Slashdot Mirror
Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes "It's a weird time to be Spider-Man. Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man,' which made its debut in 2002, proved (along with Brian Singer's 'X-Men,' released in 2000) that superhero movies could appeal to the mass market, provided they were done right. With or without his Spider-Man mask, Peter Parker (played in Raimi's movie and its two sequels by Tobey Maguire) made for an appealing presence, earnest and kind-hearted even as he punched and trash-talked villains.
A few years after the debut of 'Spider-Man,' Christopher Nolan began his 'Dark Knight' trilogy, and everything changed for the current iteration of superhero movies. Now Spider-Man's earnestness seemed a bit passé, overshadowed by Christian Bale-as-Batman's moral ambiguities and dour growl. With subsequent movies such as 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' and the 'Iron Man' trilogy, the genre deepened still further, more willing to reflect—as Raimi's Spider-Man never had—real-world issues such as terrorism, surveillance, and drones." Read on for the rest of Nerval's Lobster's review. 'Spider-Man 3' (2007) tried to get with the times by giving Maguire a black suit (courtesy of an alien symbiote) and a little bit of an attitude, an effort that pretty much everybody seems to view as a failure. As a character, Spider-Man needed to undergo a more careful revision—to become more nuanced and grounded, all without stripping the character of his agreeability. With 'The Amazing Spider-Man' (2012) and the new 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2,' director Marc Webb attempts to strike that balance, and for the most part he succeeds. His Spider-Man, as played by Andrew Garfield, comes off as a little more street-savvy and a whole lot less emo than Maguire, even if he does shed tears at key moments.
'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' features Spider-Man squaring off against Electro (Jamie Foxx) as well as the Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan) and, briefly, the Rhino (Paul Giamatti). If you think that's too many villains for a feature film, you're right, although Webb manages to weave them into the plot with a bit more finesse than Raimi shoving a trio of wrongdoers into 'Spider-Man 3' (and at least the Green Goblin doesn't look like a Power Ranger this time around). Webb's other thread is the romance between Parker and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), which benefits from chemistry between the two leads, although it's ultimately eclipsed by the inevitable explosions, super-fights, and stunts. As Gwen, Stone gets the chance to play a role with a little more dramatic weight than the standard-issue damsel-in-distress, and late in the movie she gives a speech that virtually breaks the fourth wall to call out superhero movies on their tendency to reduce female characters to little more than eye candy... a speech that's interrupted within seconds by yet another super-powered brawl.
Webb tries to give his new movie some additional weight by making time a major theme. Characters mention they're running out of it; the first shot zooms out from a micro-shot of a wristwatch's gears; much later, the final battle takes place in a clock tower (and ends on a decidedly pessimistic note). In order to prevent the narrative from tumbling into a dour hole, Webb and Garfield try to give Parker some levity, whether he's taunting a would-be super-villain with a bullhorn or engaging in a webbing-powered slapstick routine right out of Buster Keaton. "He's releasing himself into the symbol that he's created," Garfield said in an interview. "He's enjoying the hell out of it while he's doing it."
Spider-Man will never be dark like Nolan's Batman—these movies have an obligation to be colorful and bombastic. But at least this new one gives the web-crawler some shading.
Rating: 8/10"
A few years after the debut of 'Spider-Man,' Christopher Nolan began his 'Dark Knight' trilogy, and everything changed for the current iteration of superhero movies. Now Spider-Man's earnestness seemed a bit passé, overshadowed by Christian Bale-as-Batman's moral ambiguities and dour growl. With subsequent movies such as 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' and the 'Iron Man' trilogy, the genre deepened still further, more willing to reflect—as Raimi's Spider-Man never had—real-world issues such as terrorism, surveillance, and drones." Read on for the rest of Nerval's Lobster's review. 'Spider-Man 3' (2007) tried to get with the times by giving Maguire a black suit (courtesy of an alien symbiote) and a little bit of an attitude, an effort that pretty much everybody seems to view as a failure. As a character, Spider-Man needed to undergo a more careful revision—to become more nuanced and grounded, all without stripping the character of his agreeability. With 'The Amazing Spider-Man' (2012) and the new 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2,' director Marc Webb attempts to strike that balance, and for the most part he succeeds. His Spider-Man, as played by Andrew Garfield, comes off as a little more street-savvy and a whole lot less emo than Maguire, even if he does shed tears at key moments.
'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' features Spider-Man squaring off against Electro (Jamie Foxx) as well as the Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan) and, briefly, the Rhino (Paul Giamatti). If you think that's too many villains for a feature film, you're right, although Webb manages to weave them into the plot with a bit more finesse than Raimi shoving a trio of wrongdoers into 'Spider-Man 3' (and at least the Green Goblin doesn't look like a Power Ranger this time around). Webb's other thread is the romance between Parker and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), which benefits from chemistry between the two leads, although it's ultimately eclipsed by the inevitable explosions, super-fights, and stunts. As Gwen, Stone gets the chance to play a role with a little more dramatic weight than the standard-issue damsel-in-distress, and late in the movie she gives a speech that virtually breaks the fourth wall to call out superhero movies on their tendency to reduce female characters to little more than eye candy... a speech that's interrupted within seconds by yet another super-powered brawl.
Webb tries to give his new movie some additional weight by making time a major theme. Characters mention they're running out of it; the first shot zooms out from a micro-shot of a wristwatch's gears; much later, the final battle takes place in a clock tower (and ends on a decidedly pessimistic note). In order to prevent the narrative from tumbling into a dour hole, Webb and Garfield try to give Parker some levity, whether he's taunting a would-be super-villain with a bullhorn or engaging in a webbing-powered slapstick routine right out of Buster Keaton. "He's releasing himself into the symbol that he's created," Garfield said in an interview. "He's enjoying the hell out of it while he's doing it."
Spider-Man will never be dark like Nolan's Batman—these movies have an obligation to be colorful and bombastic. But at least this new one gives the web-crawler some shading.
Rating: 8/10"
Is this a new movie, or a re-release of Spider-Man 2 from 2004? I thought this was just the 2004 version, run through 3D conversion.
Viewing recent superhero film development as a dialogue between "light and fun" themes and "dark and heavy" attitudes is overly simplistic. These films were not greenlit based on such factors. Decisions like including the black Spider-Man suit in Spider-Man 3 were also not made for such reasons. Nerval's Lobster is out of his depth here.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
I'm judging this based almost solely on the trailers, but the new Peter Parker does not seem dorky enough. He looks like they tried to make him into a hipster instead. The CGI in the trailers, especially for the second movie, makes me think "video game" more than "action movie". And all in all i just don't see the point of Spider-Man reboot so soon.
I've seen all the Marvel movies (great.) I saw Man of Steel (okay movie with significant problems that have already been hashed over.) I saw Wolverine (not perfect, but a lot better than the Origins movie). And i'm going to go see Days of Future Past. I have almost zero interest in seeing the second take of Spider-Man 2. Nothing this review has said really changes my opinion (i don't think Spider-Man really needed that much shading) and some of the things i've read in other reviews have helped bolster that opinion. (Rewriting Spider-Man's backstory via his parents to make him a "destined child" kind of strikes me as wrong.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The movie looks cool. But I am not sure if this deserves to be ranked as one of the best superhero movies in this list... http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-superhero-movies-ever-made
...too retard for my taste. The guy was a crying baby all the time... I gave up watch from the second movie half til now with Andrew Garfield as the main role. Its much better!
Peter Parker has always been a socially inept dweeb. Changing him into a cool Facebook hipster with a girlfriend doesn't appeal to me.
Must have been super recently!
Hollywood has all but given up on original content. There are more and easier profits to be had by adapting works in other media which will bring a built-in audience to the theaters.
That being said, I'm sick of comic book movies.
I mean who even cares? Spiderman and all of these stupid superhero franchises just need to get out of the limelight. Lame, moronic, and waste of money comes to mind.
Cause her character is killed by Green Goblin in the comics. So she should probably be dead by now.
No idea whether I should listen to Nerval's Lobster... but I've come to trust Moviebob, and I've never heard him pan a film like this, ever...
http://www.escapistmagazine.co...
As I have said to many friends recently - I have zero interest in any Superman, Batman or Spiderman movies, TV shows, or animations. They have been done to death.
Look through the list of characters and you will see that DC and Marvel each have hundreds of characters. Let's see something about the other characters. For that matter let's look beyond DC and Marvel and get into some of the stranger and better written characters.
Guardians of the Galaxy looks like it could be good, but then again it will probably be just another dumb superhero movie.
The Japanese make good live action movies of so many of their characters, why can't we see a decent Blackhawk Squadron movie?
Look the back issues of any comic book shop and you can find a plethora of well written material that would make excellent movies. Power Factor would near the top of my list.
Finally to quote Teddy Wilson from Innerspace - Marvel is doing a movie with a talking raccoon and DC can't give us a Wonder Woman movie.
Dude. Do not feed the trolls! ;)
'Spider-Man 3' (2007) tried to get with the times by giving Maguire a black suit (courtesy of an alien symbiote) and a little bit of an attitude, an effort that pretty much everybody seems to view as a failure.
No, Spider-Man 3 was a near-faithful movie version of the alien-suit saga, a pivotal point in Spider-Man's career where the suit was making Peter stronger and a better fighter, but also more callous and brutal. To say the black suit was the director's attempt at an edgy Spider-Man is like saying the death of the witch king in Return of the King was Peter Jackson's attempt at feminist ideology.
Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man,' which made its debut in 2002, proved (along with Brian Singer's 'X-Men,' released in 2000) that superhero movies could appeal to the mass market, provided they were done right.
Really? That was the movie that proved superhero movies could work?
*ahem* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
C'moooon. I don't really think anyone's looking back on Spider-Man as a classic now, let alone in another 24 years' time.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So where the hell is the Civil War arc? The boring old "let's fight the villain and save Earth" storyline is played out.
It's time for internal strife to rip apart our loved ones and reflect the EXACT sort of conflict going on in America right now. The two party system is tearing us apart and causing complete dysfunction. The storyline itself is just as hard hitting now as when it came out. Do we believe in individual freedom or do we clamp down on potential dangers.
And what do the good-guy super heroes do when they disagree with the other good-guy super heroes.
It's not a cheap thriller for kids. It's a mature topic. And beyond all reasonable hopes, I think the right people in Hollywood could actually pull it off.
And I think it's the next logical step. You've got the introduction. The typical story. The crossover. Now it's time to have some serious continuity. People are getting burned out by all these superhero movies. Time to mix it up.
Umm, didn't Superman I from 1978 do that?
(Heck, you could probably make the argument that the Batman movie in the 1960s did too.)
Correct. This review is terrible. The pretense of a professional critical voice, the authoritative tone, the complete lack of accuracy.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Comics retcon and reboot and even feature sometimes parallel yet different story lines. It's a fantasy, there is no consistency mandate. Be strange if the movies weren't the same way.
Tired of the endless reboots of superhero movies? Seems they never progress the story very far (if even a little bit) before "it must be rebooted".
Here's why... Superhero movies come from superhero stories and those stories come from comics for young boys. The premises and stories are stripped down to the level of young boys. It is kept as simple as possible. Bonus if it can be stripped right down to the "good vs evil" bone. There is literally nowhere these stories can go. That is why there is only reboots and not continuing stories.
Oh, in comics there might be a story there somewhere, but at the end of the day the superhero cannot change because then he/she wouldn't be the same superhero he/she was before. In comics, as in movies, there will always be something like alternate universe or time travel or nuclear explosion to set things back to where they were before. In other words, rebooted.
tldr - Simple characters in simple stories cannot change because simple story means there is nowhere to go.
Don't be the reviewer who gives a passing grade to a certified rotten movie. The people you duped into wasting $12 will be after YOUR blood.
To succeed in Hollywood, you have to either be the biggest shark in the tank, or be really good at out-swimming sharks.
When you apply that bullshit survival of the fittest Darwinian tomfoolery to pretty much *any* human social system, you end up with heartless broken crap which benefits a few psychopaths short term and wires an auto-destruct sequence into the DNA of the system as a whole.
Psychopaths are morons. And no, they can't write anything but shallow garbage for a human audience because, duh, you need a soul to do anything with depth, compassion and insight.
Yet another superficial 1980s fanboy mistaking grim-n-gritty stylings for depth and complexity.
Hollywood's handling of superheroes has finally caught up with the early 1990s of corporate comics ... a short-lived sales high, which set up the comics industry for a horrific bust, as the audience got bored with the surface glitz and started to realize how formulaic the writing had become.
What is it with America and superheroes? I don't think any other nation has ever produced quite such a concept. I suppose the nearest thing in UK would be 'super detectives' like Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot or Lord Peter Wimsey, who were intellectual and self-ironic. Or in Scandinavian tradition, the god Thor - who was rather short, red-haired, choleric and not a little stupid, unlike the American re-invention.
The American superheroes all seem to be overgrown teenagers with inflated egoes and shaped like body-builders. I wonder if that is because Americans are obscessed with youth - or perhaps fear of getting old?
Anyone who is above high school grade science will weep watching this film,
This film lost me at the start mility grade plutonium in glass vials.
You known instead of the meter thick lead its usually in,
I think it's good that Hollywood has given up on original content. Not only are adaptations easier and more profitable, most of the time they are far better than original Hollywood movies. Other media typically doesn't rely on famous actors or flashy special effects to impress, so they are necessarily more interesting in content.
And whereas movies used to be longer than TV shows which were primarily episodic, now TV (serious TV anyway) is mostly plotted with full-season arcs. With the modern trend of binge watching, where you queue up a whole season of a show on Netflix or your DVR, movies are pretty much the shortest and shallowest form of entertainment around.
As opposed to, say, the $400 million brought in by Tim Burton's original Batman?
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.