|
The plot is dull and incohesive. There are like three separate storylines that don't gel together. Given the silly lines and hammy villains I thought I was watching an episode of a cartoon show. Visually, the film is a treat. Spidey's costume and his swinging has never looked better. Garfield is perhaps even better than Maguire as Peter Parker. Electro is a cool-looking villain and it was wise to go this direction considering how silly comic book Electro looks. Jamie Foxx really sells the role despite the stupid lines he was given. There's a scene in his home where he fantasizes that he's best buddies with Spider-Man. His lines, taken right out of a cartoon, made me roll my eyes but also gave me a silly grin, because Jamie Foxx just throws himself into it and seems to have a blast. I think I can say the same for the rest of the cast. They all make the best of this terrible script. 3/5 Baron Bifford fucked around with this message at 17:25 on May 2, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
I went into this expecting the worst: negative comparisons were being made to Spider-Man 3 and Batman Forever/and Robin. Instead, I got something I enjoyed about as much as Spider-Man 2. Acting, cinematography, clarity and coherence of action, and musical score are all top-rate. Like the previous Amazing Spider-Man movie, this is a film that greatly benefits from the theatrical viewing experience. The exhilaration of the action sequences from the IMAX presentation and the 3D are somewhat lost on a Blu-Ray HDTV setup. From the visual designs on down, this is "the comics on film." But just like Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which also truly captured the tone of "the comics on film," that means there are scripting matters which will polarize many. I know several comics fans who greatly enjoyed Captain America and are quite displeased with this movie, so there's certainly wildly varying degrees of tolerance for what I'm about to mention. But in short, the traditional "exposition->narrative hook->rising action->climax->resolution" structure is no more. It may not be integrated with Marvel's greater cinematic universe, but The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is fully subject to the trappings of serialized storytelling all the same. There is no firm beginning and no firm ending because unlike the previous era of cinema, it is known to everyone going in that "this is just the latest installment." You can now devote substantial screen time to subplots which won't come to fruition for another two years. You can now have multiple major developments occur in the last 15-20 minutes that would traditionally have been omitted for a separate film altogether. The absolute guarantee that "they WILL be back and WILL pick up on this" is why. I'm uncertain how well-equipped the tools of traditional film criticism are to accept this as a format, because it is indeed true that "the short-term issue is resolved, but there are multiple long-term items outstanding." Much vitriol has been said and will continue to be said about writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman for their alleged lack of coherence across their works such as Transformers and Star Trek, but I think it's more accurate to say that they've embraced serialization wholesale. Their work here is similarly indicative of that. The question of tone is another matter which polarizes die-hard comics fans and those who "just watch the movies" alike. I can say this: the Spider-Man movies are not as muted/grey in terms of color palette or dramatization as Iron Man, Captain America, Avengers et al, and I can't deny that several scenes here would qualify as melodramatic relative to the Marvel Studios approach. "Nobody would really say that" and "that reaction seems rather drastic rather suddenly" are manifested observations of this tonal difference. But melodrama is a pleasure of mine provided it's rooted in something I can emotionally relate to, and I do believe The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does come from a place of "truth" in these regards. Such is why I enjoyed all 2.5 hours of it (yes it's me, I'm the guy who insists blockbuster action films should all be this long), but this is a difficult tightrope to walk and it looks like I'm in a distinct minority on that. But now that films cost $200 million and up to produce and market such that it's commonplace for films to take the safest and most proven approaches, I'm glad that ASM2 took some pretty substantial risks with their plotting, structure, and tone. I don't dislike any of the five Spider-Man movies (though 3 does frustrate me for being "almost good"). Raimi's trilogy captured my "ideal" of what the 70s Spider-Man was going for. Webb's current films embody my "ideal" of what the more modern (call it "Ultimate") Spider-Man was going for. I'll almost certainly go see this again in IMAX 3D (the theater I went to inadvertently showed the first 20 minutes in 2D, then restarted it in 3D; it was a BIG difference), and then I'll buy it on home video. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 15:55
|
|
