Amazing Spider-Man 2 Senselessly Jolts Moviegoers

Glitzy effects and stellar chemistry can’t save Spidey 2 from a choppy plot and shoddy screenplay.

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Since SONY acquired Spider-Man from Marvel back in the late 1990’s, they had done a decent job of entertaining us with previous films. Spiderman (2002) was stellar and Spiderman 2 (2005) was a solid, not-without-thought fun ride. As for Spiderman 3? We don’t discuss Spiderman 3. As Mustafa told Simba in the Lion King; “You must never go there, son.” Still even the re-boot of Amazing Spiderman, though a hot mess, was entertaining and still left audiences with a sense of promise for the franchise. Borrowing from Spiderman’s rich cache of characters and stories, this movie recants the rise of the Rhino (such as he is), the origin of electro and the debut (again) of the Green Goblin. If one follow’s SONY’s 5-picture run on the franchise, then no, there is NOT a run of continuity and that, old friend, is the least of the problems with this film. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): The first film flows right into this one with an ease and clarity that suggests they might have been written at the same time (don’t know if they were). Continuity between films is really all you can hope for these days as filmmakers seem all too eager to abandon the source material. That said, there were many elements from the various Spider-Man books to delight the web-slinging fan, even if they didn’t come together exactly like in the comic books.

CASTING, ACTING AND DIRECTING

AV: Honestly, I couldn’t have picked a better cast for this film, Ponty. In fact I'm going to say the chemistry between Ben ‘Too tall to be Spidey” Garfield and Emma “I’m back as Gwen Stacey” Stone is (ahem) electric (sorry about that). I will go further and say that the romance between Peter and Gwen is some of the best hollywood has shown in a while. While RomComs (Romantic Comedies) aren’t really my thing, I could have watched an entire film of these two–sans spiderman–and their zany romantic hi jinx. In other casting, Jamie “Ray” Foxx’s villainous portrayal was fine (even if the character had NO motivation whatsoever). I wish they had taken time to develop the non-Electro side of him more so we could empathize or even understand his villainy. Thoughts, Ponty?

TP: Andrew Garfield plays a good Peter Parker as he tries to navigate his world of danger and love. He also played a rather witty, and somewhat cocky, Spider-Man. I couldn’t decide if he overplayed the role, of if I just didn’t like the characterization. Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy was interesting and well played opposite Garfield, especially in those moments where their chemistry was evident. Dane Deehan played a better Harry Osborn than he did Green Goblin, as I was unimpressed after his transformation, but very much intrigued by how Harry dealt with his situation. Jamie Foxx delivered a good portrayal of his character, even if the writing for it was a little flat. He was far more engaging and interesting as Electro than as Max Dillon. I think the direction of the film could have been a bit better as It seemed to drag in some parts.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: The visual effects in The Amazing Spiderman 2 (TAS2) are just that… amazing. While I would debate as to whether or not the fully CGI-ed Spiderman ever truly integrated onscreen with the live-action one, I would would say this movie was downright beautiful visual effects fun. The slow-motion-to-hi-speed sequences are a rush. The scenes where spider is catching flying police cars really sends me into the comic-book-turned-movie zone and the visual effects are the ocular equivalent to eating a box of pop-rocks and washing it down with a can of coke. in short, if you’re looking for hi-velocity, nerve-bending action, then this film is for you. 

TP: This is where the film excelled and took no prisoners. Of course IMAX 3D was the only way I was seeing this, and it was worth every penny. The cinematography was outstanding and the CGI was top notch. The action came right off the screen from jump (no really…he jumped off a building in the beginning) grabbed my attention, and had me lusting for more. Heck, the special effects were so good, they’re probably the reason the film felt liked it dragged at times….cause anytime I wasn’t being injected with effects was a drag!

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: This movie could have been great. But there are some basic elements every film—even super-hero films–NEED to follow to mean more than 2 hours in a dark room. First, the antagonist (the villain) needs motivation. What was Electro’s motivation? Why was he so pissed off? People didn’t remember his name? So this whole film could have been avoided if Spidey had just sat down and made him feel better over a cup of java? Harry Osborn wasn’t even MENTIONED in the first film. If he was going to play such an important role, why didn’t we see (or hear) about him before? We can’t expect movie-going audiences to just know the cannon when the director and the studio don’t even follow and keep on re-booting it. 

WARNING! ARTH VADER RANT DEAD AHEAD!

The flippant Spidey (mostly CGI), is mostly true to the character’s personality, but does NOT synch with the Peter Parker personality, at all. This is key. There are too many holes in this film to rant on about here but I will say this; I LOVE this genre and adore Spiderman. I have since age 7. For a combined production and advertising cost of close to $300 Million we can ask for a better Spiderman. We can demand it. This isn’t a shoestring budget, guys. C’mon SONY you have hundreds of millions of dollar, all the visual effects in the world, 50 years of really good material to pluck from and world class actors, screenwriters and even Stan Lee and a Legion of Marvel consultants to refer to. No film is perfect but with resources like these, this film should have been so much better. P-Man?

TP: Agreed Vader. There were a few goofs that stuck out to me, but few besides you watch the details in the hardcore way that I do, and I don’t think they detracted too much from the film… so I won’t get into them. What I found more interesting was the direction they took the character in with so much to shoulder with responsibility and consequences. It’s kind of one of the staples of reading the comic that Peter has to deal with so much angst and tragedy and still keep pushing forward to do the right thing. “With great power comes great responsibility” was really driven home here, and honestly, was also probably one of the key factors that detracted from the film for me. I actually don’t read any Spider-Man comics for that very reason… I don’t want my mood shackled with Peter’s problems. Perhaps it’s me, or maybe they really did something wrong, but I didn’t feel sad or even mildly upset when the focal moment arrived that drove home why Peter should have kept his promise to Captain Stacy. Yeah, something’s just not right about that.

ON SEQUELS

AV: (Andrew) Garfield’s contracts is for three films and even though there are rumored drafts for Spiderman 4 already in the works (along with Venom and Sinister Six films) there will almost assuredly be a Spiderman 3. I was hoping not to have to consider comparisons to Spiderman 3 and the Amazing Spiderman 3 (confused yet?), but apparently Spiderman will be another cluster fornication of villains, heroes and characters because, why develop a solid one hero, one antagonist script when you can have dozens? (sigh) The introduction of not one, not two, not three, not four but six villains is a joke. Want a roll call? Electro, Rhino, Green Goblin all appear onscreen as well as Allistair Smythe, Felicia Hardy and the mysterious hatted man in the shadows (also seen in the post credit scenes in TAS #1) .

On the plus side, the final standoff with the senseless appearance of the Rhino involving a young boy standing in for Spidey is a near-tear-jerker. Proof even at the end of a film that is a hot mess, emotions can carry films of this nature. 

TP: Of course there will be a sequel, the only question is which villains are going to be in it. Of course I will see it, the only question is will I be as impressed with the story as I will be with the special effects (imagine that…a story that matches the effects!) I’m hearing rumors about the Sinister Six…. and wondering if the “too many villains” syndrome can really become that epic… and cringing because I have a feeling Sony will go there.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Amazing Spider-Man 2: If you’re 10 years old, you are going to love this film. Short on plot, little-to-no character development and enough visual effects to choke a Rhino (yes he’s in this film too, though for the life of me I have no idea why). Still the movie is fun, as long as you don’t engage too many synapses and suspend disbelief, story alignment, screenplay, continuity, script… well, you get the idea. The Amazing Spiderman 2 is not bad, its disjointed, listless, poorly handled (as a film) but if you can look past it’s considerable pile of flaws, it’s ok. With that, this film barely charged five (5) Busted Blocks for me but, well, here’s to hoping. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Amazing Spider-Man 2: It wasn’t the best Spider-Man film, but it was certainly entertaining and a visual marvel (pun intended). I think the script could have been better, the goofs were an easy fix, and there were some missed opportunities here, but overall not a bad way to spend an afternoon. Despite my misgivings, this film swung in and webbed seven (7) busted blocks.

The Amazing Spiderman 2 — 6 / 10 Busted Blocks

Spider-Man Sticks With Audiences

Spider-Man weaves a tangled web of exciting, well-directed acting and near-perfect casting to help audiences swing into theaters.

ON CONTINUITY:

ARTH VADER (AV): This one's an instant classic! I'm going to jump right in here, Pontificator. Director Sam Raimi in this now-classic example of a superhero movie from 2002, is riveting. The origin of ol' web head is as close to the original as any on-screen portrayal of any on-film, this side of Superman: The Movie (1977 Christopher Reeves, R.I.P.). Spidey is one of the most iconic fictional characters of the 20th century. Peter Parker's mix of teenage angst meets nerdy solitude is the perfect coming-of-age tale we can all relate to. Unrealized love (or passion) for the unattainable Mary-Jane Watson (played by the stunning and well-casted Kirsten Dunst), this movie did more than re-kindle our fascination with the mythos of Spider_Man…this movie was just plain fun.

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Very nice leap Vader! Surprisingly this movie stuck relatively close to the comics. All the major elements are presented and were blended together very well. The minor changes didn’t detract from the movie at all. It simply wasn’t an issue that his webs were organic instead of his special blend of formula stored in cartridges. All told, it was one of the closest representations of a comic coming to the silver screen.

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING:

AV: James Franco as Harry Osborn, Willem DaFoe and Mr Pleasantville himself, Tobey McGuire in the lead made this film a joy to watch. Each character was believable and grounded. A solid corps of acting veterans, including J.K. Simmons (now the lead face-man in the currently running Farmers Insurance ad campaign) and the talented Bill Nunn (Radio Rahiem!) as Robbie Robertson. Simmon's fast-paced, witty, rambling banter as the intolerable J. Jonah Jameson was a pleasant surprise and channels the fever-pitch chaotic nature of a big city newspaper editor.

TP: The casting and acting was awesome. Tobey Maguire was the perfect Peter Parker...had this been wrong, it would have unraveled the entire movie. Willem Dafoe was a pleasure to watch both as Norman Osborne and the Green Goblin. I always find him to be a menacing presence when he sinks his talent into such roles. Nobody in the entire cast did less than spectacular...but I was really impressed with J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. His quick answers and impulsive reactions were an absolute riot and very true to the character.

AV: Subsequently, the direction of this movie is also quite stunning. Really. Consider Raimi's liberal use of special effects, particularly in the cops & robbers chase sequence, it is fast-paced and filled with action and off-the-chart tempo pacing but keeps the viewer engaged and delighted throughout the entire event. Well handled fiction movie-making at it's finest. Mr. Raimi, my hat is off to you!

SPECIAL EFFECTS (SFX):

AV: Ah, special effects. The make-or-break of any modern science fiction, fantasy or action movie these days. The special effects in Sider-Man did an incredible job of keeping the viewer seeing things from multiple view points. While this is an extension of Raimi's directing talents, the movie tracks flawlessly as a life-as-comic book experience exposing the viewer to events from the POV of bystanders, antagonists, the hero(s) and pivotal characters alike. Like a comic book, these varied viewpoints seamlessly take me from one perspective to the next – often in the same scene! – and moves us through the adventure more as a participant than an observer. What does this have to do with SPFX? Well, everything in my eyes. I just don't think this movie could have been done in the 1990's. The camera work, great acting (amazingly well engineered sound design!) and effects shots blend so seamlessly, the film accomplishes a very tall order – to make the viewer believe this young man has the powers of a spider.

TP: The effects were very well done and brought Spidey to life like never before. There were a few scenes where I could tell that the CGI was...well, CGI. Running over the rooftops was one such scene, and it looked too obvious. However, the rest of the effects were stunning from the flips to Spidey swinging into action. The fight scenes were particularly done well as the use of slow motion was very refined and enhanced all the scenes it was used in.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK:

AV: Hey, Pontificator, I must say, the depth of this movie blew me away on DVD even after nearly ten years from seeing it in the theater. Why? It's the best example I can think of that represents a well-handled, well developed super hero movie. While there are some that have transcended the cape-and-tights stigma, most still start getting overly ambitious and make the entire experience confusing or even worse…forgettable. Too many details, over-the-top special effects and no coherent writing (kind of like our blog!). Spider-Man weaves a delightful yet sobering tale that is end-capped with the now classic catch-phrase "…with great power comes great responsibility". Even the cage-match wrestling sequence sticks like cobwebs to the original story (a masterfully written and drawn story by the God-father of comic books, Stan Lee and the late, trailblazing artistry of Steve Ditko).

TP: I agree Vader, this film stands the test of time very well. This was the first super hero movie to “have it all.” It’s always been my theory that it did so well when it was released because it had something for everyone. Action junkies got their fix, romance seekers found love, and comedy criminals were arrested by laughter. Admittedly, this should be one of the easiest movies to make just for the fact it only had one hero and villain. However, it seems that attention to detail in even the smallest part, was meticulously laid out and filmed to perfection. All this...and a Stan Lee cameo for icing.

A Tribute From Arth Vader & The Pontificator: We want to take this moment to pay a special Boxed Office salute to the "Macho Man" Randy Savage. Playing the perfectly-casted role of 'Bonesaw McGraw' in Spider-Man, the late Mr. Savage was a delightful larger-than-life character from our childhood and early formative years. Those not familiar with him would do well to learn of his impact on the entertainment world, a life that was grounded in professional wrestling but was a terrific and colorful life of triumph and tragedy but a true champion and a man whose presence is missed even today. "Macho-Man" Randy Savage , taken all too quickly from us – November 15, 1952 – May 20, 2011. Rest in Peace.

ON SEQUELS:

AV: Well we know about his one, folks. At least kind of. Spider-Man 2 had moments of greatness –coupled with almost many WTF moment! – and may very well end up being a future "classic" review here at the boxed office. I won't even acknowledge the cinematic train wreck that is the disaster known as Spider-Man 3. Though, as the writing of this post, Ponty, I understand "The Amazing Spider-Man" series re-boot is doing quite well and looks just frackin' hot! Thankfully, like the comic books, this character has traction and depth that transcends one or two bad installments (kind of like the comic books). It is a shame (sorry to beat a dead horse folks) that Marvel Studios couldn't re-capture the rights to ole' web head movies and do this right but us Fan Boys will take what we can get. I foresee nothing but a bright future for the Spider-Man cinema franchise for many years to come.

TP: Of course there was enough material for a sequel. There is enough Spider-Man material to make a dozen more movies... even though they settled on three before doing a reboot. I won’t get into any of the other movies just yet...but those reviews should be very interesting if I’ve read you correctly Arth.

ARTH VADER rates Spider-Man: This movie is a case-study for following through on what works. Spider-Man first weaved his web of awesomeness in Amazing Fantasy #15 more than 50 years ago (1962). There is a reason his story has survived for half-a-century. He has depth and volume as a character, and is one we can all relate to – the under dog – with a chance to overcome his greatest limitations…including himself. Well-acted, superbly directed and delightfully produced with a storyline that closely mirrors the original tale from 1962, I give our friendly neighborhood Spider-man (2002) an amazing 9 out of 10 busted blocks.

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates Spider-Man: A superb movie...easily in the top ten best ever super hero movies, if not in the top five. This movie spins a web capable of supporting eight, very big and very heavy, busted blocks.

Spider-Man: 8.5/10 Busted Blocks