E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Movie Review: Amazing Spider-Man 2

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Warning: There are spoilers in this review.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a very cluttered movie, and would have been better if it was split into two movies so the story could be given more time. The ending was very gutsy, even if it mirrored a comic book story from decades ago. The final scene was wasted, and Harry Osborn's last scene should have been an after-credits scene. The actual after-credits scene was terrible, and was an unfair tease of the audience.

We open with Spider-Man taking on some Russian thugs stealing radioactive material. This scene goes on way too long, and while it is both action-packed and humorous it does not capture the Spider-Man character well. Spider-Man has always been about using his powers to protect others, and he allows way too much destruction of property (and almost certainly loss of life.) With the power he has already displayed in the first movie, he could have taken these thugs down before they did so much damage.

This scene sets up Electro, who is thrilled that Spider-Man knows his name - even if it is on his name badge. While some have complained about the origin being silly, it is actually better than his origin in the comics. There, he was a lineman who was struck by lightning. The movie makes his origin similar to Spider-Man's origin - he was bitten by genetically enhanced electric eels. Given Oscorp's genetic engineering, it makes more sense (once you suspend disbelief) than someone getting a shock and developing super-powers from that.

Electro's heel turn, though, could have been stretched out a little more, making his mental imbalance more obvious. Oscorp's determination to cover up the accident could have been more nefarious, giving him a reason to hate them, and jumping to the conclusion that Spider-Man set him up to be shot by police was way too convenient. It was a very rushed way of giving Spider-Man a new villain.

The storyline with Parker's parents was a virtual mirror image of the "Venom" arc in Ultimate Spider-Man #33 to #39, with Richard Parker and his wife running away rather than allowing his life's work to be turned into a biological weapon. However, that should have been handled in the first movie. It feels like the two movies are out of order, because the Parker parents story was teased and dropped in the first movie, only to be finally explained two years later.

The final battle with Electro was well done, minimizing the incredibly annoying shaky-cam effect that has become a staple of action movies. The shaky-cam was so bad in Captain America 2 that I had to look away as I was getting a headache. I imagine it would have been more painful (literally!) in 3-D.

Harry Osborn's heel turn should have been set up more, ideally paying off in the next movie. I do not have a huge problem with not following the comics (or the previous movie) in making Osborn turn heel only after his father dies in battle with Spider-Man. This is a new franchise, after all, and some creative license keeps things interesting.

The death of Gwen Stacy was a surprise. I figured that since Parker and Mary Jane's marriage had been nullified by Satan that they might keep the Parker/Stacy romance going. His grief after her death, and giving up being Spider-Man, was a powerful ending scene - or would have been, had the movie ended there.

Instead, we get the battle with the Rhino that was teased in the trailer, but we only get the beginning of it. It was cheap to end on a cliffhanger, and Osborn preparing to assemble the Sinister Six should have been the after credits scene. Amazing Spider-Man 3 could have opened with Spider-Man fighting Rhino. (Which is a battle-suit, like in the Ultimate universe, instead of a radiation-powered thug.)

Speaking of after-credits scenes, I initially thought the scene (featuring villains from the X-Men) was incredible. I was shocked to see those characters, since the movie rights to the X-Men are owned by a different studio. I was excited at the possibility of a crossover... but this was just one big tease. In all of Marvel's other movies, the after-credits scenes set up the next movie, but this one was just an advertisement for Days of Future Past later this month. Not cool.

Overall, this was a good movie. The actors playing Peter and Gwen have great on-screen chemistry, and Gwen's death strikes a major emotional chord. It did not waste time on the origin story like the last one did, and the fact that so many of these characters' origins are connected makes things interesting, if just a little too convenient.

Final Grade: B+

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.