach perfectly). Oh, well. This doesn't really instill me with any hope for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 although The Sinister Six could be interesting if anything because Drew Goddard is a great writer/director.
I don't see what the problem was with Harry not being the Goblin long enough.
I mean, Harvey Dent wasn't Two-Face for much of "Dark Knight", no one complained. Emil Blonsky wasn't Abomination for much of The Incredible Hulk, no one complained. Obadiah Stane was only Iron Monger for a small bit of Iron Man 1 and no one complained.
I mean, Harvey Dent wasn't Two-Face for much of "Dark Knight", no one complained. Emil Blonsky wasn't Abomination for much of The Incredible Hulk, no one complained. Obadiah Stane was only Iron Monger for a small bit of Iron Man 1 and no one complained.
Harry was Green Goblin for all of... three minutes? He literally showed up right after Spider-Man and Gwen defeated Electro (how convinent) and then stayed around long enough to do you-know-what to Gwen. Then he was knocked out and that was it.
At least The Dark Knight had a few scenes of Harvey Dent as Two-Face and Dent becoming Two-Face was a big part of that story and the emotional climax. Emil Blonsky transformed into The Abomination for the climax of the film, which lasted more than two or three minutes. The same with Obadiah Stane - we at least got a decent confrontation between Stane as Iron Monger and Iron Man.
Green Goblin's role in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 felt very much like Whiplash's role in the finale for Iron Man 2 - he showed up and was defeated in about a minute. Wow, that was impressive!
I didn't have a problem with the Goblin's lack of screentime only because I thought when he became Goblin he was so much fun I let it slide.
And that's the big difference between your opinion and mine's Dan: I loved the villain's in this film, cheesy lines and all
But hey, you knew that already didn't you :P
And that's the big difference between your opinion and mine's Dan: I loved the villain's in this film, cheesy lines and all
But hey, you knew that already didn't you :P
Spider-Man 3's problem was that they didn't bother thinking of a plot wherein all the villains were intertwined by something. It came off as three different stories all happening at the same time, instead of one story.
AM2 did the reasonable thing and used OsCorp as the thread that tied all the villains together.
Plus, Harry and Electro had better reasons for teaming up than Venom and Sandman did.
AM2 did the reasonable thing and used OsCorp as the thread that tied all the villains together.
Plus, Harry and Electro had better reasons for teaming up than Venom and Sandman did.
My metric for judging a movie like this is simpler: Did the filmmakers bring what I saw in the comics to life on the big screen? By that standard, for all the things Raimi might have gotten right, Webb has been better and more consistent in creating the type of Spider-Man film I want to see. And, sorry, but Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man makes these films more "light and fun" than any of the previous trilogy, flat jokes and all.
Well I can't help you there because I thought that entire opening chase scene was cheerworthy, especially as it started with SM falling fifty stories into the first swing. And I'll take Spidey defending a smart kid against bullies over him mooning over Kirsten Dunst any day.
And again, that's not my problem with Maguire. Peter Parker has always been an angsty character, so both actors have that part right. What Garfield does better is portray Peter after he puts on the mask and lets himself go and feel more comfortable in his own skin. Maguire never did that convincingly.
I'm with you Admiral2, the whole opening sequence was (pardon the pun) Amazing! OK, so it wasn't technically the opening sequence, but it sure got the movie off to the right start. And with seeing it in IMAX 3D, there was at least one moment where I felt like Spider-Man, and got that sensation of falling.
Also, when the two planes nearly collided did anyone else flinch at that moment? As if the planes were coming towards you? I would have chalked it up to me just being silly, but one of the guys I went to the movies with flinched at that same moment too.
Also, when the two planes nearly collided did anyone else flinch at that moment? As if the planes were coming towards you? I would have chalked it up to me just being silly, but one of the guys I went to the movies with flinched at that same moment too.
I saw this film yesterday. I thought it was better than the first Amazing, but still not up there with Raimi's first two Spider-Man films. I also thought this film wasn't as good as Captain America, but it was a good time at the movies for the most part.
It started off on the wrong foot for me. During the airplane sequence-which had enough action and suspense in it I suppose-I was wanting them to start the film with Spider-Man getting into the action. I was glad when they got to that. The action was well done for the most part throughout the film. I also liked the new suit, even though I liked the one from the first Amazing as well. It had one of the worst Stan Lee cameos.
The highlight of these films is the Gwen-Peter relationship. Emma Stone comes across as very likeable and she lights up the screen. I thought Andrew Garfield was better as Peter this time than he was in Amazing I. He wasn't as annoying in and out of the suit as he was in that movie. With Aunt May, I think she still needs work. She wasn't as dithering as she was in the first movie, and I was glad they found a little more for her to do and say. It seems like if Peter's parents could afford a private plane and a hidden train lab that they could've left more money for Uncle Ben and Aunt May.
The villains I had mixed feelings about. I think Jamie Foxx overplayed Dillon's nerdiness. It came off like a stereotypical depiction of a nerd and I wish he had played Dillon more straight, as just an average Joe that was stepped on and overlooked and eventually snapped. I liked him better as Electro though his reasons or rationale for hating Spider-Man could've been better worked out. And just where did Electro get his supervillain suit? I thought the special effects for Electro were pretty well done.
I didn't care for the look of the Green Goblin. I liked the suit and glider, but it made little sense how after the transformation that he crawled over to the Goblin suit and glider and then learned how to operate it so quickly. As Harry I thought DeHaan did okay, but wished there had been more time spent on developing his friendship with Peter. He definitely had a strong reason to hate Spider-Man though. Where the Raimi films showed their superiority-again-over this new franchise is that they developed the friendship first so the eventual misunderstandings, betrayals, conflict, and reunion all had more of an emotional impact.
I liked the suit for Rhino. I am iffy on Giamatti's performance. One review I read said that Dr. Kafka was hammy. I could go with that. And Smythe was barely in it.
If the film goes Sinister Six next time I'm assuming Doc Ock, Vulture, and maybe Rhino will be in it. Here's hoping for Scorpion too.
My rankings of the Spider-films:
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
The Amazing Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3
It started off on the wrong foot for me. During the airplane sequence-which had enough action and suspense in it I suppose-I was wanting them to start the film with Spider-Man getting into the action. I was glad when they got to that. The action was well done for the most part throughout the film. I also liked the new suit, even though I liked the one from the first Amazing as well. It had one of the worst Stan Lee cameos.
The highlight of these films is the Gwen-Peter relationship. Emma Stone comes across as very likeable and she lights up the screen. I thought Andrew Garfield was better as Peter this time than he was in Amazing I. He wasn't as annoying in and out of the suit as he was in that movie. With Aunt May, I think she still needs work. She wasn't as dithering as she was in the first movie, and I was glad they found a little more for her to do and say. It seems like if Peter's parents could afford a private plane and a hidden train lab that they could've left more money for Uncle Ben and Aunt May.
The villains I had mixed feelings about. I think Jamie Foxx overplayed Dillon's nerdiness. It came off like a stereotypical depiction of a nerd and I wish he had played Dillon more straight, as just an average Joe that was stepped on and overlooked and eventually snapped. I liked him better as Electro though his reasons or rationale for hating Spider-Man could've been better worked out. And just where did Electro get his supervillain suit? I thought the special effects for Electro were pretty well done.
I didn't care for the look of the Green Goblin. I liked the suit and glider, but it made little sense how after the transformation that he crawled over to the Goblin suit and glider and then learned how to operate it so quickly. As Harry I thought DeHaan did okay, but wished there had been more time spent on developing his friendship with Peter. He definitely had a strong reason to hate Spider-Man though. Where the Raimi films showed their superiority-again-over this new franchise is that they developed the friendship first so the eventual misunderstandings, betrayals, conflict, and reunion all had more of an emotional impact.
I liked the suit for Rhino. I am iffy on Giamatti's performance. One review I read said that Dr. Kafka was hammy. I could go with that. And Smythe was barely in it.
If the film goes Sinister Six next time I'm assuming Doc Ock, Vulture, and maybe Rhino will be in it. Here's hoping for Scorpion too.
My rankings of the Spider-films:
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
The Amazing Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3
I posted a few thoughts in the other thread, but one thing I left out was a part of the movie my friend and I couldn't help but laugh at.
When Peter tells Gwen he's been following and spying on her, and basically her reaction is to fall in love with him again.... erm yeah, I think if in real life you tell your ex you've been following her you'll likely get is a slap, maybe told to fuck off, and possibly a restraining order put out on you
Ah, Hollywood
If I were to rank the movies I'd say...
1. Spider-Man 2
2. Amazing Spider-Man 2
3. Amazing Spider-Man
4. Spider-Man
5. Spider-Man 3
(although I haven't seen ASM1 since it came out so I could do with watching it again)
When Peter tells Gwen he's been following and spying on her, and basically her reaction is to fall in love with him again.... erm yeah, I think if in real life you tell your ex you've been following her you'll likely get is a slap, maybe told to fuck off, and possibly a restraining order put out on you
Ah, Hollywood
If I were to rank the movies I'd say...
1. Spider-Man 2
2. Amazing Spider-Man 2
3. Amazing Spider-Man
4. Spider-Man
5. Spider-Man 3
(although I haven't seen ASM1 since it came out so I could do with watching it again)
I posted a few thoughts in the other thread, but one thing I left out was a part of the movie my friend and I couldn't help but laugh at.
When Peter tells Gwen *he's been following and spying on her*, and basically her reaction is to fall in love with him again.... erm yeah, I think if in real life you tell your ex you've been following her you'll likely get is a slap, maybe told to fuck off, and possibly a restraining order put out on you
Ah, Hollywood
If I were to rank the movies I'd say...
1. Spider-Man 2
2. Amazing Spider-Man 2
3. Amazing Spider-Man
4. Spider-Man
5. Spider-Man 3
(although I haven't seen ASM1 since it came out so I could do with watching it again)
Superman Returns!
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
