Amazing Spider Man 2

[jgprime]

Here's a panel from Electro's first appearance



You take something from the comics and people still end up complaining.

Good ol' Spidey

That's quite a nice nod to the comics, by the way.

[mysterygeekboi]

You take something from the comics and people still end up complaining.

I loved Spidey in the fireman's helmet! Nice goofy typical Spider-Man antics.

[murcat]

Your argument doesn't make much sense when essentially you're saying that because there's competition it must be compared to each other and therefore the movie is bad because of it. Whatever happened to reviewing a film on its own? Why must the fact that its a reboot go against it? My point about the Dark Knight Rises stands,ts irrefutable and you know it.

What movie were you watching if you think Electro had no motivations? He was a loner who no one paid attention to but Spiderman did and saved his life. Peter mentions his name in what seemingly was a nothing conversation to him but it meant the world for Max because no one cared about him. He really believed Spiderman was his FRIEND and when he got his powers he was scared of waht he became he didn't know what was going on and when he needed a friend to help Peter forgot his name. He felt betrayed and says "you lied to me!" and thus he truly feels he's alone in this world.Could his motivations be better? Maybe, but it works because he's a guy who could be unstable or at least very close to the edge and was finally pushed over the breaking point. If you can't grasp why Electro's weakness is then I can't help you seeing as you should know

Here's a panel from Electro's first appearance



You take something from the comics and people still end up complaining.

Are you reading my entire post or just skimming it? I said that I know that Electro has a weakness in the comics to water. Yet, in the film he got his power from EELS. WHO LIVE IN WATER. So it made little sense that it would be his weakness. And yet they never really said, "hey it short circuits his power." In the comic Peter actually went through a thought process to explain why the water would work, we didn't get that in the movie. With the different origin it should have at least been explained. Like I said, which you didn't read it seems, that if you made an Alan Scott film and never explained his weakness to wood and he was kicking everyone's ass then the villain, with no explanation uses a piece of wood to block a beam of energy in the film it would make no sense. Explain stuff instead of half assing it.

And electro's motivation was he became his own foil within 5 minutes. If he was obsessed with Spider-man and saw that he could do power things, the logical step would be to mimic the things he admires about Spiderman not do a complete 180 and hurt others, the thing he himself was a victim of seemingly for a while.

And if you don't think you should compare movies to it's competitors then I don't know what to tell you. Superman 1 would get destroy today, but it is an amazing movie for it's time and its why it's considered one of the best superhero films of all time. Comparing the faults in Spiderman 1 with AS2 is pointless, two different movies in two different landscapes of super hero films.

[Metamorphosis]

I finally got around to seeing this movie last night. I'll post my thoughts in a BAD / GOOD format.

BAD: The first third of the movie didn't work for me--the Rhino heist scene was kind of exciting but also edited very choppy and looked a bit blurry and cheap at times (I saw the film in regular 2D).

GOOD: Spider-man jumping off of buildings and web-swinging through traffic, etc. Probably the best this has looked yet, though we've seen it in 5 films now.

BAD: Max Dillon's / Electro's early scenes. Jamie Foxx is a great actor, and he played Dillon pretty well. But from the transformation to the Times Square battle, I just didn't care for how they portrayed Electro early on in the movie. It was also terrible how they played goofy music during scenes that you were supposed to sympathize with Dillon, and the music and sounds they played during the Times Square battle was awful. Really distracted me.

GOOD: By the next time Electro is free and suited up, they were modulating his voice and he was showing off some Dr. Manhattan-esque powers, I thought he came off a lot better and menacing.

BAD: Kinda hated the Rhino costume.

GOOD: Garfield and Stone were great as ever, almost disgustingly cutesy together.

BAD: They really have to come up with a different way for the heroes and villains to come to be other than Oscorp. They really wore that out the Oscorp connection in this movie.

GOOD: Dehann (?) as Harry--fantastic! Dude did a great job. The Green Goblin stuff was all pretty great.

BAD: The actor who played Felicia is very hot, but she felt kinda dropped in merely to use a character. She doesn't even look like Felicia from the comics (though I guess she never said her last name was 'Hardy' but I'm assuming that's the implication). I was getting a real Bryce Dallas Howard dropped into SM3 as Gwen Stacy vibe from the whole Felicia thing. Also, some dudes in the theater kept laughing every time they said her name onscreen--every time. Not sure what that was about.

GOOD: I see a lot of people bitching about the Richard Parker stuff, but I like the way that was paid off in this movie. I thought the opening scene was fantastic, and these elements help this franchise stand out even more from the Raimi films. It's a bold take, but I think it works--even the spider-venom serum keyed into the Parker DNA. Lots of people don't seem to like these elements but I think they work very well and I was glad they explored more of this stuff here.

GOOD ROUNDUP: Emma Stone as Gwen, Gwen's death scene, the clocktower fight, the whole last few scenes (I thought showing the passing of time with Peter visiting Gwen's grave was a very good way to do it), Sally Field was solid as ever, Spidey stopping street level crime such as the convenience store robbery with Peter sneezing in his mask. Lots of good little moments. Costume looks freaking fantastic, finally.

BAD ROUNDUP: Tonally off in many places. The first third could've been tightened up to be better in line with the last 2/3. Jamie Foxx, as good as he is, got a bit too much screen time and could've been developed better. Too many villains again, they need to narrow the focus of these films a bit. I think the first ASM was the better movie out of these two, despite the horrible costume of the first film.

That's all I can think of right now--despite some problems, it was a good time at the movies.

[Sousa]

Are you reading my entire post or just skimming it? I said that I know that Electro has a weakness in the comics to water. Yet, in the film he got his power from EELS. WHO LIVE IN WATER. So it made little sense that it would be his weakness. And yet they never really said, "hey it short circuits his power." In the comic Peter actually went through a thought process to explain why the water would work, we didn't get that in the movie. With the different origin it should have at least been explained. Like I said, which you didn't read it seems, that if you made an Alan Scott film and never explained his weakness to wood and he was kicking everyone's ass then the villain, with no explanation uses a piece of wood to block a beam of energy in the film it would make no sense. Explain stuff instead of half assing it.

And electro's motivation was he became his own foil within 5 minutes. If he was obsessed with Spider-man and saw that he could do power things, the logical step would be to mimic the things he admires about Spiderman not do a complete 180 and hurt others, the thing he himself was a victim of seemingly for a while.

And if you don't think you should compare movies to it's competitors then I don't know what to tell you. Superman 1 would get destroy today, but it is an amazing movie for it's time and its why it's considered one of the best superhero films of all time. Comparing the faults in Spiderman 1 with AS2 is pointless, two different movies in two different landscapes of super hero films.

Eels live in water, Electro does not. He also got electrocuted before falling into the water full of eels also. Also, when he got hit with water he still doesn't know the extent of his power, he's scared and doesn't know what to do. They make a nod to the comics and you still find something to complain about. Just chill out

Wrong. He wasn't even doing anything to anybody. It was the police who panicked and shot at him first. He ACCEPTED Spiderman's help when he says"lets get out of here" he replies "ok" because he still admires him and wants to figure out what happened. The moment he realizes Spiderman forgot who he was he felt betrayed and snapped. He actually felt an emotional connection with him when he was saved and he even believes they're friends. He was pushed over the limit , all he basically had was his encounter with Spiderman and it was subsequently ripped right from him

Do you even read what you're typing? You're flat out telling me that we should compare movies, yet go on to say we shouldn't compare Spiderman 1 to The Amazing Spiderman 2? Wow, just wow.My point stands .

I just find it funny how people complain about 1 movie and completely ignore others. You praised the Nolan films well lets take a look shall we?

Batman Begins - Scarecrow starts off as the main villain. He had no motive to induce hallucinations to patients. He had no origin as to why he was doing that. Then you find out with 29 minutes to go(excluding credits) that Ra's Al Ghul is not only alive, but the one who ordered Crane to poison Gothams Water supply to cause mass hysteria because destroying Gotham would cleanse the city? Thats a motive? He had zero connection to Gotham before hand(if I recall correctly)


Dark Knight - The Joker comes into Gotham to cause chaos and to prove that every person is capable of chaos and murder. The Joker has no motive other than to cause chaos , he didn't really have a reason to other than liking it. Then as the movie is coming to an end with 35 minutes to go(excluding credits) Harvey Dent transforms to Two-Face who begins to kill anyone who was responsible for Rachel's death all except the one who actually killed her in the Joker. Sure he flipped a coin and allowed him to leave but he showed that he would keep flipping until he got what he wanted . He let the actual guy who killed his girlfriend live then his death changed the entirety of the film. His death and cover up of his crimes change not only laws but how the film ends and impacts the future film all within a half hour till finish.

As I said, ignore 1 film and criticize the other. It sounds like I'm a blind supporter of The Amazing Spiderman 2 but it bothers me when I see clear hypocrisy

[murcat]

Eels live in water, Electro does not. He also got electrocuted before falling into the water full of eels also. Also, when he got hit with water he still doesn't know the extent of his power, he's scared and doesn't know what to do. They make a nod to the comics and you still find something to complain about. Just chill out

Wrong. He wasn't even doing anything to anybody. It was the police who panicked and shot at him first. He ACCEPTED Spiderman's help when he says"lets get out of here" he replies "ok" because he still admires him and wants to figure out what happened. The moment he realizes Spiderman forgot who he was he felt betrayed and snapped. He actually felt an emotional connection with him when he was saved and he even believes they're friends. He was pushed over the limit , all he basically had was his encounter with Spiderman and it was subsequently ripped right from him

Do you even read what you're typing? You're flat out telling me that we should compare movies, yet go on to say we shouldn't compare Spiderman 1 to The Amazing Spiderman 2? Wow, just wow.My point stands .

I just find it funny how people complain about 1 movie and completely ignore others. You praised the Nolan films well lets take a look shall we?

Batman Begins - Scarecrow starts off as the main villain. He had no motive to induce hallucinations to patients. He had no origin as to why he was doing that. Then you find out with 29 minutes to go(excluding credits) that Ra's Al Ghul is not only alive, but the one who ordered Crane to poison Gothams Water supply to cause mass hysteria because destroying Gotham would cleanse the city? Thats a motive? He had zero connection to Gotham before hand(if I recall correctly)


Dark Knight - The Joker comes into Gotham to cause chaos and to prove that every person is capable of chaos and murder. The Joker has no motive other than to cause chaos , he didn't really have a reason to other than liking it. Then as the movie is coming to an end with 35 minutes to go(excluding credits) Harvey Dent transforms to Two-Face who begins to kill anyone who was responsible for Rachel's death all except the one who actually killed her in the Joker. Sure he flipped a coin and allowed him to leave but he showed that he would keep flipping until he got what he wanted . He let the actual guy who killed his girlfriend live then his death changed the entirety of the film. His death and cover up of his crimes change not only laws but how the film ends and impacts the future film all within a half hour till finish.

As I said, ignore 1 film and criticize the other. It sounds like I'm a blind supporter of The Amazing Spiderman 2 but it bothers me when I see clear hypocrisy

I'm getting confused here. All I've said about the older films is that they were good in their time, and would suck today if put up against the superhero genre competition. AS 2 sucked because it seemed like a week parody of the superior competition their up against. I'm starting to think this fact is going over your head or that you're just choosing to argue it and debate about it in circles. So I'm going to drop this part of the argument because it's going no where.

A large part of Electro's powers came from the Eels when he was transformed. I don't care if it's his weakness in the comics because they are clearly two different versions of the character. I also understand that it is a nod or accurate to the comics, but that is not an excuse to void it from the film. Also, please rewatch the Time Square scene. Electro seems very unphased by Spidey not knowing his name, he kind of mumbles it to him. He became the complete opposite character in a matter of seconds and it really lacked motivation.

I'd rather not really argue the Batman franchise's villains with Electro because Electro doesn't really belong in the same argument. I'm not saying that Electro is bad and that the old Spider-man movies had superior villains. I'm saying that Electro was terrible. Period. I've never said anything outside of that. I compared Electro to one character and that was Batman's Riddler in the 90s, and that comparison is spot on. I'm not trying to make comparisons, someone else brought the old films into this. I stated you can't compare because they're part of two different superhero genre periods.

I also think you are entitled to your opinion. Electro was a huge miss in my opinion. If that is the direction you would like to continue to see in Spidey films then go enjoy it all you want. I do think I'm a little out of touch with what works within super hero films if people loved this one.

[ShadowDemon]

Actually the movie never went into why it was his weakness.

Because we need to stop the fight for an insert scene/expo dump about physics, right? Points to the writers for not treating the audience like intellectual infants. I got the point of it right away, and I'm sure most people did as well.

In the comics it was because it short circuited him. BUT, in the movie he basically got his powers from experimental eels that…umm…LIVE IN FRIGGIN WATER! I would think water would actually be the stupidest thing to use against Electro because, I dunno, it is one of the biggest conductors of electricity.

Which was the point. Spidey used the water to drain off Electro's power, weakening him. That's also why water/fluid was being used at Ravenscroft as a containment measure.

And how much thought did Peter put in into finding out a weakness? Zero.

Peter (already established as being a really smart guy) used his scientific knowledge to improvise a counter-strategy on the fly, which emphasized not only his knowledge, but his ability to "think on his feet".

He just had a firetruck ready to launch,

No, it was there attending to the carnage surrounding the fight.

he really didn't even have to be there the fireman could have handled it all.

Perhaps, IF they thought of it. That's why Spidey is a hero, he's BETTER than most people not just because of his powers, but because of his other attributes (smart, quick thinking, etc).

The guy just took out Times Square and he gets completely taken out by a fire hose blast. Just a little explanation in the movie would have gone a long way, like why exactly it was his weakness.

As I said above, the writers (thankfully) did not treat the audience as if they were infants needing to have every little thing explicitly laid out for them. It's a superhero movie, not a science lecture.

It would be like making an Alan Scott Green Lantern film and hitting him in the face with a plank of wood. In the comics fans would know that it was his weakness but if it's never explained in the movie then really what the hell?

That is a different sort of thing altogether, because there is no logical, scientific basis for Scott's ring to be vulnerable to wood. That IS "special knowledge" that the audience is not necessarily expected to have.

[Peter Parker]

Finally saw it.

I think Emma Stone is about as good a casting of Gwen Stacy as J.K. Simmons was for JJJ. Likewise her death scene was just about as good as it could have been.

I still think Garfield is a fantastic Spider-Man, but an absolutely horrible Peter Parker. He is just way too suave and smooth around Gwen. Peter Parker shouldn't be able to get a date in a calendar store, he needs to be more nervous and aloof out of costume.

Frustratingly there was both too much story to be told in this movie, and at the same time too many luls in the story for another Peter/Gwen scene. Ok, we got it, he made a promise to Captain Stacy, alright already. How about spending some time developing Electro?

They really should have kept Electro as the main villain here and spent time developing the Harry character and his/Peter's relationship before jumping into full on Green Goblin. The whole Harry setup seemed awfully lazy: "Oh hey we were best friends welcome back!" Harry's entire GG arc should have been in ASM3.

They get the Spider-Man fight sequences just about perfect.

Overall, it was not terrible, I think the first one was better. SM2 was also better.

[ShadowDemon]

[U]Cons:...everything that had to do with Richard Parker and the whole recycled "Spider-Man's life is dangerous, so I have to push my girlfriend away bit" that was already seen in the original Raimi films. (I honestly rolled my eyes when Pete started the break up speech with her.)

1) They set up the whole Parker/Oscorp connection mystery in 1 and had to pay it off in 2 or people would have been complaining about that instead. ("What about Peter's dad? What's up with that? Why don't they tell us?")

2) Repetition of themes is a common problem with rebooting. The question isn't "has another version done this story?" but "how well did this version do at telling this classic story"?

He didn't actually change into the Goblin until the end and I feel it was a brave way to go as far as debuting the villain character for a brief period at the end and then continuing the arc in following movies.

I think this is important to note, as opposed to other film series (including Rami Spidey) having a tendency towards offing the villain.

BAD ROUNDUP:...Too many villains again, they need to narrow the focus of these films a bit.

It would have been "too many villains" if they'd all been lumped in to a few scenes a la Rami's SM3. As it stood, the use of the villains was spaced out so each got development time on screen (and before you say "Rhino", remember that the first what, 20 minutes(?) is about him as well, just before he got the suit).

Any film franchise (unfortunately) has a limited shelf-life. 3-5 films is typically all you can expect out of a given cast, depending on time between films. When you have a superhero franchise trying to get in a big "rogues gallery", you run the risk of them stepping on one another, or being reduced to "that guy in the corner? That's [insert character]". That's the problem I think that is going to hurt Days of Futures Past. Many of the "hey, look who they included!" characters are going to be glorified cameos at best.

[MarvelMovieCritic]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review TOP 3 BEST THINGS - MARVEL MOVIE CRITIC

Just made this video so I'd appreciate views, comments, likes, subs, etc.

My Top 3:

1. ????????????
2. Gwen & Peter Relationship
3. Harry Osborn the Green Goblin

You can see my #1 in the video or written in the video description.

Rating:

5 out of 5!

I also have a review of ASM 1, X-Men Days of Future Past Hopes & Wishes, and more planned to release.

If you like this video, who knows? Maybe CBR will hire me?

Follow me on Facebook too.

I plan to review every great Marvel movie.

The Marvel Movie Critic (That's me!) has a bachelors degree in film and has read over 4,000 Marvel comics, from the Stan Lee era to the modern era.

I'm just a regular Spider-Man & Marvel fan like the rest of you. And with my channel and videos, I hope to get some views, momentum, and maybe just a little bit of internet love. I know it's tough to ask for, but I hope to spread Marvel joy just a little bit.

[Peter Parker]

Don't tease us to get hits to your blog/video. This is a discussion board, if you want to talk, list the top three in text. Some of us cant use video in our present situation.

[Vworp Vworp]

Top 3 Best Things About Amazing Spider-Man 2

1) Jennifer Lawrence
2) Umm... Felicity Jones and Andrew Garfield have both been in Doctor Who. Oh, and Marton Csokas was in Xena. Both of which are among my all-time favourite TV Shows.
3) Hold on... Wait... There must be something else, right? Ah, OK - Gottit! It saved me money by not being good enough for me to want to go see it again, and/or subsequently purchase it on DVD or Blu-Ray!

[Scott Taylor]

The 3 Best Things About Amazing Spider-Man 2

1) It was Amazing
2) It was Spectacular
3) It was Sensational

[OcStat]

Here's a panel from Electro's first appearance



You take something from the comics and people still end up complaining.

Haha that's awesome. I've never read Electro's first appearance, I had a Marvel Masterworks book but it stopped at issue 5.

That reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend, before Spider-Man 3 was released, just when we found out Sandman was one of the villains. He thought it'd be hilarious to have Spider-Man suck up Sandman with a vacuum cleaner, straight out of Sandman's debut. Yeah it probably would've been funny, me and him would get it, but everyone else would just scratch their heads.

I find it funny some people have a problem with Spider-Man beating Electro like that in Times Square. There's the proof it's straight out of the source material, and not nearly as random or goofy as that vacuum would have been! Though it is pretty humorous when it happens.

[Punisher007]

Here are my thoughts:

The Good:

-Andrew Garfield-He just owns this role.
-Emma Stone-Same deal. She's one of the best/most likeable "love interest" characters in CMB history.
-The Peter/Gwen relationship-I bought it completely and it was ridiculously cute (in a good way).
-Dane Dehaan-The standout of the movie, he was fantastic.
-Jamie Foxx as Electro-Once he becomes Electro, he's awesome.
-Sally Field was really good yet again.
-A lot of the action in this movie was fantastic.
-The Richard Parker stuff was really good.
-Everything to do with Gwen's death and the aftermath, really good.

Stuff I wasn't sure about:

-Jamie Foxx as Max Dillon-Foxx does well with what he's given. But I kind of think that his character was written a little too cartoony pre-Electro.
-Paul Gimatti as Rhino-Same deal.
-Norman Osborn-You get a great actor like Chris Cooper and then only use him for two scenes? I'm not putting it in my "bad column" yet because I'm not convinced that he's really dead.

The Bad:

-This movie has rather jarring tonal shifts. It keeps flip-flopping from being a really cheesy and kid-friendly film to going to some really dark places. I don't think that they handled the balance very well.
-Some of the dialogue really didn't work for me.
-I think that there wasn't enough buildup to Harry and Max turning evil. They turned on Spider-Man a little too quickly.
-Some one help me out with this, but why did Harry think that he had so little time? He seemed to believe that he only had days or weeks to live, hence his desperation. But Norman merely said that he was at the age when the disease first starts to manifest itself. Norman lived to be into his 60's, so Harry's got time. He doesn't have to resort to such extremes so quickly.
-Peter could have done a much better job of explaining to Harry why he couldn't just help him right then and there. They could have taken it step by step and come up with a safer solution.
-There are too many characters and subplots. It's overcrowded and stuff doesn't get the development that it should.
-Once again, there are big chunks cut out of this movie and a lot of stuff that was in the trailers wasn't in the movie (like the first film). I don't know if it's Webb or Sony doing it, but it's happened twice now and has to stop.

Overall, it's a flawed yet still pretty enjoyable movie. It's definitely better than SM 3. There was stuff in that movie that I absolutely hated whereas I didn't HATE anything in this one. Some stuff annoyed or disappointed me, but there was no hatred. I'll give it a 7/10.