Runtime: 2 hours, 21 minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: Marc Webb
Quick Impressions:
On the ride home, our eleven-year-old described this as, “the best and the worst Spider-Man movie that I’ve ever seen.” All four of us agree that the action sequences were electrifying and the principal actors had great chemistry together. But my stepson found the backstory about the father a bit disappointing in the end. I think he was looking for a bigger, more dramatic reveal than the one we got. He also definitely thinks that one major plot point should not have happened, and as I was watching, for selfish reasons I agreed with him. At several points in the movie, my five-year-old nearly came unglued with devastation, and the thing that her brother didn’t like nearly drove her into a frenzy of madness.
But overall, I do like the new Spider-Man movies, and I’m curious about what specifically they’re planning in the third installment.
The Good:
There was a time when I thought Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 was the best comic book superhero movie ever made. And I still think that at the time that Spider-Man 2 was made, it was the best of its kind. But time passes, the world changes, and though some films become classics, we all want to see something new.
Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy is still pretty great, but Marc Webb’s movies are fresher, newer, and more of the moment. (Are Raimi’s movies better? Probably. Let another decade pass, look back on both Spider-Man incarnations with the perspective of distance, and then make that decision. But better isn’t always what matters. The 1940s is full of superior movies, but when we watch them today, they look like the past, and sometimes it’s more fun to see an enhanced reflection of right now.) Webb’s Spider-Man movies are happening right now, so they’re definitely better at being current and new.
Raimi’s Spiderman 3 doesn’t feel like it was that long ago to me—until I look over at my stepson. He was four when we took him to that movie, and now he’s eleven, well on the way to being Peter-Parker-aged himself. I know Sony rushed to reboot the franchise before they lost the rights, but rebooting is starting to seem like a sound decision to me. I mean, Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man came out back in 2002 before my eleven-year-old was even born! The world changes quite a bit from decade to decade, especially from a kid’s point of view. Trying to put the time difference in perspective, I imagined myself in 1994 (a sophomore in high school) and 1982 (at three years old). From my young point of view, the decade that passed might as well have been a century.
And, to be honest, no matter what age you are, it’s hard not to admit that the world has changed quite a bit since 2002. The backstory of 2014’s Peter Parker is that he was “abandoned” by his parents when he was a young child. In the movie’s opening flashback sequence, we see young Peter’s father fleeing for his life, desperately attempting to upload a crucial file before it’s too late. Such reliance on the internet could never have figured into the backstory of 2002 Peter Parker.
This new incarnation of Peter Parker seems very much a typical 2014 teen, completely used to connectivity at all times, relying on the world wide web just as heavily as his web shooters. Peter doesn’t even notice how heavily he relies on technology. He doesn’t seem at all self-conscious about the digital media he burns through in essentially every scene of the film. It probably helps that the director has a background in music videos. Peter’s life has a soundtrack. He’s always plugged into his own playlist. And despite the old-school push pin web of information he puts up on his wall, his go-to first step of detection is always a Google search.
Like most people (at least the one’s I’ve encountered) of his generation, Peter is very visually oriented, and so is the whole movie.
Usually in my reviews, I devote a section to describing the most effective use of visuals in a film, but in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, every scene is intensely visual. Not only are all the actors lit and positioned in the optimal way (especially Emma Stone), not only are the action sequences electrifying (probably even more so in eye-popping 3D), but the entire movie also relies heavily on visual storytelling. In a refreshing twist, though, this visual storytelling complements the dialogue (instead of coming at its expense).
Besides highly effective use of appealing visuals, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 also has a serviceable story, better pacing than Webb’s first film, wonderful awareness of scope, superior use of villains, and a talented and engaging cast who truly seem to get the characters they’re playing.
Andrew Garfield is a much more suitable Spider-Man for this decade than Tobey Maguire. I still like Maguire’s interpretation of the character and think he gave a great performance in all three films, but Garfield’s take on Peter Parker is like a breath of fresh air. He’s a lot more fun and very witty just like I remember Spidey from 1980s cartoons. (I never actually read the comics.)
Emma Stone is just wonderful, and everybody making the movie clearly appreciates that. Gwen Stacy is practically in the movie more than Spider-Man. Well, that’s a huge exaggeration, but I really think that she might be in the movie more than Peter Parker sans suit. And every time she shows up, she’s perfectly lit and positioned with great hair and make-up and (I’d swear) sometimes even her own wind machine.
Gwen Stacy gets great lines, too. Or well, maybe I should say that she gets to talk a lot, and Emma Stone knows how to make the most of every vocalization and eye roll. It’s not so much what she says. It’s really more the way she says it. (And then sometimes it’s just mostly her hair. I don’t even notice things like that, but I’d bet money they were following her around with a wind machine.) Garfield’s good with the casual, natural, offbeat humor of the production, but Stone is great. Gwen is an interesting character in her own right. She does interesting things, and everything sounds interesting when she says it. Her surreptitious and hasty exit from the Oscorp Building is thoroughly engaging even before Peter shows up to join in the hijinks.
Dane DeHaan is also great as Harry Osborn. Of course, I’m very biased. I love Dane DeHaan, but I love him because he’s a good actor capable of communicating incredible intensity. He’s perfect for the part of Harry, especially as the character is conceived in this film. All of his scenes are good, and he gets better as his storyline gets darker. There’s also one scene when his inflection sounds so similar to Chris Cooper’s that I wondered if he were intentionally mimicking his speech patterns.
And who doesn’t like Sally Field? I like her (really). She’s great as Aunt May. The character doesn’t get much to do, but in some ways that’s refreshing. Why does Aunt May need a storyline of her own? Too often, superhero movies get bogged down in needless subplots. She’s a supporting character, there to provide Peter with nurturance, emotional support, reassurance, guidance, clean laundry, odd breakfast sandwiches. As a director, Webb clearly takes “show, don’t tell” to the extreme. He prefers to show everything. Aunt May’s steady presence throughout the film makes a huge difference to Peter’s life, and Sally Field’s performance is perfect.
Even the minor characters are good in this movie. I enjoyed the performances of Colm Feore, Martin Csokas, B.J. Novak, Paul Giamatti, Chris Cooper, and, of course, Stan Lee.
As Max Dillon/Electro, Jamie Foxx plays the best Spider-Man villain in quite a while. To be completely honest, it’s been a busy spring, and I’ve spent almost none of it anticipating this movie. So I was pleasantly surprised by how well The Amazing Spider-Man 2 handles its villains. So often, superhero sequels become their own worst enemies by packing in a surfeit of villains until the hero has no time for development and the entire project grows unfocused and bloated. When I heard that this movie would include the Green Goblin, Electro, and the Rhino, I thought The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had positioned itself to fall into this trap, but I was wrong. The movie uses its villains wisely and sparingly and takes the time to ensure that Foxx’s Electro actually electrifies the audience.
In general, I don’t have particularly strong feelings about Jamie Foxx. He’s a good actor (and in the right role can deliver a great performance), but I’ve never been a huge fan (though I don’t dislike him, either). He’s absolutely great as Electro, though. His early scenes as Max reminded me fondly of Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters, and once he comes into his true (though unwanted) powers, he makes a very arresting fixture in the center of the screen.
Best Scene Visually/Best Scene:
Summer popcorn flicks can be very dumb. What’s more, summer popcorn flicks can be very dumb and still work. But The Amazing Spider-Man 2 proves to be surprisingly smart. The first movie in this new series smartly paired the spider with its natural enemy, the waterspout (lair of the Lizard).
This sequel does something similarly clever. The villain is electric—literally. (I’m no comic book expert, but by the end of his transformation, he seems to be made up entirely of electrical power.) And he’s also mentally ill with delusions of grandeur and ideas of reference. And Spider-Man lives in New York City. So introducing Electro as he’s having a psychotic break/power surge in the middle of Times Square is a particular stroke of genius.
The whole movie is presented very visually. Marc Webb must think visually. I do not. So to me, coming up with a scene so effective in this way is particularly amazing. Not only does the sequence look (and sound) cool, but it also broadcasts Electro’s turbulent and troubled interiority for all the world and the audience and Max himself to see. It gives us all the character development we need with very minimal dialogue. To me, communicating visually this way is like a foreign language. Maybe that’s why I found the scene especially impressive.
Visually, it’s just stunning. And since there’s such (temporary) narrative resolution, the segment could also stand on its own as a Spider-Man short, though of course, it’s more meaningful in the greater context of the movie.
Best Scene/Best Scene Visually:
The long fall near the end is probably the strongest action sequence in the entire movie. If tasked to preserve just two scenes, I’d save this part and the big Electro awakening in Times Square. (I’m glad I don’t have to make that choice for real because it would wipe out some wonderful supporting work by Sally Field and Dane DeHaan.)
Best Scene That Doesn’t Need Stunning Visuals:
I’m not suggesting the scene is played in a sensory deprivation tank or something, but so many of the showcased scenes in this film excel particularly because of their stunning visuals. There’s a pretty great scene in Peter’s bedroom, though, where all we’re really looking at is Andrew Garfield standing there while Sally Field sits on his bed. I’m not suggesting that the actors’ body language and facial expressions aren’t important, but the power of the scene is generated entirely by the performances of Garfield and (particularly) Field.
Funniest Scene:
When Peter tries to explain to Aunt May what had happened to the laundry, his cover story is so absurd yet fitting. And Garfield delivers the line so well. Taken by surprise, I laughed out loud, but almost no one else did, so that was slightly embarrassing.
Best Action Sequence:
The opening flashback on the plane had more energy than I expected, particularly because the situation continued to develop rather than stagnating. I also really, really liked the part where Gwen Stacy was running through the halls of Oscorp, but I think I mentioned that before.
The Negatives:
One possible interpretation of this movie is, “This is what happens when women get a choice,” but I’m not sure that’s intentional. It definitely gives me pause, though. I mean, the first seventy-five times you hear variations of, “This is my choice,” repeated in a clear, decisive tone, you think, Hmm, well this seems fairly empowering for women, but then of course, we all see where that leads.
A more practical problem is that the beginning of the movie is a little slow. The opening flashback is good, but then as the present day story unfolds, the story elements take quite a while to gel. It’s not horribly slow. And it’s filled with action, music, and witty quips. But the movie definitely picks up considerably once Electro arrives in Times Square. Of course, I can’t fault the movie for this too much because it’s a substantial improvement over Webb’s first Amazing Spider-Man. That movie started with a brisk, jaunty pace and lost energy once Dr. Curt Connors transformed into the Lizard. I’d rather watch a movie that gains energy than loses it, so I think it’s okay that this one starts a little slow.
Also, even though I like Dane DeHaan much better than James Franco—as an actor, anyway; as a diversion, Franco is pretty great; the world’s a better place with his self-obsessed presence—the Harry Osbourne/Peter Parker relationship made much more sense in Sam Raimi’s movies. DeHaan plays the character very well, and I like this version of Harry. But there’s really not the same level of emotion in the relationship with Peter Parker.
It’s weird when Peter shows up saying basically, “Oh yeah, you’ve always been my best friend,” when he admits he hasn’t seen him in like eight years, and they’re supposed to be eighteen. I’m not saying that you can’t form amazing bonds when you’re ten years old (and even well before). It’s just that Raimi’s movies framed the relationship with much greater care and made the friendship/rivalry between Peter and Harry so believable and so important. Back when Spider-Man 3 came out, I was shocked to learn from my then four-year-old stepson that the Hobgoblin was his favorite villain in the entire series.
I didn’t get it until he explained, “They used to be brothers, and then he betrayed him.” Okay, that makes sense.
In this movie, Harry and Peter don’t seem like brothers. They don’t even really seem like friends who spent their childhood together and then became estranged. They read more like two guys who were in the same home room in fifth grade and had fun at a friend’s pizza party one time. Or like maybe if Oscorp had employee picnics or something, they crossed paths at one of those and both tried to dunk Harry’s dad or something. So the “betrayal” is not as palpable.
On reflection, I also think I agree with my stepson that Richard Parker’s backstory should have been a bit more fleshed out. That whole “Roosevelt” angle was so cool (and like most things in the movie, developed primarily visually), but it kind of dead ended (at least for the time being). I do hope that we learn a bit more about that in the next movie. Aunt May’s new nursing career had better be a plot point in the next movie as well. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 actually leaves quite a lot of loose ends, but my hope is that it’s weaving a larger web that we’ll get to see in its fullness in future installments.
Overall:
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is without a doubt the best Spider-Man movie playing in theaters right now. In general, it’s an improvement over 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man. Jamie Foxx’s Electro far exceeded my expectations. It’s worth the price of a movie ticket just to watch his big, electrifying meltdown in Times Square. And the numerous encounters between Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker and Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy are also captivating enough to stand alone (maybe as a really strange reality show). Dane DeHaan and Sally Field give great performances, too. The entire movie is visually stunning. And there’s enough action and comedy to keep everyone entertained (though some scenes may frighten or distress young children).
I have no regrets about paying to see this movie. Is it perfect? No. But if you want to see a better Spider-Man movie then you’ll have to find one you like better on TV or wait five years for the franchise to get rebooted again. That sounds like a lot of effort, so why not just take your kids to The Amazing Spider-Man 2? It’s a lot of fun, and I’m sure your children probably want to see it. Plus at the movie theater, you’re more likely to run into real radio-active spiders, crawling unseen below your seat in the dark, sampling the bugs drawn by your spilled popcorn and candy. Surely that can only enhance the experience, right? Maybe you’ll even get superpowers yourself when one crawls into your sock to nibble at your ankle. You never know.