Latest Entertainment News Headlines

The UnPopular Opinion: The Amazing Spider-man 2

04.09.2015

THE UNPOPULAR OPINION is an ongoing column featuring different takes on films that either the writer HATED, but that the majority of film fans LOVED, or that the writer LOVED, but that most others LOATHED. We're hoping this column will promote constructive and geek fueled discussion. Enjoy!

****SOME SPOILERS ENSUE****

Now that we know Andrew Garfield will not play Peter Parker for a third film, we can reflect on his tenure as your friendly neighborbood Spider-man. I was a fan of Marc Webb's origin story, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, and I also appreciate the sequel, warts and all. I am not going to pretend that there are not flaws in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2, but overall it is an enjoyable portrayal of the character that forgoes all of the elements that handcuffed the first film. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 should have been a jumping off point for some quality Spider-man films that explore where the character could go and it will be a shame that we don't get to see them come to fruition.

You might be already scoffing that someone could find THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to be a good movie, let alone even a tolerable one. Marc Webb's reboot of the beloved Marvel character started with a film rooted in the darkness and nihilism of Christopher Nolan's DARK KNIGHT trilogy, a decision that was not ideal for a character that is the epitome of what comic books should be about. With this sequel, Webb and crew returned the webslinger to his candy-colored, over the top wheelhouse and just went bananas with it. There is zero realism in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 and that is what makes it feel like a genuine comic book movie featuring the character for the first time since Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN 2.

There is a lot of hate for Andrew Garfield's performance as Spider-man, but he truly comes into his own in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2. Garfield imbues Parker and his superhero alter ego with the cocky swagger of a teenager who doesn't have the maturity to deal with his superpowers that is wholly reminiscent of his early days in the comics. His smartass attitude and desire to protect the people he loves while also learning more about how his past fits into the larger scope of the Oscorp conspiracy gives the film an urgency that propels the viewer forward along with Peter. Because this isn't just a hero fighting a villain, the stakes are higher and gives the audience a desire to uncover the mystery unfolding on screen.

Sony pushed very hard for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to be the kickoff film for their own cinematic universe. Hints to this were alluded to in the first film but dropped before it hit theaters. The sequel capitalizes on the connection between Peter's parents and the events unfolding at Oscorp which gives this Spider-man franchise a cohesive nature that the previous trilogy did not have. Marvel Comics have always had massive interconnected narratives that drive their stories and once those tales are told, they often reboot the franchise. Some fans love it while others despise it. It is a shame we will not get to see where all of the breadcrumbs left in this film lead because there were countless possibilities.

Andrew Garfield himself has criticized the final cut of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 and says that studio interference affected the true vision that Marc Webb and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman intended. Yes, there are a lot of things built up in the movie meant for payoff in other films, but the final product is still good in a way that outweighs the negative. Dane DeHaan's menacing take on Harry Osborn outweights the costume design for the transformed Goblin. The visual effects that bring Electro to life outweighs the lack of menace and character development in Jamie Foxx's performance. And, above all, the stunning Emma Stone delivers a very powerful performance that realizes the death of Gwen Stacy that perfectly captures the tone of that story from the comic book.

As I said about THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, what made that film work was Marc Webb's focus on Peter and Gwen's relationship. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is palpable and it carries from that movie to this one. I was never truly sold on Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire as a couple until SPIDER-MAN 2 but Stone and Garfield absolutely shine as a couple on screen and off which makes the final act of the movie all the more powerful. It is a shame that if a third film had been made that we would not have gotten the chance to see more of Stone, but her exit from the franchise will reign as one of the most powerful scenes in superhero movie history.

What works in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 is what is lacking from a lot of superhero movies these days: fun. I appreciate that the darkness that pervades the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the X-MEN films, but they are often too serious. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY broke the mold and showed that you can make an action-packed comic book film that still has a strong undercurrent of comedy which is why that film was so well received. There is definitely a place for movies like CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER, but Spider-man has to be fun. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 was starting to strike that balance for the franchise and it looked like the third film was set to knock it out of the park.

When all is said and done and we look back on the exploits of Spider-man on the silver screen, I am confident that THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 will be well regarded as a great entry in the character's big screen evolution. Like each comic book reboot, the big screen version will be reshaped to mimic the universe it inhabits, for better or for worse. I just think that Marc Webb's efforts to give us a modern take on Peter Parker and his roster of supporting characters was better than many make it out to be.

Oh, and if you have any suggestions for The UnPopular Opinion I’m always happy to hear them. You can send along an email to alexmaidy@joblo.com, spell it out below, slap it up on my wall in Movie Fan Central, or send me a private message via Movie Fan Central. Provide me with as many movie suggestions as you like, with any reasoning you'd care to share, and if I agree then you may one day see it featured in this very column!

CLICK IMAGE TO OPEN GALLERY & SEE MORE PICS...

Source: JoBlo.com

RECOMMENDED MOVIE NEWS

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

5:40AM on 04/11/2015
While the action scenes were well done, I still dug the Times Square scene where we first see Electro. The story is a mess & it suffered like Spider-Man 3 with too many villains. I just didn't care much for these 2 Spider-Man films. Thank God Spidey is back home where he belongs, hopefully no more crappy films, 3 in a row is almost unforgivable.
While the action scenes were well done, I still dug the Times Square scene where we first see Electro. The story is a mess & it suffered like Spider-Man 3 with too many villains. I just didn't care much for these 2 Spider-Man films. Thank God Spidey is back home where he belongs, hopefully no more crappy films, 3 in a row is almost unforgivable.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:24PM on 04/10/2015
Cut the whole missing parents subplot and you get yourself a good Spider-Man movie. Okay, cut the whole Norman/Harry Osborn subplot as well. Dane DeHaan and his silly Goblin makeup was the worst thing in that movie.
Cut the whole missing parents subplot and you get yourself a good Spider-Man movie. Okay, cut the whole Norman/Harry Osborn subplot as well. Dane DeHaan and his silly Goblin makeup was the worst thing in that movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:46PM on 04/09/2015
I had an absolute blast watching this movie, it only saddens me that more people didn't. Too bad. Still hopeful for the Marvel version.
I had an absolute blast watching this movie, it only saddens me that more people didn't. Too bad. Still hopeful for the Marvel version.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:01PM on 04/09/2015

Worst Comic Book Movie Ever (Yes, Worse Than Even Catwoman!)

Andrew Garfield gives a good performance in both ASM movies, and his chemistry with Emma Stone is excellent, it's just that he's not playing Peter Parker. His Peter, as written, is an outcast in name only- good looking, athletic and smart-ish (for all the talk about how much more science based this version was going to be he doesn't do much- he buys his webbing and his costume for christ's sake!), so him being bullied in the first movie was stupid horseshit- especially for trying to save a kid
Andrew Garfield gives a good performance in both ASM movies, and his chemistry with Emma Stone is excellent, it's just that he's not playing Peter Parker. His Peter, as written, is an outcast in name only- good looking, athletic and smart-ish (for all the talk about how much more science based this version was going to be he doesn't do much- he buys his webbing and his costume for christ's sake!), so him being bullied in the first movie was stupid horseshit- especially for trying to save a kid from a bully (such behavior isn't tolerated too much anymore by most students). Peter in the second movie is just as poorly written, and the relationship about he and Gwen is stuck in second gear with every other scene of theirs being whether they are or aren't together. And sense Peter is inexplicably not looking for Uncle Ben's killer here, there is no forward momentum for our leads, which isn't a good sign. Jamie Foxx's performance is piss poor and unintentionally funny as hell, and his character looks bad (Green Lantern bad looking effects imo), and his motivation makes exactly zero sense. I really liked Dane Dehaan as Harry, but he is poorly shoehorned in there, and his subplot just makes Peter/ Spidey look like a giant douche monger- why not just try using your blood to save your supposed best friend's life you selfish prick? Admit to him you're Spider-Man, and make a deal- if it goes wrong, you'll be forced to do something drastic- dramatic stakes are then introduced, and you are no longer a flaming fuck face.

While the Marvel movies have dark moments (and all of Thor: The Dark World, IM3, and Winter Soldier), they are solid amounts of fun and comedic relief throughout most of them, moreso than Nolan's bleak trilogy or Man Of Steel, so I think you are being too harsh there. I do agree though, that ASM2 tried to bring the character to a more fun point than in the first, but everything felt half-assed, unfinished, and pointless. And even the abysmal Green Lantern and worse Catwoman had points they failed to make. Thus, worst comic book movie of all time (to date).
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
3:23PM on 04/09/2015

Never got the hate.

Sure, GG was hammered into this movie like a square peg into a round hole. And sure, his costume was effing terrible and his appearance cancelled out some proper Electro character developing scenes, but there was just too much good in this movie to outweigh that particular badness. I mark it up as the second best Spider-Man movie ever made. Right behind Spider-Man 2.
Sure, GG was hammered into this movie like a square peg into a round hole. And sure, his costume was effing terrible and his appearance cancelled out some proper Electro character developing scenes, but there was just too much good in this movie to outweigh that particular badness. I mark it up as the second best Spider-Man movie ever made. Right behind Spider-Man 2.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:30PM on 04/09/2015
ASM2 was a very good movie. Had the exact same movie been made by Disney (Marvel-Studios) everyone would have pretended to love it instead of hate it.
ASM2 was a very good movie. Had the exact same movie been made by Disney (Marvel-Studios) everyone would have pretended to love it instead of hate it.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:08PM on 04/09/2015
No that's an assumption created to fit your argument based on nothing. For example I for one didn't like the ASM2 at all and sure, its not created by Marvel. I like the X-Men movies as individual films (not so much as a series I guess because they're a bit confused) but they are also not made by Marvel. I wasn't that keen on Incredible Hulk or the Thor movies and they ARE made by Marvel. Let's be realistic here. You don't know what people do or don't like or why.
No that's an assumption created to fit your argument based on nothing. For example I for one didn't like the ASM2 at all and sure, its not created by Marvel. I like the X-Men movies as individual films (not so much as a series I guess because they're a bit confused) but they are also not made by Marvel. I wasn't that keen on Incredible Hulk or the Thor movies and they ARE made by Marvel. Let's be realistic here. You don't know what people do or don't like or why.
4:03PM on 04/09/2015
If the exact same movie was made Marvel, everyone would have rioted in the streets. It's a bloody mess of stupid.
If the exact same movie was made Marvel, everyone would have rioted in the streets. It's a bloody mess of stupid.
12:17PM on 04/09/2015
Yeah. In the minority, but I actually thought ASM2 was a great film with very minor problems... Mostly involving Jamie Foxx pre Electro. Dane Dehaan as Harry alone made the movie.
Yeah. In the minority, but I actually thought ASM2 was a great film with very minor problems... Mostly involving Jamie Foxx pre Electro. Dane Dehaan as Harry alone made the movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:07PM on 04/09/2015
Meh, ASM and ASM2 were alright films to me, nothing more. Nothing beats Spider-man 2 (2004), which is the best Spider-man film of any kind to date, and one of the best comic book movies.
Meh, ASM and ASM2 were alright films to me, nothing more. Nothing beats Spider-man 2 (2004), which is the best Spider-man film of any kind to date, and one of the best comic book movies.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:17AM on 04/09/2015

I could go for an onpopular opinion on Spiderman 3 which I find vastly underated.

I loved the first one and thought it was probably better than Raimi's first (although that gets credit for having to tackle the charecter for the first time on film) but this one was by far the worst Spiderman movie that's come out so far. I also think It's the only one that's truly aful. The problem was that they just tried to do way too much. Too much time was spent on the relationship (which I enjoyed) and the story was all over the place. Any movie that outright skips over Norman Osbourne
I loved the first one and thought it was probably better than Raimi's first (although that gets credit for having to tackle the charecter for the first time on film) but this one was by far the worst Spiderman movie that's come out so far. I also think It's the only one that's truly aful. The problem was that they just tried to do way too much. Too much time was spent on the relationship (which I enjoyed) and the story was all over the place. Any movie that outright skips over Norman Osbourne completley to get to Harry as the Goblin, just so he can be shoehornd in at the last second so that Gwen Stacy can dye, has no grasp of competent story structure. Thier best course of action would have been to end with a tease of the Goblin and then kil her off a third or so of the way through the third film. This would have allowed for them to develop the Goblin as a villian first.

That being said I still would have loved to see what they would have done continuing the franchise (still want that Venom movie).
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:29AM on 04/09/2015
The Spider-Man canon is full of cool villains. Electro as he was presented in this film was absolute garbage. A weak character suddenly given strength, he was attempted to be presented sympathetically like Doc Ock was in the 2nd Raimi film. But his actions made him unredeemable and not a good villain for Spider-Man.

Taken on its own merits it was less than compelling. In comparison to other villains it fails completely. Even the Lizard from the Amazing Spider-Man was a better villain.
The Spider-Man canon is full of cool villains. Electro as he was presented in this film was absolute garbage. A weak character suddenly given strength, he was attempted to be presented sympathetically like Doc Ock was in the 2nd Raimi film. But his actions made him unredeemable and not a good villain for Spider-Man.

Taken on its own merits it was less than compelling. In comparison to other villains it fails completely. Even the Lizard from the Amazing Spider-Man was a better villain. Marc Webb didn't develop the villain story the right way with the right timing and connection to the main plot line. He was there just because they needed a backdrop villain for the tragic love story loss. Never shoe-horn a villain in, it has to make sense.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:21AM on 04/09/2015
I don't think I can totally agree with this. I'll give you that ASM 2 was a fun movie. But that does not make it a good film. Just because it didn't decide to go the "dark" route like Dark Knight trilogy, doesn't mean that doing something different means it's good. And frankly, for a Spiderman movie, the film went plenty dark with it's take on the character. The teen angst/loneliness from Peter Parker was turned up to 11 from what he's like in the comics. Peter rarely spends time
I don't think I can totally agree with this. I'll give you that ASM 2 was a fun movie. But that does not make it a good film. Just because it didn't decide to go the "dark" route like Dark Knight trilogy, doesn't mean that doing something different means it's good. And frankly, for a Spiderman movie, the film went plenty dark with it's take on the character. The teen angst/loneliness from Peter Parker was turned up to 11 from what he's like in the comics. Peter rarely spends time agonizing over his parents, he has much more issues with the passing of Uncle Ben which seemed to be sidelined in this take on the character.

You reference two specific things that you think are evidence this is a great movie: 1) Dane Dehaan's performance outweighs the effects/appearance of his goblin costume, and 2) The effects of Electro outweigh the lack of character development for Jamie Foxx. Not sure why having one over the other is proof this is a good movie. Shouldn't they strive for a good performance from Dane AND had excellent work on his costume? Shouldn't they have presented great effects for Electro AND written a good character progression for the character? Not sure why one or the other is acceptable to make an entertaining movie, it should always be the goal to deliver both, not either or.

And as a final note, but somewhat off topic, what are you talking about that Marvel delivers dark and brooding superhero movies. Sure there are serious moments in each film, but I'd hardly call the MCU dark and brooding. I'd say it's the closest thing we've ever received to an honest adaptation of the Marvel Universe.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:17AM on 04/09/2015

Borefest

ASM 2 had moments of cool, but overall, I thought it was a soggy, boring mess. And I don't even care about the flaws, with the exception of the 2 action scenes with Electro, the rest of the film was slow and plodding. I actually fell asleep on it at the theater. gave it a second chance on television and still got the same reaction. easily the worst of the spider-man films. (SM 3 was bad, but at least Sandman had a somewhat engaging story)...** (out of ****)
ASM 2 had moments of cool, but overall, I thought it was a soggy, boring mess. And I don't even care about the flaws, with the exception of the 2 action scenes with Electro, the rest of the film was slow and plodding. I actually fell asleep on it at the theater. gave it a second chance on television and still got the same reaction. easily the worst of the spider-man films. (SM 3 was bad, but at least Sandman had a somewhat engaging story)...** (out of ****)
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:15AM on 04/09/2015
I'm going to agree with you a lot.; I liked Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I loved Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. What I loathed was Jamie Foxx as Electro. I didn't love DeHaan as Harry Osbourne either. In comparison, I felt that James Franco's Harry Osbourne was far more realized. Overall the film had major flaws, but what works are the hero and his girl. That rang true, and the clever writing at the beginning, with Gwen giving her speech while Spider-Man defeats Alexei Systevich
I'm going to agree with you a lot.; I liked Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I loved Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. What I loathed was Jamie Foxx as Electro. I didn't love DeHaan as Harry Osbourne either. In comparison, I felt that James Franco's Harry Osbourne was far more realized. Overall the film had major flaws, but what works are the hero and his girl. That rang true, and the clever writing at the beginning, with Gwen giving her speech while Spider-Man defeats Alexei Systevich (Rhino) gave foreshadowing to the fate of Gwen which all fans of Spider-Man were anticipating. Emma Stone's performance was spot on. And the chemistry with Garfield was tangible. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film that didn't live up to what it should have been, but it had a lot of very good elements to it.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
9:37AM on 04/09/2015
Couldn't agree more. I enjoyed both 1 and 2, and was looking forward to what they promised with the Sinister Six. I really don't get the hatred for the reboots. Honestly believe people made up their minds before they saw it, and stuck to their guns regardless of how good it was. Did it have flaws? What movie doesn't? Obviously we could've done without Super Spy Daddy Parker lol, but whatever, didn't bug me like it did everyone else. Sure they turned Rhino into Homie the Clown for some weird
Couldn't agree more. I enjoyed both 1 and 2, and was looking forward to what they promised with the Sinister Six. I really don't get the hatred for the reboots. Honestly believe people made up their minds before they saw it, and stuck to their guns regardless of how good it was. Did it have flaws? What movie doesn't? Obviously we could've done without Super Spy Daddy Parker lol, but whatever, didn't bug me like it did everyone else. Sure they turned Rhino into Homie the Clown for some weird reason, but my biggest gripe about Rhino's arc was not being able to see that final fight! I trust Marvel to do Spider-Man justice in Civil War, but I wasn't clamoring for Spideys return to Marvel like everyone else. I wanted to see the universe they had in mind.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:33PM on 04/09/2015
I thought that ending was great, it was about saying this is who spiderman was and his endless battle with future foes. I thought it was a great and refreshing way to end it and when he finds out about his father and that his blood is the reason he is essentially spiderman was extremely powerful.
I thought that ending was great, it was about saying this is who spiderman was and his endless battle with future foes. I thought it was a great and refreshing way to end it and when he finds out about his father and that his blood is the reason he is essentially spiderman was extremely powerful.
+0
9:30AM on 04/09/2015

6/10 (minor spoilers ahead).

Too much build-up and not enough pay-off? I wouldn’t put it that way. After all, the Sam Raimi trilogy also spent too much time setting things up. It’s what franchises do in order to... well, be franchises. At least this time, HARRY OSBOURNE is introduced and becomes the GREEN GOBLIN in the same movie, unlike SPIDER-MAN PART 2 where his entire subplot was build-up. That movie also introduced CURT CONNORS who didn’t transform into THE LIZARD in that one nor in the 3rd one, and I doubt he
Too much build-up and not enough pay-off? I wouldn’t put it that way. After all, the Sam Raimi trilogy also spent too much time setting things up. It’s what franchises do in order to... well, be franchises. At least this time, HARRY OSBOURNE is introduced and becomes the GREEN GOBLIN in the same movie, unlike SPIDER-MAN PART 2 where his entire subplot was build-up. That movie also introduced CURT CONNORS who didn’t transform into THE LIZARD in that one nor in the 3rd one, and I doubt he would’ve transformed in the 4th one if there had been one. Speaking of SPIDER-MAN PART 3, that movie gets trashed more than it should. Say what you want about it, but even with the excess of characters, there was still enough time devoted to PETER. Here, there are only a couple of scenes that are about him. The rest of the time, he’s just reacting to other characters’ subplots (including GWEN’s). Therefore, he’s not really the protagonist. It’s not as bad as BATMAN in his ‘90s movies, but that’s not saying much. The acting and the action sequences, which were outstanding in the 1st installment, are merely passable here. In fact, Dane DeHaan is constantly on the line between bad whiny performance and playing a whiny character the way an actor is supposed to.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:08PM on 04/09/2015
Actually, as far Connors in Raimi's movies is concerned, it has been stated that turning him into the Lizard was the intended goal of the fourth movie.
Actually, as far Connors in Raimi's movies is concerned, it has been stated that turning him into the Lizard was the intended goal of the fourth movie.
8:48AM on 04/09/2015
Honestly, if anyone genuinely don't get the hate for this movie or its predecessor, I highly recommend looking up the Film Crit Hulk's 2 articles about the movies. I had already made up my mind about how bad they are, but he has some brilliant insights on exactly why the franchise was so awful. They're great reads.
Honestly, if anyone genuinely don't get the hate for this movie or its predecessor, I highly recommend looking up the Film Crit Hulk's 2 articles about the movies. I had already made up my mind about how bad they are, but he has some brilliant insights on exactly why the franchise was so awful. They're great reads.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:48AM on 04/09/2015

NO

I respect your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more.
I loved Garfield as Spidey, but this film was absolute garbage. It seemed like they threw whatever they wanted into this movie to set up a "shared universe" at the expense of telling a cohesive story.
And the Green Goblin? Don't even get me started. Having Harry Osborn be the Goblin first RUINS the entire arc of his character. He goes from "I just found out my dad is a criminal and I think my best friend killed him" to "Give me your
I respect your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more.
I loved Garfield as Spidey, but this film was absolute garbage. It seemed like they threw whatever they wanted into this movie to set up a "shared universe" at the expense of telling a cohesive story.
And the Green Goblin? Don't even get me started. Having Harry Osborn be the Goblin first RUINS the entire arc of his character. He goes from "I just found out my dad is a criminal and I think my best friend killed him" to "Give me your blood"! Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Imagine if the next Batman movie said that it would feature the Joker and Harley Quinn, but Joker is going to die before meeting Batman, and Harley Quinn is going to do all of the important Joker stuff. That's what this movie did with the Green Goblin. Norman Osborn is Spider-Man's greatest nemesis, and they swept him under the rug like he was a dust bunny.
At least I don't hate this movie as much as I did before Spidey was worked into the MCU. That news is the one silver lining of this turd of a movie. Garfield deserved a lot better.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:27AM on 04/09/2015
I think Garfield did a good job in the role based on what he was given, but I prefer Tobey. And a big reason why is because his peter Parker is more fleshed out. Defenders of this movie always talk about how great the relationship with Gwen works, and I agree, but that is the only thing this movie cares about. There's no scenes of peter in school, or working at the daily planet, or a part time job, etc. all those little pieces in the Raimi film fleshed out the character far more than anything
I think Garfield did a good job in the role based on what he was given, but I prefer Tobey. And a big reason why is because his peter Parker is more fleshed out. Defenders of this movie always talk about how great the relationship with Gwen works, and I agree, but that is the only thing this movie cares about. There's no scenes of peter in school, or working at the daily planet, or a part time job, etc. all those little pieces in the Raimi film fleshed out the character far more than anything in the new movies. Also, your article doesn't even mention that they completely dropped the subplot of peter looking for uncle ben's killer at the end of the first movie, so don't even pretend like these are more cohesive than Raimi's.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:32AM on 04/09/2015
Sorry, I meant the daily bugle. I guess it's too early here, lol.
Sorry, I meant the daily bugle. I guess it's too early here, lol.
12:57AM on 04/10/2015
Yea tobey McGuire was definitely the better Peter Parker, but I think Garfield was the better Spider-Man, honestly neither one of them hit the nail on the head when it came to Spider-Man's wisecracking, but Garfield had the better look, build, and jokes seemed a little more natural compared to mcguires.
Yea tobey McGuire was definitely the better Peter Parker, but I think Garfield was the better Spider-Man, honestly neither one of them hit the nail on the head when it came to Spider-Man's wisecracking, but Garfield had the better look, build, and jokes seemed a little more natural compared to mcguires.
+0
8:22AM on 04/09/2015
I fall in a very interesting camp on ASM and it's sequel. You see, I do not think they are necessarily good movies. However, I feel the same way about Rami's trilogy.

I feel like for every "right" decision fanboys praise in Rami's trilogy, there were just as many horrible choices. And for every "wrong" decision in the ASM movies, I feel like there are some right ones too. I absolutely hated Maguire and Dunst in the roles. Which is sad 'cause I have always adored Dunst, as Maguire has solid
I fall in a very interesting camp on ASM and it's sequel. You see, I do not think they are necessarily good movies. However, I feel the same way about Rami's trilogy.

I feel like for every "right" decision fanboys praise in Rami's trilogy, there were just as many horrible choices. And for every "wrong" decision in the ASM movies, I feel like there are some right ones too. I absolutely hated Maguire and Dunst in the roles. Which is sad 'cause I have always adored Dunst, as Maguire has solid chops.... But I didn't buy his dweeby Parker as actually dweeby- more stunted than nerdy. And poor MJ was cardboard. The third movie was as steaming pile of shit.

I understand why some people dislike the modern take on Perer's character, but let's take a minute to be realistic here.... "Geeks" and "Nerds" like 1960s or even 1980s Parker don't exist in the same way in today's High Shool landscape. Unless you wanted to make Peter goth, gay, or COMPLETLEY socially stunted then you aren't going to have a believeable "Bully-bait" Parker. My husband has taught in local highschools and my younger sisters are in High Shool, so I have some insight into your modern teenager....

As far as the ASM villains go, making Oscorp responsible for all the villains is lazy. They were obviously going for "connected" and just went the easiest and lamest route with it.... But I liked these takes on the Lizard (for the most part) and Harry/the Goblin. I was not that into Electro, tho. Jamie Foxx bored me senseless here. He was as bad, if not worse, than the Franco Goblin and Venom of S3. Okay, so many not as bad as Venom but damn close.

Both franchises have amazing supporting casts. Both Rosemary Harris and Sally Fields really sell their respective takes on Aunt May. I loved The original trilogy's use of Simmons.

Both franchises are overstuffed, especially in their final entries. I feel like the subplot with the Parker's IN ASM2 could have been really interesting with some of the fat trimmed in other areas of the film (the bloated Oscorp and Electro storylines, The Rhino....)

So basically, to sum this up, NONE of the Spider-Man movies has actually been great.... I'm fact, as much fun as 4 of these 5 movies are for me.... they all just kind of blow in their own way.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:08PM on 04/09/2015
SM2 is still the best of them, though.
SM2 is still the best of them, though.
8:13AM on 04/09/2015
I'm kinda half and half. On one end, I liked Garfield as Peter/Spidey and Emma Stone was a far better love interest than Kirsten Dunst ever was. My issue was the story. It felt too much like "We are making this so we can make Sinister 6 and Spidey 3" and a lot less an actual ASM sequel. Also, the one constant in Raimi's Spider-man is Uncle Ben, which is now Peter's parents. It's a great new way to do it but Uncle Ben barely gets a shout out in ASM2 and the reason he IS Spider-man, regardless
I'm kinda half and half. On one end, I liked Garfield as Peter/Spidey and Emma Stone was a far better love interest than Kirsten Dunst ever was. My issue was the story. It felt too much like "We are making this so we can make Sinister 6 and Spidey 3" and a lot less an actual ASM sequel. Also, the one constant in Raimi's Spider-man is Uncle Ben, which is now Peter's parents. It's a great new way to do it but Uncle Ben barely gets a shout out in ASM2 and the reason he IS Spider-man, regardless of his dads experiments, is because of how Uncle Ben died. Electro was also boring and Harry into Goblin was boring too.
Those aside, I still wish Garfield or at least ASM universe would continue in to Cap 3 Civil War instead of reboot a third time.
Oh well
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:20AM on 04/09/2015
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad! Based of the buzz I chose not to support this tripe at the cinema. For me it proved to be the right choice.

While I appreciate the opinion in the article, this universe did not feel cohesive at all to me. The next movie was to be an all villain entry with no Spider-Man at all. It sounded like yet another overcrowded and desperate attempt to fast track what Marvel had done with their universe. I really think it is a bullet well dodged that this ended before it
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad! Based of the buzz I chose not to support this tripe at the cinema. For me it proved to be the right choice.

While I appreciate the opinion in the article, this universe did not feel cohesive at all to me. The next movie was to be an all villain entry with no Spider-Man at all. It sounded like yet another overcrowded and desperate attempt to fast track what Marvel had done with their universe. I really think it is a bullet well dodged that this ended before it got worse. For me there was nothing about how they were going about this franchise that inspired confidence.

Also, Marvel Cinematic Universe is too serious? I'd say it was Winter Soldier that was the exception to the rule in having a more serious tone, as opposed to Guardians for being funny. Most Marvel movies have a lot of humour. IMO Amazing Spider-man 2 was definitely not the one to break the mold in that respect.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:51AM on 04/09/2015
I loved it. It had all the right elements, the action and the score was good, yeh it had holes but what film doesn't. I thought the ending was very powerful and definitely hit the right notes in terms of emotion. Something which Man of Steel really lacked. I think its a shame that they will be rebooting again, I thought Marc Webb did a solid job and this coming from someone who was against the reboot in the first place.
I loved it. It had all the right elements, the action and the score was good, yeh it had holes but what film doesn't. I thought the ending was very powerful and definitely hit the right notes in terms of emotion. Something which Man of Steel really lacked. I think its a shame that they will be rebooting again, I thought Marc Webb did a solid job and this coming from someone who was against the reboot in the first place.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:21PM on 04/09/2015
The score was good? It felt like someone ws yelling and screaming at me Everytime electro had a scene. Absolutely awful score
The score was good? It felt like someone ws yelling and screaming at me Everytime electro had a scene. Absolutely awful score
4:28AM on 04/09/2015
With respect... BOLLOCKS!
With respect... BOLLOCKS!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:09AM on 04/09/2015
Seen it recently. I liked the character of Peter Parker and Spiderman. It was entertaining and sometimes funny. The villains evolutions seemed a bit forced. Still, I would give it a 6,5/10.
Seen it recently. I liked the character of Peter Parker and Spiderman. It was entertaining and sometimes funny. The villains evolutions seemed a bit forced. Still, I would give it a 6,5/10.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+3
3:01AM on 04/09/2015

I Agree Wholeheartedly

For the last year I've felt hesitant to bring up this movie in discussions on movie message boards BECAUSE so many people act like the movie is akin to the plague.

I rather enjoyed it...it was definitely better than Spider-Man 3 and the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is completely solid (not surprisingly). As I look back on the Raimi films as we get further and further from them I realize how much Maguire was a poor choice for that role. I never liked Dunst either.

Not just the
For the last year I've felt hesitant to bring up this movie in discussions on movie message boards BECAUSE so many people act like the movie is akin to the plague.

I rather enjoyed it...it was definitely better than Spider-Man 3 and the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is completely solid (not surprisingly). As I look back on the Raimi films as we get further and further from them I realize how much Maguire was a poor choice for that role. I never liked Dunst either.

Not just the chemistry, I also thought the movie was just a fun time with a very emotional and meaningful loss at the end. I loved Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborne and I was so excited to see where his character would go in the following movies.

It's severely disappointing to me, despite my major excitement over Spider-Man coming to the MCU, that we won't be seeing Garfield (an excellent Parker and Spider-Man) or DeHaan again in those roles.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:04AM on 04/10/2015
MJW was horribly miscast with Dunst, like not even close lol. MJ Is a complete bombshell, and a driving force behind Spider-Man. Not some whiny bitch who complains about struggling as an actor. And I'm pretty sure she wasn't banging Harry in the comics. I don't know why they strayed so far from who she really was, and I'm completely flabbergasted that someone(an entire group maybe) looked at Dunst and said "that's our MJ, she's perfect!" :/
MJW was horribly miscast with Dunst, like not even close lol. MJ Is a complete bombshell, and a driving force behind Spider-Man. Not some whiny bitch who complains about struggling as an actor. And I'm pretty sure she wasn't banging Harry in the comics. I don't know why they strayed so far from who she really was, and I'm completely flabbergasted that someone(an entire group maybe) looked at Dunst and said "that's our MJ, she's perfect!" :/
2:37AM on 04/09/2015

Not interested in seeing it.

And this article hasn't swayed me.
And this article hasn't swayed me.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:26AM on 04/09/2015

I'm a defender.

I've been an avid defender of this movie since my friend and I saw it opening weekend. We both couldn't understand why it got such bad reviews. Now, I'm not STUPID. This is a seriously flawed movie. The villains motivations and the Parker parents subplot and is oscorp are so shoehorned that it's unbearable.

That being said, I love this movie...for the performances of Emma, Andrew. and Sally. First, I Andrews portrayal of Peter Parker is wonderful. I HATE when people get all up in arms
I've been an avid defender of this movie since my friend and I saw it opening weekend. We both couldn't understand why it got such bad reviews. Now, I'm not STUPID. This is a seriously flawed movie. The villains motivations and the Parker parents subplot and is oscorp are so shoehorned that it's unbearable.

That being said, I love this movie...for the performances of Emma, Andrew. and Sally. First, I Andrews portrayal of Peter Parker is wonderful. I HATE when people get all up in arms about how he's too much of a hipster douche in these movies and that in the comics he's more of a nerdy wallflower. First of all, that's a load of bullshit. Yea Peter parkers nerdy...till the end of the 60's. Once the artists stopped drawing him with glasses. Second, Andrew makes the perfect choice to play Peter as this generations geek and his flawless portrayal of Spiderman are 10 times more interesting and intriguing than tobeys portrayal.
Spiderman 2 by Sam raimi is the best spiderman. But holy shit, do I wanna shoot myself every time the main characters talk to eachother. The chemistry between Tobey and Kirsten and the wizard of oz is so awkward and forced, it makes me cringe. So much so that it was such a breathe of fresh air to actually be engaged in the performances between the actors in ASM2. Holy shit, Emma stone and Andrew Garfield completely draw you in. Their chemistry is so infectious. I wish they were given another chance with a more cohesive script.

While the performances keep me attitude towards this movie positive the real reason I fell for this movie from the real reason I love this movie, is Spiderman. The rino scene in the beginning and end is feels pulled directly out of the comics. I was so giddy watching that scene after such a bizzare and incoherent opening its crazy. But I wasn't sold until Spiderman walks that kid home after kids bully him. I swear, I turned to my friend and said I love this movie. THAT was the most sincere portrayal of Spiderman that has been on the screen. Spiderman is a hero of the people. And while raimi tries to acknowledge that in his films, they always feel forced compared to this simple scene.

I don't agree with this article on many things but I am defintley on the unpopular opinion side. While this is far from the best Spiderman movie. That's still Raimis Spiderman 2. It is MY favorite Spiderman movie. The movie pisses a lot of people off. I can understand that. I just doesn't piss me off.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:36AM on 04/09/2015

100% agree

I am in the camp that believes that these movies are better than Raimis versions and I Absolutely think these movies are immensely enjoyable and Andrew Garfields portrayal is more spot on than Tobeys was. I am somewhat sad that this series will never get any sort of closure or resolution. I am however happy that Spiderman is now part of the MCU
I am in the camp that believes that these movies are better than Raimis versions and I Absolutely think these movies are immensely enjoyable and Andrew Garfields portrayal is more spot on than Tobeys was. I am somewhat sad that this series will never get any sort of closure or resolution. I am however happy that Spiderman is now part of the MCU
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:30AM on 04/09/2015
I enjoyed this movie immensely. Sure it feels all over the place, but I loved Garfield, Emma Stone, and Dane DeHaan's performances. I appreciated the theme of abandonment with Peter, Gwen, Harry and Max (though it should have been explored more). And anyone who complains that Rhino was corny... Exactly when was The Rhino the picture of dramatic evil?
I enjoyed this movie immensely. Sure it feels all over the place, but I loved Garfield, Emma Stone, and Dane DeHaan's performances. I appreciated the theme of abandonment with Peter, Gwen, Harry and Max (though it should have been explored more). And anyone who complains that Rhino was corny... Exactly when was The Rhino the picture of dramatic evil?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:57AM on 04/09/2015
Dane DeHaan was good as Harry Osborn but the scenes with Electro were just boring and the storyline about Peter's parents was a waste of time. Movie makers should focus on making one good movie rather than plotting out a whole series of future movies. Because we have already had a movie with the Green Goblin, I would have made this the Sinister Six movie with Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, the Shocker, the Scorpion, the Rhino and the Vulture as the Sinister Six. A future movie could have
Dane DeHaan was good as Harry Osborn but the scenes with Electro were just boring and the storyline about Peter's parents was a waste of time. Movie makers should focus on making one good movie rather than plotting out a whole series of future movies. Because we have already had a movie with the Green Goblin, I would have made this the Sinister Six movie with Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, the Shocker, the Scorpion, the Rhino and the Vulture as the Sinister Six. A future movie could have Kraven the Hunter, the Spider Slayer and the Green Goblin again. This movie was just... blah. They created the movie with a better movie in mind that they were saving for later.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:55AM on 04/09/2015
There are some editions of this column that just can't help but feel like trolling...and then there are ones that actually feel like they're well thought-out, genuine, but perhaps a bit misguided. This would fall in the latter category, so I can at least respect the effort for this one, Alex!

That said....nah. There are so many flaws in this movie that I don't even know where to begin. It was a franchise-killer, nothing more needs to be said. I do have a few gripes with some things said in
There are some editions of this column that just can't help but feel like trolling...and then there are ones that actually feel like they're well thought-out, genuine, but perhaps a bit misguided. This would fall in the latter category, so I can at least respect the effort for this one, Alex!

That said....nah. There are so many flaws in this movie that I don't even know where to begin. It was a franchise-killer, nothing more needs to be said. I do have a few gripes with some things said in the article though. 1) That the 2 TASM films feel more cohesive than the Raimi trilogy. That's BS, since the two Webb films couldn't feel more different if they tried. Completely different tones, completely different scope/scale, etc. Cohesive would be one of the last words I'd ever use to describe these movies. Raimi actually cared about the character, which led to a MUCH more balanced Spidey/Peter Parker than Webb's version.

2) That this film was "fun". It's so tonally uneven that it doesn't even know what kind of movie it wants to be: a dark/gritty sequel, a laid-back summer blockbuster, a Batman & Robin homage. It swings from romantic/comedy to dark/gritty to campy in a matter of minutes, it's a wonder audiences didn't get whiplash from it.

3) And I VERY much disagree that the MCU films are "too serious". That's just objectively not even true. In fact, the public opinion is almost the exact opposite - that the films don't take themselves seriously enough, to the extent that people cite The Winter Soldier and Iron Man as the FEW movies actually are serious. It's just an extremely weird position to make, almost as if you made up that point just so it'd help your case with TASM 2. Very odd.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:52AM on 04/09/2015

Definition of a guilty pleasure

To pretend that it's anything else is just lying to yourself.
To pretend that it's anything else is just lying to yourself.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:50AM on 04/09/2015

Completely Agree

I really dug Amazing Spider-man 2 and don't understand why people hate on it so much. It has problems but nothing too major. Basically everything I felt the Raimi films did wrong Webb did exceptionally well. But unfortunately the film suffers from having too much plot and not enough pay off for each one. Just a lot of ideas that should have been either cut or slimmed down. I can't blame them though I really like the direction they were taking, I could nitpick here and there, but overall it was
I really dug Amazing Spider-man 2 and don't understand why people hate on it so much. It has problems but nothing too major. Basically everything I felt the Raimi films did wrong Webb did exceptionally well. But unfortunately the film suffers from having too much plot and not enough pay off for each one. Just a lot of ideas that should have been either cut or slimmed down. I can't blame them though I really like the direction they were taking, I could nitpick here and there, but overall it was a good film.

It did bug the crap out of me that they showed the final scene in the trailer. Why the hell would you do that?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:41AM on 04/09/2015

There was a good movie inside there

That was destroyed by Sony's hands. Fox and the character were bad but I think Harry was probably a more fleshed out character before the editing came to be. I didn't hate it but didn't love it either. It was purely eh.
That was destroyed by Sony's hands. Fox and the character were bad but I think Harry was probably a more fleshed out character before the editing came to be. I didn't hate it but didn't love it either. It was purely eh.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:02AM on 04/09/2015
"I think Harry was probably a more fleshed out character before the editing came to be"

Based on what?

Personally, I thought DeHaan's Harry Osborn was pretty good and that we should have had more of that simply because it was one of the few things about the movie that did work.
"I think Harry was probably a more fleshed out character before the editing came to be"

Based on what?

Personally, I thought DeHaan's Harry Osborn was pretty good and that we should have had more of that simply because it was one of the few things about the movie that did work.
8:57AM on 04/09/2015
There are hints in the trailer that he and Chris Cooper had more scenes together. I feel that in those scenes Harry would have been fleshed out more.
There are hints in the trailer that he and Chris Cooper had more scenes together. I feel that in those scenes Harry would have been fleshed out more.
12:39AM on 04/09/2015
This movie was awful. Didn't like Garfield's portrayal of making Peter a hipster douchebag, Electro's motive was uninspired and reeked too much of the Riddler in Batman Forever, the whole idea of Osborne being the origin for all of the villains thus far was lazy writing, Giamatti was just awful as the Rhino, and the fact that they didn't build up Peter and Harry's friendship at all to the point where we should actually give a shit. And also how he broke his promise to Gwen Stacy's father to not
This movie was awful. Didn't like Garfield's portrayal of making Peter a hipster douchebag, Electro's motive was uninspired and reeked too much of the Riddler in Batman Forever, the whole idea of Osborne being the origin for all of the villains thus far was lazy writing, Giamatti was just awful as the Rhino, and the fact that they didn't build up Peter and Harry's friendship at all to the point where we should actually give a shit. And also how he broke his promise to Gwen Stacy's father to not date his daughter. And the fact that they tried to shoehorn the whole mystery of Peter's parents.

The only saving grace from the first two films was Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. Glad this rebooted franchise is done with and that the rights are back where they belong.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:38AM on 04/09/2015
i enjoyed the two movies and i agree with you on a weak electro, and rhino and friendship between peter and harry. However, I don't feel that peter is a hipster in any way.
i enjoyed the two movies and i agree with you on a weak electro, and rhino and friendship between peter and harry. However, I don't feel that peter is a hipster in any way.
9:33AM on 04/09/2015
I agree with Conman. You make all valid points EXCEPT on Garfield playing a hipster. I think that's just his look. To me he played a strong Peter Parker and true interpretation of Spiderman's lighter humurous side. Don't understand how anyone could like Tobey's take. Yuck!
I agree with Conman. You make all valid points EXCEPT on Garfield playing a hipster. I think that's just his look. To me he played a strong Peter Parker and true interpretation of Spiderman's lighter humurous side. Don't understand how anyone could like Tobey's take. Yuck!
View All Comments

Latest Entertainment News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Featured Youtube Videos

Views and Counting

Movie Hottie Of The Week

More