Hey guys, today I’m doing something a little different. Now,
I’ve already done a review for ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’ along with a ‘Spoiler
Post’ for the film and as I said in the Spoiler Post, this film has definitely
been getting a mixed reaction from both critics and audiences and of course,
while I really enjoyed the film, I’m aware that not everyone did as much as me.
So, as suggested by my friend Matthew Goudreau, I’m going to post a ‘Guest
Review’ from someone who was on the other side of the spectrum when it came to
this movie… this is Matt’s review. This is something we might be doing this
summer for some other films, but for now, here is Matt’s review of ‘The Amazing
Spider-Man 2’; the first part of what we're calling 'Dueling Reviews'. Enjoy!
(Also, like my Spoiler Post, this review contains SPOILERS!)
Review by Matthew
Goudreau
It's no secret that I hold the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy in high regard. The
first one to me represents one of the most faithful adaptations of an origin
story in a superhero film. Its tone is very light hearted like a Spider-Man
movie should be but at the same time is not afraid to get dark or depressing at
points. Spider-Man 2 is my favorite
superhero film of all time, as I’ve constantly appraised the film numerous
times on the podcasts and other reviews. Spider-Man
3 amidst its flaws is a solid closer to the trilogy, with flaws that are adamant
but greatly exaggerated. When the reboot was announced, I groaned considering
there was only a 10 year difference between the first Raimi film and Webb's
film. When I saw it, I was indifferent. I don't hate it, but I find it to be
extremely generic and lacking many of the crucial elements that made Raimi's
films a success such as the humor, villains, and character relationships.
Despite myself, I was interested in a sequel. When the trailers and casting
were announced, I got even more interested. It seemed like the production staff
were moving in a more complex and fascinating direction like every sequel
should. When I saw the movie, I was floored at how wrong my conceptions
were. Not only do I find The Amazing
Spider-Man 2 to be the weakest of the 5 films about the web head, but it's
a prime example of how NOT to make a superhero sequel. It's a mess of a film
that sacrifices character depth and a flowing narrative for constant tonal
shifts, countless subplots that go nowhere, and actors portraying characters
that have no presence or worthwhile motivations.
Much to my surprise, I found myself to be really enjoying
the film for the first half hour. It appeared that director Marc Webb had fixed
some of my issues with the previous film. We get to see a more whimsical
Spider-Man during the big action sequence in the beginning of the film. Also,
it actually takes place during broad daylight contrary to almost every big
action scene in the reboot. Andrew Garfield appeared to be much more
comfortable with the role and his chemistry with Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was as
poignant as ever. All of a sudden as more and more characters were introduced, I
started to hedge a little bit. The moment that Jamie Foxx's character of Max
Dillon is transformed into Electro, the film derails for me. When Harry Osborn
is brought in, it seemed to rebound. Then all of a sudden, the film takes a
nose dive and never seemed to recover for me. The entire middle of the film
made me question whether or not I wanted to see the end of the film. The
climactic battle brought me back in for about 15 minutes, until the film all of
a sudden fast forwards in time and leads to a very disappointing finale. When
it was over, I asked myself, "What in the hell did I just watch?" I
actually waited a few days to post this review to gather my thoughts so here it
goes. I told you all that to say this, I will be somewhat spoiling the film so
if you don't want to know what happens then stop reading here. Just take away
that I did not like this film. For those who saw it or just don't care about
spoilers, let me delve deeper in the "A-meh-zing
Spider-Man 2.
What surprised me most about this film was how much it
reminded me of 1995's Batman Forever.
By this I mean that it appears the screenwriters and director had no concrete
sense of what the tone of the movie should be. At points, the film wants to
portray a serious tone and an overall darker story but is frequently thrown off
by campy moments and dialogue. Both films also have very hammy performances by
the actors portraying the villains. You
can't have your cake and eat it too with a superhero movie. For example, while Spider-Man 2 is no doubt a lighter
affair than let’s say The Dark Knight,
it perfectly inserts the serious moments. This is because director Sam Raimi
kept a consistent balance throughout his film, making sure the serious moments
didn’t overshadow the overall tone. As a result, they don’t feel out of place.
Here, this movie is constantly going back and forth and that makes most of the
scenes feel like exactly that; scenes. There’s no cohesion in tone or
narrative.
Considering how many excellent superhero films have been
released over the last ten years, the bar has been set extremely high. The
success of a superhero film as far as a narrative goes begins with the strength
of your villains. The villains are actually the biggest hindrance of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. On the note of
Batman Forever, Jamie Foxx’s
characterization and portrayal of Electro is a weird amalgam of Jim Carrey’s
Edward Nigma and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Mr. Freeze from the infamous Batman and Robin. Right from the
beginning, Foxx appears uncomfortable and out of place. He’s dressed in
ridiculously cliché nerd attire, complete with big glasses and a bad comb over.
Like Carrey’s Nigma, he develops an obsession with Spider-Man, complete with a
big shrine to the hero. When he becomes Electro, he feels like a completely
different character. I understand that it was a thematic transformation as
well, but all of a sudden he spouts head smacking one liners a la
Schwarzenegger. His motivations change on a dime and while he could have been
an interesting “heart” for the movie, he serves as the “Sandman” of this film,
being unceremoniously removed for the middle and returning for the third act
showdown.
Along the same lines as Foxx, Paul Giamatti’s portrayal of
the Russian thug turned “Rhino” feels like a Saturday morning cartoon villain.
He’s using a hammy accent and is more or less a role designed for fan service
and “world building.” In addition, the sound mixing on his voice makes it
difficult to fully understand him. It
doesn’t bother me too much considering his minimal screen time, but Dane
Dehaan’s portrayal of Harry Osborn/Green Goblin suffers from a similar problem.
I thought he was very good as the spoiled angst ridden prodigal son. Once he is
fired from his position, his performance goes entirely into the reign of
overacting. His transition into becoming Spidey’s most notorious adversary
feels incredibly rushed and only there to provide the big moment in the climax.
There appears to be some kind of augmentation done to his voice, making it all
the more unbelievable. The Green Goblin
has a mere five minutes of screen time or so, if saved for another film it
would have worked much better.
I mentioned the concept of “world building” when describing
Rhino’s role in the film, which is another big issue with the film. Thanks in
part to Marvel’s success with the canonical Cinematic Universe, Sony has
decided to adopt the concept as well to this franchise. The difference between
the two is that Marvel’s films while connected, all have a “stand alone” feel
to them. There are open doors for the future, but each film has a sense of
closure to it. In this film, most of the “plot” feels like it’s just there to
set up the future. There’s no finality to anything and that leads to many
unresolved plots throughout the film. The biggest for me is the subplot
involving Richard Parker and his research. Not only does this take up the
majority of the second act, but it ultimately does not impact the immediate
events in this film. On top of that, it completely betrays the essence of
Spider-Man as a character. This film makes it “destiny” that Peter became a
superhero; EXCUSE ME? Spider-Man was a character of chance that learns
responsibility on his own, constantly balancing his personal life with his
crime fighting. Making Peter’s journey entirely based on “fate” is insulting to
every fan. While I have stated numerous
times that I have no problem with changing the source material, I also say that
I won’t complain as long as it works within the context of the film. Here it
does not.
On the notion of “plot”, there are plenty of moments that
make no kind of sense and are unexplained. For example, how does Electro get
his new suit and from where? During a scene between Harry and his father Norman
(which is the best scene in the movie), we learn Norman has a genetic illness
that he has passed on to Harry. Why does
the Osborn degenerative illness cause you to grow talons and turn your skin green?
I can buy this given how out there this world is, but then Harry’s illness
speeds up dramatically compared to his father. This is never explained. There
needs to be resolution provided for these things, there’s only so much
suspension of disbelief that the audience can give. In addition, saving it for
a potential sequel is poor justification. A film should stand on its own, and
as it stands the story for this film is all over the place and full of too many
supporting characters. Great actors like Chris Cooper, Felicity Jones, Colm
Feore, B.J. Novak, and Denis Leary are shoved into the film unnecessarily for
both fan service and “world building.” Its screenwriting 101: if you’re going
to include a big supporting cast, develop the characters enough so we feel
attached to them. Spider-Man 2 has
plenty of supporting characters, but they each fit into the story and are
clearly defined. Yes, there’s the four principle characters of Peter, MJ,
Harry, and Octavius, but other characters such as Jameson and Aunt May service
the story and have well defined traits.
On the notion of Aunt May, Sally Field’s portrayal is one
of the strong points of this film. Her subplot is the most fleshed out and
interesting of the film. I don’t want to entirely rake this film over the
coals, because there are a few things I really like about it. Emma Stone and
Andrew Garfield bring a lot to these roles, more so than they did in the first
one. They have excellent chemistry and their scenes feel genuine and grounded.
I could do without the constant reminders that “they’re meant to be” but I can
forgive it. There are some impressive set pieces and the big emotional moment
fans of the comics will recognize hits hard. It’s well executed and has some
minor details fans can notice. I just wish the rest of the film was as emotionally
investing and clearly defined as this scene.
All in all, The
Amazing Spider-Man 2 fails to live up to its name. It’s certainly a sequel,
but I wouldn’t call it amazing by any stretch of the imagination. There are
some really bad lines, a scene where Garfield whistles the classic 60s theme,
and even a scene where Harry Osborn whistles the darn Jeopardy! Theme. It's a film of many scenes, but not much structure, of
many events, but no real plot. And worst of all, it's not really about
anything. Previous 'Spider-Man' films had a singular journey at their heart,
even when Sam Raimi's third film was at its worst, but it's unclear what Webb
is trying to say here. The various villains and side characters don't add up to
anything thematically coherent aside from cool visuals and attempts to set up
sequels. Speaking of which, I hope Sony gets it together because I do believe
this kind of film can work. Considering that the three villains here combined
don’t have the character depth as someone like a Doc Ock from Raimi’s second
film, I don’t have faith in this proposed Sinister Six idea. I wanted this
movie to succeed with every ounce of fiber in me, but I left dreading a third
installment.
Rating: 1.5/4 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment