The Amazing Spider-man 2 (2014)

[John Marston]

this movie has a lot of bad and cheesy scenes, but there a lot of good scenes too. It's entertaining overall but it definitely should have been better. I don't think it is as bad as people say though and  I definitely don't think this franchise is beyond saving. 

[DAR]

Tonally it's all over the place. One minute it's jokey. The other super serious. The villains are pretty weak, Foxx especially. And some of the CGI was downright bad. The action scenes were good. I really did like the interaction between Garfield and Stone and it's probably enough to give it a B-

[Breakspear]

Just watched it again and I kinda thought it was better this time round, not sure why. Also still got nervous when Gwen was falling even though I knew it from when I saw it in cinemas and the comics. 

 

Anyone watched it again and changed their mind (better or worse)?

[Wormhole]

Pros: solid action, great chemistry between Garfield and Stone

 

Cons: weak villains, CGI, score

 

B-

[Arroundtable]

While watching The Amazing Spiderman 2 I had a sense of déjà vu , of reliving the train wreck of Sam Raimi’s Spiderman 3 all over again.  I kept searching for a remote control  in order to find the fast forward or mute button in order to save my sanity. As you can see I was not entertained at all by the second installment in this new series. It seemed like the writer took all the wrong elements from the 70’s Spiderman T.V. show and the comic book. Having our hero telling jokes during a chase scene in the movie, endangering people’s lives seemed out of character to me. Spiderman would tell a joke or have a witty remark only when the threat was contained…just saying. Then there is the love story between Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) that seemed like a bad soap opera making the movie feel like a 12 hour mini-series. They should have waited a few more years after Sam Raimi’s original trilogy before putting out another Spiderman movie so as to create a longing and work on a better story.  Hold on web slingers, I will be reviewing the Sam Raimi's original trilogy in the not so distant future as well.

 

Aroundtable

www.aroundtable.ca

[RobinHood26]

Now I think

 

C (75)

[Spidey Freak]

Just watched it again and I kinda thought it was better this time round, not sure why. Also still got nervous when Gwen was falling even though I knew it from when I saw it in cinemas and the comics. 

 

Anyone watched it again and changed their mind (better or worse)?

 

Now that we know all the drama that went behind the scenes, it is easier to differentiate which scenes had Webb's stamp all over it and which scenes were megalomaniac exec masturbation.

 

Andrew Garfield says the Spider-Kid at the end was his idea.

 

 

"That was one of my favorite parts of the film, and it was my idea," Garfield told MTV. "I felt the film was missing me as a seven-year-old. All of us as a seven-year-old, being inspired, and given the strength to be who we are, we can step into fear and be courageous in our own lives."

 

This particular comment and ideology stemmed from Garfield's personal views on the fallacy of many superhero films: that one person, one hero, can save everyone. Instead, he points to leaders that inspired a community that brought about change. "We have had great figures in the history of time -- I think of Gandhi, and John Lennon, and Martin Luther King, whoever you want to name," Garfield explained. "These great, progressive movements… But they’re movements. There just happens to be one person who is the face. That person is a community and that person is bringing their gifts into the community."

 

Solid logic, though I think Peter giving his mask to the kid in the fiery carwreck in the first film was better at getting the message across.

[lilmac]

Summer starts early in some international spots.

 

You are a dear friend. My favorite poster. We go back 13 plus years. Wow!  :-D

[Kosko]

One of the best spidey movie !!! for me this is the best and perfect !!! i wish there would be new heroin for spidey in next movie ... 5/5 !!!

[DAR]

On 8/21/2014 at 11:13 PM, DAR said:

Tonally it's all over the place. One minute it's jokey. The other super serious. The villains are pretty weak, Foxx especially. And some of the CGI was downright bad. The action scenes were good. I really did like the interaction between Garfield and Stone and it's probably enough to give it a B-

This is one of those films where I watched it again and realized the flaws are even worse.  And the parts I thought were good seemed a little shakey.  So dropping this from a B- to a D+

[Blankments]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a total mess. It swings wildly in tone and manages to be more cheesy than any of the Raimi films that have cheese built into them to be tolerable. Garfield's Spider-Man is actually really fun this time, but his Peter is even worse, shockingly still not developing at all despite it being his second film. The action is actually pretty fun and creative, but the villains are horrible cliches with barely any actual character to them. The whole film feels like a variety of plot points and sequel/spin-off hooks spun together into the world's most misshapen web. However, thanks to its total ineptitude, it is much more watchable than its predecessor; this is definitely a memorable film, thanks to how miscalculated it is. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 gracefully closes Garfield's short tenure as the web-slinger, giving him a memorable film to go out on. Too bad he never even had one that was even mediocre; just two awful superhero flicks that deserve to be forgotten as quickly as possible. D-