The Amazing Spider-Man 2

The first movie that disappointed me

Superhero/Action ‧ 142 minutes ‧ PG-13 ‧ 2014 ‧ 6 min read

"I've been invisible my whole life."

The Amazing Spider-Man was the first movie I ever saw in a theater. I was a kid, I loved Spider-Man, and I remember being completely blown away by getting to see him on a huge screen. Two years later, I went to see The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and I walked out of the theater thinking, "Huh. That was bad." I was too young to explain exactly why, but I knew I had just watched a Spider-Man movie that did not work for me. Going back to it now has mostly confirmed that feeling.

The weird thing is that there are a lot of things about this movie that I like. I like Andrew Garfield. I like Emma Stone. I like the look of the movie. I like the web swinging. There are individual scenes that I think are genuinely good. That is probably why my rating is a 1.5 instead of a 1. But a movie is a whole package, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 just never comes together as one.

Andrew Garfield is still great as Peter Parker. I actually think he gets some of his best material here when the movie is focused on Peter and Gwen. He has the right mix of awkwardness, sarcasm, and confidence for this version of the character, and he is clearly having fun as Spider-Man. Emma Stone is just as good. Their relationship is still the strongest part of the series, and it is one of the few things in this movie that feels like it was written by people who knew exactly what they wanted.

The problem is everything surrounding them. The movie seems to have a completely different idea for what it wants to be every few minutes. Is this a Spider-Man movie about Peter and Gwen? Is it about Harry Osborn? Is it about Electro? Is it about Peter's parents? Is it setting up the Sinister Six? Is it introducing Rhino? The answer is somehow all of them.

I think this is the biggest difference between The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and its sequel. The first movie has plenty of problems, especially the parent storyline, but it still feels like a complete movie. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. TASM 2 feels like it is constantly looking at the movies Sony wants to make next. It is more interested in setting up this larger universe than figuring out whether the movie we are watching actually works.

Harry Osborn is probably the clearest example. He was not even in the first movie, and suddenly we are told that he and Peter were childhood best friends. I can accept that a reboot might change the backstory, but the movie does not actually give us enough time to believe their friendship. Harry shows up, reveals he is dying, reconnects with Peter, becomes obsessed with Spider-Man's blood, turns into the Goblin, and is then pushed aside so the movie can get to the next thing.

Dane DeHaan is not bad. There are moments where I actually like what he is doing. The problem is that there is so little room for Harry to develop that his descent feels like something the script needs to happen rather than something the character slowly arrives at. Compare that with Harry in the Raimi trilogy, where you spend two full movies watching his resentment grow. Here, the movie expects me to care about a relationship it never really built.

Electro is another missed opportunity. I actually like the basic idea of Max Dillon. A lonely guy who feels invisible, becomes obsessed with Spider-Man after one small interaction, and eventually gets transformed into something powerful could have made for a pretty tragic villain. Jamie Foxx is capable of playing that. Instead, Electro turns into a weird collection of jokes, glowing blue CGI, and increasingly ridiculous behavior.

I do not even hate the visual design of Electro. Some of his scenes look great. The Times Square fight has a lot of energy, and this movie is honestly one of the better looking Spider-Man movies when it wants to be. The issue is that looking cool does not make a character interesting. Electro never becomes someone I find particularly compelling.

Rhino is barely even worth discussing. Paul Giamatti is clearly having fun, and I am sure the material was fun to play, but the character feels like a walking advertisement for a sequel that never happened. The opening and ending are basically there to say, "Look what else is coming." I do not need a movie to tease ten future villains. I need the movie I am watching to be good.

Then there is the parents storyline, which I already thought dragged down The Amazing Spider-Man. Here it gets worse because the movie keeps expanding it. Richard Parker's videos, Oscorp, the spider venom, Peter's DNA, the idea that only Peter could survive the bite. At some point the movie seems to be trying to convince us that Peter Parker was destined to become Spider-Man because of his parents.

I really dislike that idea. Peter Parker being Spider-Man is interesting because he was not chosen. He was just a kid who got powers and then had to decide what to do with them. The tragedy of Uncle Ben's death matters because Peter has to live with his own choice. The parent storyline makes everything feel preordained. Peter is not Spider-Man because of the person he decides to become. He is Spider-Man because his blood happened to work with a specific spider.

That feels completely backwards to me, especially when Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 2 are so focused on responsibility being a choice. Peter can have all the powers in the world and still choose to walk away. That is the conflict that makes him interesting. TASM 2 keeps trying to make him special before he even does anything.

The movie is also way too long for how little actually gets resolved. Peter and Gwen are dealing with whether they should be together. Harry is dying. Max becomes Electro. Peter's parents are still a mystery. Oscorp is evil. There are references to the Sinister Six. Rhino is introduced. Gwen dies. And somehow we are still expected to care about all of it.

Gwen's death is the part that actually gets me. Emma Stone is great, Andrew Garfield is great, and the scene is genuinely heartbreaking. Garfield's reaction feels raw in a way that most of the rest of the movie never manages. It is probably the best acted scene in either Amazing Spider-Man movie.

But I also do not think one great scene can save a movie. That is something I have become more convinced of the older I get. I can point to the Gwen scene and say, "That works." I can point to Andrew and Emma and say, "They work." I can point to the swinging and say, "That looks great." I can point to individual shots and say, "I like that." At the end of the day, I am still watching all of the scenes around them too.

That is why the recent reappraisal of this movie sometimes frustrates me. I completely understand why people have come around on Andrew Garfield. I have too. I understand why people appreciate the chemistry between him and Emma Stone. I do too. But sometimes it feels like people are reviewing Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man instead of reviewing The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Those are not the same thing. Garfield can be a great Spider-Man in a bad movie. Stone can be a great Gwen in a bad movie. A sequence can look amazing in a bad movie. The action can be fun in a bad movie. None of those things automatically add up to a good movie.

And that is especially frustrating here because I genuinely like the visual style. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has a colorful comic book quality that I enjoy, and the Spider-Man suit is one of my favorites from the live action movies. The movie knows how to make Spider-Man look like Spider-Man. I just wish the story around him was anywhere near as good.

Going from The Amazing Spider-Man to this is also a pretty big drop for me. I gave the first movie a 3/5 because, even though it retreads the origin and gets bogged down in the parents mystery, I think it has an identity. I like the atmosphere. I like Garfield. I like Gwen. It stands on its own. The sequel has more stuff, but less of a movie.

That is probably the best way I can explain my rating. I do not think The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is completely empty. There are things in here that I really like. But I cannot give a movie a high rating just because I like the actors or because certain scenes are cool. I have to judge the whole thing, and the whole thing is a mess.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 gets a 1.5/5 from me. I still like Andrew Garfield. I still like Emma Stone. I still like the look of this movie. I still think there was a much better Spider-Man movie somewhere inside all of this. But what made it to theaters is an overstuffed sequel that cares more about setting up a franchise than telling one good story.

What makes that especially funny to me is that I figured out something was wrong with it before I had any idea how movies were made. I was just a kid leaving the theater thinking, "Huh. That was bad." Years later, I can explain why a lot better. I still cannot argue with that kid.

(Andrew Garfield is great. Emma Stone is great. This movie is not.)