Movie Review: “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” still fails to amaze

ImageIf there’s a tie that binds most of the characters of the Marvel Universe together, it’s the mutability of the supposedly immutable human body. Characters are poisoned by radiation, zapped by electricity, bitten by spiders or broken, crushed, ruined or whatever.
And as Spider-Man cracks in “Amazing Spider-Man 2,” just “shake it off. It’s just your bones, muscles…”
But the real world doesn’t work like that. That’s one reason this comic book world has such a lasting appeal. Bullies are foiled, criminals are caught and great wrongs righted with supernatural intervention by supernaturally augmented humans. Because “Stan Lee is for Real.”
“Amazing 2” is kind of about that. It’s a violent film, with blood and death in between the digitally-animated brawls. Human bodies are tortured and broken, and there’s not always a web slinger there to stop that flipping police car, that hurtling bus, that Russian psychopath or that jet that’s about to crash.
It’s not an altogether pleasant experience. There’s nothing “amazing” about that ultimate modern movie cliche, the montage of a character finding something out about himself in a sequenced edited to a hit pop tune. Terribly ordinary. Things tend to drag as director Marc Webb has problems with focus, keeping the many story threads straight and continuity (Watch Gwen’s outfits). Many otherwise faceless extras pop off the screen as if he’s about to give their nameless characters the same significance as Stan Lee himself — who always has cameos in these Marvels.
But Andrew Garfield finds his voice as the character, making his second try at Peter Parker a caffeinated wise-cracker, enjoying his notoriety, talking to himself just like the guy in the comic book. He’s funny.
Clueless Aunt May (Sally Field) wonders why he has soot all over his face.
“I was…cleaning the chimney!”
“We HAVE no chimney!”
Peter hums Spider-Man’s theme song and hurls himself into situations with a teen’s recklessness. He almost misses his and Gwen Stacy’s (Emma Stone) high school graduation, dealing with a villain named Aleksei (Paul Giamatti).
But even though he doesn’t carry the angst of Tobey Maguire’s Spidey, Peter has problems. He sees Gwen’s late dad (Denis Leary) everywhere he looks, and remembers his promise to the dead cop to distance himself from his daughter, due to the danger.
Peter hasn’t seen the opening scene in the movie, in which we flash back to Peter’s parents’ (Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidtz) grisly deaths. And Peter has no idea that his great chemistry with long lost rich-kid pal Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) will go nowhere, because some of us remember 2002’s “Spider-Man” and how Harry turns out.
Jamie Foxx is an ignored, humiliated electrical engineer who has an accident involving electric eels and power lines. That transforms him from a Spider-Man fanboy into a glowing blue guy in a hoodie. In the ethos of this movie, Peter/Spidey reasons with the tormented villains, trying to connect with this doomed rich kid (Osborn) or that this “nobody” engineer.
“You’re not a nobody, you’re SOMEbody!”
Except for the Russian. He’s just…bad.
Returning director Marc Webb relies, again, on the 3D ( and IMAX, in some theaters) flying effects to cover the rough patches — and there are many — in “Amazing 2.” While Garfield and Stone have a nice sass to their scenes, Webb can do nothing to give this relationship the longing and heat of the Kirsten Dunst/Tobey Maguire Mary Jane and Peter moments.
And Webb’s team of screenwriters don’t find any pathos in all this computer animated flying and fighting, not until the finale.
So while this “Spider-Man” is, if anything, more competent than the first film it’s still not one that demands that you stick around after the credits. There’s nothing there.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action/violence
Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Sally Field, Dane DeHaan, Paul Giamatti
Credits: Directed by Marc Webb, scripted by Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Jef Pinkner, James Vanderbilt. A Columbia/Sony Pictures release.
Running time: 2:20


About Roger Moore

Movie Critic, formerly with McClatchy-Tribune News Service, Orlando Sentinel, published in Spin Magazine, The World and now published here, Orlando Magazine, Autoweek Magazine
This entry was posted in Reviews, previews, profiles and movie news. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Movie Review: “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” still fails to amaze

  1. Mike says:

    “Webb can do nothing to give this relationship the longing and heat of the Kirsten Dunst/Tobey Maguire Mary Jane and Peter moments.” WTF, you gotta be kidding me. The heat?? Everyone in the world pretty much agreed Tobey & Kirsten had no chemistry whatsoever. Your review lost all credibility there

    • Oh yeah? Is Andrew Garfield going to hang upside down for Emma Stone to lock lips with? An iconic moment, turns up in every romantic memory of movies from the past ten years. Ask somebody you know who dates girls. Or a girl.
      Garfield acts as if he’s more into the future Green Goblin. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  2. Mcj6986 says:

    I along with many other people belive Garfield and Stone have way better chemistry and are so much less sickening than Dunst and McGuire. Dunst and McGuire had the typical cliched twisted relationship of nerd and the girl next door who dates the football star. I like how Stone and Garfield in the first one had a relationship from the get go, and he didn’t need to go all “badass” to get her attention for once.

    • Garfield gives us more to consider in his Peter P. But watch the film, check out the arm’s length connection with STone. Then check out how Garfield lights up with his old pal, Dane DeHaan. Stone is adorable, on every level, very girl next door, but not the sort of swoon-inducing “had me at hello” dreaminess of Dunst. Dunst gets hate on a Paltrow level from fanboys, who seem to resent women aging past their bubbly days.
      Movie’s on the verge of going “Rotten” on Rotten Tomatoes. I cut it more slack than I should have. Ordinary in the extreme.

Comments are closed.