The Amazing Spider-Man 2

I think the reason why I had trouble fully enjoying "The Amazing Spider-Man" was because it was released only five years after "Spider-Man 3". However, now that the business of establishing a new rebooted franchise is over, this sequel has some breathing room. I feel "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is more fun and slightly better that its original film but that is partially because the level of realism established in the 2012 film is slowly fading away. I am both grateful and critical of this. The performances of the actors were noteworthy and the villains in this sequel are better that the Lizard.

Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci rewrote this script and being fan of their past works, I would bet that is another reason why I like "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" a little more. A few criticisms I have though include the reason why Richard Parker and his wife left Peter. The video file that Peter watches of his father does answer some questions but as to why Richard and Mary disappeared, we could have guessed the reason we were given. It was a little obvious. These two films have our hero constantly trying to figure out why his parents left and this narrative build-up did not balance with the answer handed to us. One quality of "The Amazing Spider-Man" that I felt impressed with was the sense of realism that contrasted the Sam Raimi films. The realism in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is a little inconsistent however with the level established in the original movie. Spider-Man has gone from being a super athlete to being the superhero we are used to. Evidence of this includes the plot point that Spider-Man is self-healing whereas in the first film, this plot point was a little non-existent. Peter would come home beat up pretty bad in the first movie but this film depicts Peter with a lot less physical damage in the aftermath of battles. I don't mind Spider-Man as a superhero who can take a lot of punishment because that makes for better action but what bothers me are contradictions between films in a franchise. If you establish something, you should continue with it or come up with a good reason as to why you changed it. This is the reason why I am grateful for and critical of the slight change in realism between the 2012 film and its sequel. Before seeing this film, I had accidentally come across predictions online and in magazines as to the ending of this movie. As the story unfolded, I could sense the tragic ending coming that others had foreseen. Great storytellers should try to trick new and old fans.

Putting my criticisms aside, I did enjoy myself watching this show. I like the use of tunes from pop culture such as the "Jeopardy" theme, "Itsy Bitsy Spider" and of course the classic Spider-Man TV theme song. One thing that I still applaud director Marc Webb for is that when an ordinary citizen stands up to the super villain after being inspired by Spider-Man, it is not cheesy. I noticed a couple of other directorial decisions that were interesting to watch in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" such as the montage during the ending of the film showing the passage of time. I enjoyed the villains in this sequel. There is some good irony with Electro being created on Max's birthday. I also like how the first battle between Electro and Spider-Man was portrayed. This movie has a villain like the Riddler or Syndrome who idolizes the hero so much that the villain has to kill the hero. In this film, the scene at Times Square effectively shows how Electro goes from good to evil. I was grateful that Spider-Man did all he could to prevent this though. I got a nice laugh from how Spider-Man ends the battle too. All the returning cast members had no problem reprising their roles. There is great chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone that comes from their off-screen romantic relationship. The new cast members fit very well into the franchise. I can't tell whether my favorite performance in this film was from Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx or Dane DeHaan. Foxx's performance as Max was a great lead-up to the villain he would become. As mentioned, his character's transition from good to evil was very plausible from the viewpoint of both the story and acting. I first saw Dane DeHaan in "Chronicle" and I liked him in that. I also saw him in his brief role in "Lincoln". I really applaud his performance in this film. The character of Harry Osborn works because of a combination of great casting and acting. You really feel a sense of desperation from DeHaan's work. I hope to see him in other villainous roles in the future. I would hope that the Rhino appears a lot in the next film because I loved Paul Giamatti's acting once again. He never fails to impress me with his various performances. Giamatti may have called his accent and performance "hammy" but I disagree. It was fun but still threatening. I will never get tired of seeing Stan Lee. His cameos have a perfect sense of comedic irony and timing. Apparently, J. K. Simmons expressed his desire to reprise his role as Jameson. While this would have been cool, I am at the same time glad that the filmmakers decided against this. This new franchise must separate itself as much as possible from the previous one in order to be taken seriously.

Because this movie was the first Spider-Man film to be filmed entirely in New York State, it became that state's largest film production to date. This film could have been a lot worse but because of the good villains and acting, I enjoyed myself. I am quite a stickler though when it comes to continuity. I am glad that Kurtzman and Orci will return to write sequels/spin-offs for this franchise.

3.5 Stars