Starring
- Andrew Garfield
- Emma Stone
- Jamie Foxx
- Sally Field
- Dane DeHaan
Original Theatrical Release Date: 05/02/2014
Running Time: 142 mins
Synopsis: We've always known that Spider-Man's most important battle has been within himself: the struggle between the ordinary obligations of Peter Parker and the extraordinary responsibilities of Spider-Man. But in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker finds that a greater conflict lies ahead. It's great to be Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield). For Peter Parker, there's no feeling quite like swinging between skyscrapers, embracing being the hero, and spending time with Gwen (Emma Stone). But being Spider-Man comes at a price: only Spider-Man can protect his fellow New Yorkers from the formidable villains that threaten the city. With the emergence of Electro (Jamie Foxx), Peter must confront a foe far more powerful than he. And as his old friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), returns, Peter comes to realize that all of his enemies have one thing in common: OsCorp. --From Rotten Tomatoes
Review: So it goes without saying that I'm a big Spider-Man fan. He's been my favorite superhero since I was a kid. And Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man' trilogy not only belongs to my favorite superhero movies, but my favorite movies in general. Yes, I even really enjoyed the third one that everyone else on the planet seems to hate, even if it was my least favorite of them.
One of my biggest issues with the reboot series is that it isn't necessary. While I liked the first installment, I felt like the better parts of it still weren't better than the worst parts of the original trilogy. I've had people tell me not to compare the two, but considering 'Spider-Man 3' came out a mere seven years ago, it seems kind of hard not to when that series is so fresh in my mind. I'd probably think differently if that set of flicks were terrible. But they weren't. THEY were the amazing Spider-Man movies. And the actual 'The Amazing Spider-Man' was decent, but failed to live up to the superior version.
'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' pretty much falls in the same exact category. It was good. But that's all it was. There were some things this sequel did that bested it's predecessor, and there were some things that were most definitely worse. I'll start off with the good. Andrew Garfield was much better in this movie. In his first run in the red and blue spandex, his Peter Parker wasn't really that likable. He was kind of arrogant, and just not the geek-to-hero character I've always envisioned as Peter Parker. But in the sequel, his portrayal of Parker isn't so moody. Emma Stone pretty much turns whatever she touches into gold, and her and Garfield's chemistry is spot-on, much more so than it was the last go round.
The special effects were mind-blowingly good. Every time I see a new 'Spider-Man' movie, I literally sit in awe at just how great it looks seeing Spider-Man web sling through the city. And Electro's scenes were just as awe-inspiring to look at.
So now to the negative. My first complaint is the story and script. Jamie Foxx's Electro storyline with him pretty much being obsessed with whoever gives him attention was just annoying and boring. He had the cheesiest dialogue. Jamie Foxx is a great actor. This movie wouldn't really support that statement. A lot of his dialogue made me have flashbacks to Joel Schumacher's train-wreck 'Batman & Robin'. I don't think Jamie Foxx was the problem, but his material was just lame. Harry Osbourne was severely miscast. All of you who griped about "Emo Peter" in 'Spider-Man 3'? Wait until you catch a drift of the guy who replaced James Franco. Dane DeHaan... He wasn't just a bad Harry Osbourne/Green Goblin. I don't think he's a very good actor period. The found-footage 'Chronicle' movie that I heard everyone raving about? Yeah, I wasn't impressed. So far, he is probably my biggest complaint about the new series.
There's many pros and cons to this movie. One of the scenes at the end of the movie is probably one of the most heartfelt and tragic between both series. The score still wasn't as good as Danny Elfman's, even with Marc Webb bringing in Hans Zimmer to replace James Horner. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had great screen chemistry. But still not as good as Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Spider-Man's witty one-liners were on the whole pretty amusing. Everyone else's were just bad. The backstory of Peter's parents was a good touch. The special effects were just spectacular, despite the fact that the slow-motion feature was overkilled.
One of my biggest issues with the reboot series is that it isn't necessary. While I liked the first installment, I felt like the better parts of it still weren't better than the worst parts of the original trilogy. I've had people tell me not to compare the two, but considering 'Spider-Man 3' came out a mere seven years ago, it seems kind of hard not to when that series is so fresh in my mind. I'd probably think differently if that set of flicks were terrible. But they weren't. THEY were the amazing Spider-Man movies. And the actual 'The Amazing Spider-Man' was decent, but failed to live up to the superior version.
'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' pretty much falls in the same exact category. It was good. But that's all it was. There were some things this sequel did that bested it's predecessor, and there were some things that were most definitely worse. I'll start off with the good. Andrew Garfield was much better in this movie. In his first run in the red and blue spandex, his Peter Parker wasn't really that likable. He was kind of arrogant, and just not the geek-to-hero character I've always envisioned as Peter Parker. But in the sequel, his portrayal of Parker isn't so moody. Emma Stone pretty much turns whatever she touches into gold, and her and Garfield's chemistry is spot-on, much more so than it was the last go round.
The special effects were mind-blowingly good. Every time I see a new 'Spider-Man' movie, I literally sit in awe at just how great it looks seeing Spider-Man web sling through the city. And Electro's scenes were just as awe-inspiring to look at.
So now to the negative. My first complaint is the story and script. Jamie Foxx's Electro storyline with him pretty much being obsessed with whoever gives him attention was just annoying and boring. He had the cheesiest dialogue. Jamie Foxx is a great actor. This movie wouldn't really support that statement. A lot of his dialogue made me have flashbacks to Joel Schumacher's train-wreck 'Batman & Robin'. I don't think Jamie Foxx was the problem, but his material was just lame. Harry Osbourne was severely miscast. All of you who griped about "Emo Peter" in 'Spider-Man 3'? Wait until you catch a drift of the guy who replaced James Franco. Dane DeHaan... He wasn't just a bad Harry Osbourne/Green Goblin. I don't think he's a very good actor period. The found-footage 'Chronicle' movie that I heard everyone raving about? Yeah, I wasn't impressed. So far, he is probably my biggest complaint about the new series.
There's many pros and cons to this movie. One of the scenes at the end of the movie is probably one of the most heartfelt and tragic between both series. The score still wasn't as good as Danny Elfman's, even with Marc Webb bringing in Hans Zimmer to replace James Horner. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had great screen chemistry. But still not as good as Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Spider-Man's witty one-liners were on the whole pretty amusing. Everyone else's were just bad. The backstory of Peter's parents was a good touch. The special effects were just spectacular, despite the fact that the slow-motion feature was overkilled.
If you thought 'The Amazing Spider-Man' was better than the Raimi series, you'll like this one equally as much. If you're like me, and you liked it but still would've preferred a 'Spider-Man 4' to continue the original series, you'll probably like this one too, but it won't convince you that this reboot was a terrific idea. And if you haven't liked any of the Spidey flicks so far, you'll like this one even less.
Score:
No comments:
Post a Comment