Skip to main content

There's a tendency in life to think that because "A" is good and "B" is good, if we put "A" and "B" together in one package that will equal awesomeness. But this sort of thinking is how we end up with God-awful abominations like Pepsi-flavored Cheetos and Candy Corn Oreos. That inclination is also present in studio film production, where the more "stuff" thrown into a movie means more merchandising of action figures, apparel and cups at McDonald's. However, the problem is there's only so much story that can be told within a two-hour window, and more often than not you end up with a film that's badly paced, uneven and doesn't service the multitude of stuffed-in characters adequately.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 opens this weekend, which is considered the official kick-off of the summer movie season. Director Marc Webb's second outing with the Spider-Man franchise suffers from a script that inserts so much into its 144 minute running time it loses track of its main plot at times. That's not to say there aren't good moments and performances. Some of the action sequences are quite impressive, and the chemistry between Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is particularly good. But what works in the film feels like a loose collection of plot threads instead of a coherent narrative. And much of what's good gets lost in superfluous setup for future Spider-Man related films.

Continue below the fold for more.

Joss Whedon: "The thing that made Marvel Comics extraordinary was that they created people. Their characters didn't live in mythical cities, they lived in New York. They absolutely were a part of the world. Peter Parker's character was a tortured adolescent ... DC's characters, like Wonder Woman and Superman and Green Lantern, were all very much removed from humanity. Batman was the only character they had who was so rooted in pain, that had that same gift that the Marvel characters had, which was that gift of humanity that we can relate to."
The crux of the Spider-Man story is that it's about a boy struggling with the concept of responsibility. Peter Parker is not wealthy like Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark, and he is perpetually looked down upon, underestimated and unappreciated by almost everyone. But Spider-Man's story is rooted in pain and regret. Whether it be the mistake that led to Uncle Ben's death, growing up without his parents or the strain being Spider-Man has on friendships and relationships, what makes Peter Parker work as a story is the struggle to deal with all of that while also having great powers and great responsibilities.
Andrew Garfield stars as Spider-Man in Columbia Pictures'
"Listen to me. You're Spider-Man. I love that. But I love Peter Parker more. That's worth it to me." —Gwen Stacy

"I can't lose you too." —Peter Parker

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has its moments, but the script by Jeff Pinker, as well as Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci—the duo behind Michael Bay's Transformers films and both of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek movies—is loaded with characters and familiar comic book movie concepts. (e.g. an accidental mutation, the dying and desperate antagonist, the new clean but dangerous power grid, etc.) But only some of those characters are fleshed out to any depth and the concepts are only there to get from point a to b, blow up in a CGI-gasm or setup future movies. The first movie, 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man, rebooted things after Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Webb's Spider-Man received mixed reviews, with many thinking the film's story and villain was mostly forgettable. But the film made over $750 million worldwide and Andrew Garfield's take on Peter Parker is generally regarded as capturing the creative, teenage smart ass nature of the character a little better than Maguire. With The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Sony is hoping to use it to build a bigger franchise of Spider-Man related properties (ala the Marvel Studios films). And there is a lot of setup for that in the movie, but it does nothing to help make these two-plus hours enjoyable.

As this film begins, Peter Parker is still struggling with his love for Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and the promise he made to her father (Denis Leary). It is the main tension of the story and it's an important part of the film's climax. But I don't think the sum of those parts equal a good movie overall.

“I was wrong. The city does need you. But you are going to make enemies. It will be dangerous. You have to promise me to leave Gwen out of it.” —Captain Stacy
The opening action sequence, where Peter struggles to stop Aleksei Sytsevich (Paul Giamatti) and make it to his high-school graduation in time, is done really well. It captures the fun of the comic book Spider-Man. And for that matter, all three big action set pieces are interesting to look at, even though they descend into a CGI mess from time to time. Beyond that, relationship between Peter and Gwen is the most developed and best story element in the film, with Marc Webb having already shown that he can deal with tales of romance in (500) Days Of Summer. The problems come in when the movie introduces the villains, which are not really villains. They're more like obstacles, since the characterizations of Electro and Harry Osborn are paper thin.
Jamie Foxx's Electro/Matt Dillon seems like someone said lets take The Riddler's backstory from Batman Forever, merge it with Stephen King's Carrie, throw in electricity, and call it a day. He's one of the central antagonists of the film, and onscreen more time than any of the other villains. But Electro only exists to blow shit up from time to time and move the plot along. As far as a character with a meaningful arc? No. Things are a little better for Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborn, but not by much. Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper) has put Harry in charge of Oscorp, but Harry is suffering from the same retroviral hyperplasia as his father. And the corporate espionage surrounding Oscorp is a big plot thread meant to be the connective tissue that will hold all of the future Spider-Man related films together. However, Harry is a broken young man from the first second we see him, and the friendship between Peter and Harry is nowhere near as believable as the one between Maguire and James Franco's characters in Raimi's trilogy. The movie attempts to draw parallels between Harry and Peter, with both having grown up without their parents. But everything about Harry Osborn's story is borne out of convenience, because the plot needs it to happen to have some semblance of making sense. So when the inevitable turn comes with Harry, it's not so much an interesting shift that's part of a character arc. It's the movie putting the character into a Green Goblin costume because the script and future movies demand it.

Arguably, if you took Electro out of this movie and just shifted everything to where Harry and Oscorp blow shit up instead, the plot could still end up in the same place it reaches at the end. That's how unnecessary Electro is to the narrative. Going back to 1992's Batman Returns, the tendency to load superhero films up with villains has been their undoing. There's a line of thinking that says the most obvious way to raise the stakes in a sequel is to increase the number of threats facing the hero. The problem though is there's a limited amount of onscreen time to develop the story and characters, in-between the big budget action sequences. So instead of having one storyline done well over two hours, you end up with four storylines done piss-poorly. 2007's Spider-Man 3 is a prime example, where the movie had to juggle three villains and the love story between Mary Jane and Peter. Add into this that these movies are being made to keep footholds on franchises. Like Fox's X-Men films, as well as Fox's planned reboot of the Fantastic Four, Sony and Fox have to keep making films otherwise their license expires, the movie rights revert to Disney and the characters get absorbed into the Marvel Studios films.

From this point forward I'm going to get a little spoiler-y. So if you don't want to know any spoilers for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, don't read any further. Also, if people want to discuss spoilers for the movie in the comments, go right ahead. I only ask that you be respectful. Don't put spoilers in the headers to comments, and put a spoiler warning in the comment.
  • Norman Osborn: Chris Cooper's Norman Osborn is onscreen for about five minutes and then dies. Or did he? We're told that he died through a news broadcast, but we don't see him die or do we see a body. So I'm guessing that he's not really dead, or at the very least they're keeping open the option of bringing him back for a future film.
  • Sinister Six: By the end of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, a rough origin for the Spider-Man foes that make up the Sinister Six is set up (e.g. we see the Vulture's wings and Doctor Octopus' tentacles inside an Oscorp lab), with Sony hoping to give the group their own film. However, I'm not so sure it works to have every Spider-Man villain connected to Oscorp. Also, the promotional material that uses Paul Giamatti's Rhino comes close to false advertising. Giamatti is in all of two scenes and pretty much a non-factor in this movie.
  • The end of spectacle in an age of casual magic: As I mentioned above, some of the visual effects sequences in this film are impressive. But none of them are quite jaw dropping or memorable. Over at The Dissolve, Matt Singer has a piece that wonders if audiences have become numb to CGI effects?
In a column at HitFix earlier this week, Drew McWeeny echoed a lot of my feelings about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and the summer movie season in general in a piece about what he dubs “the age of casual magic.” Hollywood has gotten so good at bringing the impossible to life onscreen, he says, that they’ve devalued their most important (and often only) selling point: spectacle.
“There is nothing more dangerous to storytellers than the idea of an audience that is incapable of awe anymore, and yet that's what our studio system seems determined to create. It's like putting someone on an all ice cream diet. If you forced someone to eat ice cream breakfast, lunch, and dinner without any interruption, that person would eventually learn to detest ice cream. The thought of it would make them physically ill. You would destroy it for them.”
  • J. Jonah Jameson: The publisher and editor-in-chief of The Daily Bugle is not seen in the film, but is referred to and responds to email. Peter is selling him pictures of Spider-Man, with Jameson paying "1960's rates" for the images. Also, other than Jameson and the Bugle, it seems like Spider-Man is beloved by most of the public as well as cops and firemen. One of the criticisms of Zack Snyder's Man of Steel was that Superman didn't seem to give a shit about the collateral damage to humanity during his battles. Webb's Spider-Man goes out of his way to save people from harm, to almost campy extents.
  • Richard Parker: The mystery of what happened to Peter Parker's parents is revealed in this movie, but I don't think it adds all that much to the story. We already knew Oscorp was bad and the most likely force behind their disappearance. We also knew from The Amazing Spider-Man that Oscorp was performing dangerous, biological experiments using Richard Parker's research. So the reveals are an interesting moment for the character of Peter Parker, but they're totally unnecessary for the film. The only relevant story detail added is that the genetically engineered spiders that bit Peter and made him Spider-Man were genetically coded with Richard Parker's DNA. It's mostly a holdover of scenes deleted from the first film which implied Peter Parker was in some ways always "fated" to become Spider-Man. And this film explains the Spider-Man "effect" can only occur with a Parker descendant, and leads to the deformities when Harry tries to use the spider venom. The entire plot point feels like a strange attempt to meld elements of the Superman mythos onto Spider-Man (i.e. a long dead father creating the circumstances for his son's superpowers and leaving a final message to guide him).
  • The search for Uncle Ben's killer: This plot thread from the first movie, with Peter searching for the man with the star tattoo, is just completely forgotten about in this film. Although, the writers were already drowning in too many characters and excess storylines.
  • Felicia Hardy: Harry Osborn develops a business relationship with an executive at Oscorp named Felicia (Felicity Jones). While nothing in the movie indicates it, the character is intended to be Felicia Hardy (a.k.a. the Black Cat).
  • Mary Jane Watson: Speaking of excess characters, originally this film would have introduced Divergent star Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane. However, Woodley was cut from the film.
Marc Webb: "There was one little scene at the beginning where she is next door and it took place right around the montage where he comes back and there was another little moment between Gwen and MJ. But it just tipped over. The relationship between them [Peter and Gwen] is so sacred and so powerful, that it just didn't feel right. And it sucks because Shailene is such a f**king great actress and so cool and magical but it was just about having this obligation to this romance that I thought was sacred. It was just one of those things."
  • The post-credits sequence: The scene is from X-Men: Days of Future Past, and depicts Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) leading a crew of mutants against a military base during the Vietnam era. The sequence is NOT meant to signal a new cross-studio synergy between Sony and Fox that will merge the Spider-Man and X-Men films. In order to secure director Marc Webb for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Sony had to get Webb out of a preexisting deal with Fox Searchlight. Eventually Fox agreed, but one of the concessions they got out of Sony was free promotion for X-Men in The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
  • Gwen Stacy: The climax of the movie is based on 1973's "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" story arc from Marvel Comics, with Emma Stone's character wearing exactly the same clothing as her comic book counterpart when it happens. However, there are some significant changes. In the comic book (as well as in the somewhat similar scene in Raimi's Spider-Man that subs in Mary Jane), the Green Goblin throws Gwen Stacy from a bridge instead of a clock tower. Also, in the comic book, Peter was unsure whether he actually killed her with his webs or if the Green Goblin had already killed her before throwing her. However, in both the film and comic book, Peter blames himself for what happened. The movie does telegraph her death at the beginning of the film with Gwen's graduation speech. And Gwen Stacy's death in the comic book is as significant to the character of Spider-Man as the murder of Uncle Ben. One troubling aspect about this development for the film series is that Garfield and Stone's chemistry is one of the best things about these movies, and now they don't have that anymore.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:30 PM PDT.

Also republished by What are you watching?.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That's what killed the previous Spiderman and (10+ / 0-)

    Batman franchises - the final movies in their series basically lost control and just packed in way too many characters, villains, and silly sub-plots. You'd think they'd learn, but they never seem to.

    Pistachios are like our politics - when the two sides are divided, that's when the nuts come out! - Stephen Colbert

    by Fordmandalay on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:43:06 PM PDT

    •  One hero. One villain. (7+ / 0-)

      Subplots spinning off the main axis of the narrative. Is that so hard?

    •  Why is this so hard for studios to learn? (4+ / 0-)

      The diary is right:  In modern times it began with Batman Returns.  Batman had the Joker.  BR had the Penguin and Catwoman.  That worked pretty well.  But the next one added Robin and had Two-Face and the Riddler.  The next one added Batgirl and had Mr. Freeze, Bane, and Poison Ivy.

      And ... they increasingly sucked.  Did no one notice this pattern?

      Not the makers of Spider-Man.  The first had the Goblin.  The next had the New Goblin and Dr. Octopus.  That worked pretty well.  But ... the next one had the New Goblin, the Sandman, and Venom.  And added Gwen Stacy.  And it wasn't as good.

      In a different way, the Lord of the Rings movies follows the same pattern ... which then bleeds into the Hobbit.  They feel each one has to be BIGGER and MORE SPECTACULAR than the previous ... so the action sequences become increasingly unbelievable and cartoon-like.

    •  The Dark Knight Rises was also hampered similarly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fordmandalay

      by sloppiness, and two looooooong monologues that Explain Everything For You.  

      When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered -- MLK, Jr.

      by caul on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:46:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  great diary! This is why I love HuffPo! (5+ / 0-)

    Dear NSA: I am only joking.

    by Shahryar on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:47:49 PM PDT

  •  I wasted a few brain cells the other day trying to (6+ / 0-)

    figure out how Spiderman 2 was coming soon when I'd already seen Spiderman 3 last year.

    Then I was informed that this was some kind of new and improved Spiderman 2 — because I guess the first one wasn't good enough?

    F*cking Hollywood.

    Ain't no such things as halfway crooks.

    by here4tehbeer on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:57:19 PM PDT

    •  Well... (3+ / 0-)

      Adjective-less Spider Man 3 came came out in 2007.

      AMAZING Spider Man #1 (officially a reboot) came out in 2012.

      Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

      by Jank2112 on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:37:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The other Spiderman 2 sucked too (0+ / 0-)

      (No pun intended). Spiderman 3 was slightly better, as I recall.

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:20:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Everyone wants to do a "First _____ Issue" (0+ / 0-)

      When John Byrne did the 'Superman' re-boot after "Crisis On Infinite Earths", there was a big debate about changing the name of the ORIGINAL 'Superman' magazine to "The Adventures Of Superman" and starting a brand new "Superman" comic.

      One of the conventional wisdom trains of thought was that Byrne wanted to do a "Superman Number One".
      That's possible, but it doesn't explain WHY these movie studios have to reboot these series after every three movies.

      Question: "What is the MOST successful movie franchise in history?"

      Answer: James Bond

      Those producers didn't 're-boot' the franchise until "Casino Royale" -- which was the TWENTY-FIRST MOVIE in the series.

      If you want the numbers -- here we go: The FIRST Bond movie -- "Dr. No" -- was released in 1962. "Casino Royale" was released in 2006. That means UA/MGM went FORTY-FOUR YEARS without having to 'reboot' the franchise. There were FIVE actors who portrayed Bond before this reboot, and the audience didn't have ANY PROBLEMS with this. At least, not as far as having to start the series over. The stories were about JAMES BOND -- NOT Sean Connery/George Lazenby/Roger Moore/Timothy Dalton/Pierce Brosnan. (And if you REALLY want to use a science-fiction/fantasy example, how many actors portrayed Dr. Who in the original sequence of series again?)

      Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me that you couldn't do the same thing with comic-book characters?

      Why do we have to always have multiple villains? I actually think the Avengers storyline is the most successful precisely because we DON'T have a seemingly ever expanding list of bad guys. I mean they forecast "The Sinister Six" in this movie -- does that mean we are going to have to sit through SIX DIFFERENT SUPER-VILLAIN ORIGINS IN ONE MOVIE? When will there be time for the plot?

      "Free your mind and the rest will follow...."

      by midknightryder13 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:37:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sure I'll be in the minority... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Doctor RJ, palantir

    But I enjoyed it. I thought the difference between wise-cracking Spidey and conflicted Peter was well handled. Though Electro seemed like he was going for an adjunct professor position with the Watchmen, and a hate the film notion of introduce a villain, kill a villain, I thought they did a decent job with the character.

    There was a lot of deviation from the Spider-man backstory, and of course Gwen's fate isn't quite the same, it still had impact.  The biggest difference there was that in the comic, Gwen really does die due to choices Peter makes, if only on the her vs. many other people scale.

    The biggest mistake the movie made for me was in not just ending after the Electro fight and saving Gwen's finale for a third film. And if we did have to have Gwen's exit, then we should have ended there. Bringing in the six-months later sequence dragged us forward, but cheapened the set up for the Six.

    •  Augh. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gay CA Democrat

      Yeah, there is. I've not seen the movie yet, but the deviations in the first movie gave me problems that I could only see becoming worse in the later movies of the series, especially with the focus on Parker's Parents and everything tying into Oscorp.

      More bloodline fetishization! Yay!

      •  The bit with Peter's parents... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gay CA Democrat

        Seemed mostly focused on writing them out of a trap of "why don't they just make a million Spider-Men (Spider-Mans?)" caused in the first film.

        It was still pretty much wasted time, except that I liked the subway car secret lab.

        •  Feh! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gay CA Democrat

          It's still dumb. xD

          In the comics, that problem was solved by Peter getting bit and the spider dying shortly after he smacked it off his hand.

          Point is: making it all about Peter's biological heritage is just another example of our obsession, fascination, and love of 'inborn special' based on bloodline.

  •  Who ever thought candy corn was good? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Doctor RJ, palantir

    That's what I want to know.

    Marx was an optimist.

    by psnyder on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:14:34 PM PDT

  •  I Will Probably Pass (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir, Doctor RJ, Gay CA Democrat

    ...and I'm saying that as someone who has collected comic books since 1978.

    It's great that SFX finally reached a stage where they could duplicate what Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and co. where doing 50 years ago, but most of these movies today leave me cold, like they just rolled off an assembly line.

    As a matter of fact, with all the endless phony-looking CGI, the comics STILL look more "real" than many of the movies.

    Not only that, the big "spoiler alert" for ASM #2 is, like, 40 years old for people who've read the comics.  Likewise, the Big Reveal in Captain America, Winter Soldier.

    Still waiting for actual GREATNESS from a Marvel film.
     

    Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

    by Jank2112 on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:47:41 PM PDT

  •  Chicken Waffle Potato Chips (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Doctor RJ

    I am not making this up. GAG!

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:19:12 PM PDT

  •  Parker's Parents: (4+ / 0-)

    I originally wrote this for comic book resources forums on the matter of why I hated the use of Parker's Parents and how they'd use this to make being Spider-Man Parker's inevitable destiny:

    See, I dislike that. I dislike it because it makes it seem like Peter's journey is the result of inevitable destiny. And it isn't, shouldn't be, and the story of his parents should have very little to do with anything else that happens in his life. There's a desire amongst humans to make patterns, to tie things into neat little bows, and to have things 'make sense, precisely because we're actually very good at seeing patterns -that aren't there-. We demand the world conform to our ideas of what should be a 'just world', and the idea that the world is none of these things, and there is no grand design or destiny, seems to terrify us because it means things we don't deserve can happen to us too. (See any debate on poverty ever where the discussion immediately seems to become about who 'deserves' help versus who the 'undeserving poor' are.)

    To me, Parker's story works best when his parents are as irrelevant to the story as they were in the first issue. The only role they played in his life was that 'something happened' to them, and I maintain that exploring that too deeply undermines their irrelevance, and the very notion of 'nature versus nurture' that exists in so many SPider-Man villains when they're compared to Spidey. I realize that it's an object of curiousity, but it conceptually weakens the characters to make his parents heroic or super scientists involved with Oscorp. It's human nature to want their to be a story there, and this is a medium about storytelling, but sometimes telling the story is the wrong decision because it actually hurts the story. There's just no need for it beyond wanting to tie that neat little bow on his life so it all 'makes sense' and that Peter was 'destined' to be Spider-Man.

    He shouldn't be, and it shouldn't be. It's just how things worked out.

  •  MovieBob Didn't Like It (0+ / 0-)

    Bob "MovieBob" Chipman's reviews normally go out on Fridays.  But this one went out on Tuesday.  I think he presents his opinion quite well:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/...

  •  Have to disagree with one thing in this review... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alhambra, Doctor RJ
    and Andrew Garfield's take on Peter Parker is generally regarded as capturing the creative, teenage smart ass nature of the character a little better than Maguire.
    Maguire actually hit Peter Parker out of the park for me, capturing who Parker was in the beginning (from the first issue) -- a nebbish, a bookish and shy nerd.  Garfield's smugness and general smart-ass attitude missed the mark wide, I thought.

    Agree wholeheartedly with this:

    The end of spectacle in an age of casual magic
    : As I mentioned above, some of the visual effects sequences in this film are impressive. But none of them are quite jaw dropping or memorable. Over at The Dissolve, Matt Singer has a piece that wonders if audiences have become numb to CGI effects?
    I thought exactly that when I saw Man of Steel:  I can't be the only one who thinks the early sequences in the first Christopher Reeve movie still come off as spectacular, compared to MoS and Superman Returns as when I first saw them in the theater.  I did, however, find them pretty great in The Amazing Spiderman, particularly that last sequence before the end credits rolled, with that great iconic final shot.  Then again, that may be because we've never seen a Spiderman movie without CGI, so it's just a matter of doing it right and making it look as real as possible.

    Good review, though.  Kinda confirms what I suspected from the trailer -- one overstuffed package.

    When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered -- MLK, Jr.

    by caul on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:45:04 AM PDT

  •  Poor Electro (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gay CA Democrat, Doctor RJ

    At first I though he was going to be a Sandman character, that of the Bad Guy who's basically a Good Guy.

    But then it seems he's a bit "slow in the head" if you know what I mean.

    Then he becomes flat out 2-D Saturday Morning Character villain.

    He also becomes the first, and so far only, villain of the new franchise that dies.

    Dr. Curt Connors is a good guy who became bad due to the lizard part of him affecting his judgment. He didn't die.

    Harry Osborn is a good guy who became bad due to the spider toxin he took, which he took only because he thought it was a cure for his retroviral hyperplasia. He didn't die.

    What was the purpose of Electro, anyway? His story didn't advance Spiderman's story in any way, manner or form.

    Also, his demise was treated almost as an afterthought. Just a little plastic counter showing the energy running out. The movie was almost dismissive in showing the end of the character.

    It was as if the filmmakers want to have a Black villain for some reason, so they created one. But once they've created it, well, best to just put him aside so as not disrupt the stories of the REAL characters.

    Or something like that.

    •  "He also becomes the first, and so far... (0+ / 0-)

      "only, villain of the new franchise that dies."

      Yes, there's a reason for that.

      "Woe unto ye beetles of South America." -- Charles Darwin, about to sail on The Beagle, 1831

      by Katakana on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:33:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Love this diary. But 1 correction... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Doctor RJ

    Batman Returns (a movie I absolutely hate to this day for the camp and goofiness it brought back to Batman) was released in the summer of 1992, not 1993.

    Haven't seen ASM 2 yet, but I can't help myself. I love SPOILERS.

    And now I know I can happily look forward to the inevitable DK MOS 2 discussion diary in 2016. ;)

    Thanks for writing this diary. It's a good feeling to know I'm not the only geek around DailyKos!

    •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skaje

      I corrected it.

      I have some of the same issues with Batman Returns, but it's also a terribly edited film as well. Even as a kid, I remember watching the fight sequence between Batman and Catwoman in the video below (2:30 to 4:17) and thinking it made no damn sense.


      Catwoman and Batman fight on a roof, backing up to a ledge, to which Catwoman knocks Batman over, catches and dangles him with her whip. We cut to a shot of Batman dangling with nothing below him. He then hits her with some sort of Bat-weapon, and she falls backwards. They've already established that there's a sizable stretch of roof behind her (Batman and Catwoman were just fighting on it). However, she somehow falls backwards onto the side of another building that wasn't there 10 seconds beforehand.

      But then there's the seeming ability of Batman to teleport. Batman is dangling by Catwoman's whip. When she's knocked backwards, Catwoman lets go of the whip, and there should be no tension in the whip. However, Batman just slides down onto a ledge that's appeared out of nowhere. And within seconds he's somehow above Catwoman who's now on the side of a different building.

      •  HAH! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Doctor RJ

        I never noticed that before. Good catch!

        I feel the same way about Green Lantern. The way the editing was done, it literally looks like WB executives took a hatchet to it and just chopped up director Martin Campbell's narrative.

        I'd dearly love to see a director's cut of GL.

        (Always more a GL or Superman fan; less so a Batman fan.)

  •  mars (0+ / 0-)

    <<<<>>>>>>
    Hi ! I am Jenna, and i will be your personal coach and will guide you in starting with an online business and earning online... So if you are interested in making $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month then follow link at the bottom and sign up and you can have your first check by the end of this week...­­WORK71.C­­O­­M

  •  'Too many characters' derailed the Raimi franchise (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Doctor RJ

    ... and also tanked the Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise with the overbloated 'Batman and Robin."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site