September 29, 2014

Blockbusters Marathon: The Amazing Spider-man 2 (2014)

Spider-man floats towards New York in The Amazing Spider-man 2.

The first weekend in May has become the signal to audiences that the summer movie season has truly begun. We’re seeing recent changes that push this timing even earlier, but prominent releases still arrive in early May. It’s been the spot where all three Iron Man films earned huge box office returns and Sam Raimi’s Spider-man 3 blew away the competition in 2007. Sony introduced plenty of head-scratching when they decided to reboot the Spider-man franchise only five years later in 2012. They dropped the new version in early July, and it drew solid reviews and crowds. This set the stage for a much larger push for a sequel with a lot more at stake. The marketing push for The Amazing Spider-man 2 started rolling last summer and continued ferociously throughout the winter. It was easy to lose interest in the sequel months before its release because of the vigilant campaign. Following the gargantuan success of The Avengers, the stakes had reached a new high for every superhero franchise.

Did Sony over reach with its marketing? The constant news and reveals wore down my interest and made skipping it an easy choice. It promised a lot more than it could possibly deliver with villains and story. They kept the title on everyone’s minds throughout the spring, but that isn’t always good. There’s a fine line between making people aware and overwhelming them. An image that hints at Dr. Octopus or The Vulture is a nice touch in the movie, but selling us on greater involvement is misleading. These moves shouldn’t impact our assessment of a film, yet it does play a role. If you’re entering a movie with skepticism before the first image appears, it takes a lot to change those perceptions. Even those viewers that try avoid trailers and news could not escape this push.

There’s a danger when a film has goals beyond delivering an effective and entertaining story. Before The Amazing Spider-man 2 was even released, Sony made it clear this was a first step in a series of spin-offs. It’s clear throughout this film that those considerations muted a possibly interesting look at the challenges of being a superhero. The chemistry between real-life couple Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield was a key reason the 2012 film worked. They’re pushed too far to the background this time behind multiple villains and Peter’s search for information about his father. I’m a fan of complicated mythologies in certain cases, but it’s hard to care when the emotional connection is lost. The third-act surprise lacks the same impact because of the messiness in front of it. What should be a tragic moment feels cheap because it’s lost within a flimsy structure. The scene is done well but can only do so much by that point.

Jamie Foxx as Electro in The Amazing Spider-man 2.

Streamlining the villains in super hero films is a wise choice but rarely followed. Jamie Foxx’s Electro generates impressive effects but doesn’t work because there’s little sympathy for Max. That understanding is what made Alfred Molina’s Dr. Octopus so interesting in Raimi’s Spider-man 2. There are remarkable shots of Electro leaping from spot to spot while Spider-man avoids his attacks. They’re beautiful and probably looked even more amazing in 3D. This film is CGI-heavy yet rarely dull with so much happening with the visuals. The problem is giving us nothing with the enemies. Electro disappears for a long time in the second act, and we barely miss him. There’s an interesting story about him buried somewhere, but it’s lost behind an even less thrilling villain.

Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) is a familiar name from both the comics and the movies. He’s a close friend of Peter and eventually becomes a rival. If you didn’t know that history, the portrayal in this film would be very confusing. Harry is all over the map and shifts between kindness and insanity without warning. It’s hard to know the reasons for this inconsistent guy, but my theory is that much was left on the cutting room floor. Where’s the time for character development when you’re trying to create a franchise? Despite his importance to the climax, Harry seems like a throwaway role that was dropped into the plot to build the other projects. DeHaan is a talented actor who’s delivered strong performances in films like Chronicle and The Place Beyond the Pines. Few could do much with this character, however.

Andrew Garfield stars as Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-man 2.

It’s easy to spend many paragraphs digging into the strange choices by Director Marc Webb and the multiple writers. There’s a point where that becomes tiresome, however. I’m interested in how much the final product succeeded in meeting their goals. Andrew Garfield recently blamed the studio for forcing cuts that ruined the film. His passion is endearing and comes from a place of loving the character. It does feel like there was an interesting film that could have been salvaged. It’s too easy for me to say that cutting 20 minutes would change the result. A running time of 142 minutes feels too long for this material, but that’s more because the story isn’t that engaging. Even a shorter version of this material could deliver a similar result because the tone doesn’t connect like it should.

If there’s a precursor to this film from the Marvel releases, it’s Iron Man 2. We’d seen a few brief appearances from S.H.I.E.L.D. in previous films, but they’d fit smoothly within the story or appeared at the end. This movie introduced multiple villains (including one that disappeared for a while) and crammed in so much plot that didn’t enhance the narrative. The S.H.I.E.L.D. side trip in the third act felt out of place and killed the momentum. It’s a rare example where Marvel picked shootouts over character. Looking at the franchise on the whole, it did help set the stage for The Avengers. This example shows the challenges of trying to construct a massive franchise on par with Marvel. The rewards are huge, but it’s easy to lose sight of the primary goal of delivering a successful movie.

The Amazing Spider-man 2 is bookended by fights between our hero and Aleksei Sytsevich (Paul Giamatti), who becomes the Rhino for the second battle. Having a star of Giamatti’s stature in the opening scene leads us to believe he’ll return for a later moment. Instead, he’s only present to act as a bridge to the Sinister Six. Giamatti uses a ridiculous European accent that’s purposely designed to be outlandish and induce laughs. The problem is that most of the others don’t share the joke. Peter Parker is tormented by his inability to protect everyone, including Gwen Stacy’s father (Denis Leary). As Spider-man, he uses the corny humor that’s common for that character. What’s strange is how awkward it feels when you consider this version of Peter Parker.

The Amazing Spider-man 2, directed by Marc Webb

There’s a striking look to both Spider-man movies from Marc Webb that makes this film work at times. Director of Photography Dan Mindel (Star Trek) creates a world of vivid blues and blacks with a cool smoothness. The dark blue from the Spider-man costume leaps off the screen, and the lighter shades from Electro’s weapons give an interesting palette. These shots are gorgeous, but they’re part of loud action scenes that are often hard to follow. New York City looks striking during the big fights, including the first showdown in Times Square. It’s a movie designed to play on the largest IMAX screens around, and it surely pleased some audiences. Watched at home on a smaller scale, there isn’t enough beyond the chaos to deliver an engaging movie. It’s the worst example of world building at the expense of character, and the future looks murky for the franchise.

10 comments:

  1. I heard the film was a fucking mess. I did see a key aspect of the film's ending and man, that was terrible. No wonder people didn't like it among the many things about the film. I heard some people say that it made Spider-Man 3 look like a classic as this film didn't learn the sins that Raimi's third film did. I'll probably watch it on TV but with a sense of disdain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there are good moments, but it's all so disjointed that they don't stick. The similar film is more Iron Man 2 than Spider-man 3, but I can see the connection. Too much plot, multiple villains, and an uneven tone is what gets it. Trying to set up a franchise makes it even rougher.

      Delete
  2. Yup.

    Hadn't heard about Garfield blaming the studio, though. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That story came out pretty recently about Garfield. I think he's committed to doing something good with Spider-man, and all the negative reactions probably stung.

      Delete
  3. I actually *really* liked this in theater. But it's one that the more I've listened about it and thought about it, I can totally understand what others are saying. So I need to revisit this one. I disagree with everyone hyperbolizing it to be the worst thing ever and making Spider-Man 3 to be amazing in comparison. It's not THAT bad. Honestly, I also compared it to Iron Man 2, which I also think gets an unfairly bad rep (I rewatched that a couple years ago, and it's really not as bad as people say it is).

    Is the movie a mess? Kinda, yeah. That being said, I feel people are putting their hatred in the wrong places because of stuff like Spider-Man 3. I don't think the problem was too many villains. Rhino only has maybe 5 total minutes in the entire movie. Green Goblin doesn't become a thing until the third act. For all intents and purposes, the film only has one villain for the majority of the movie: Electro. Rather, the problem was too many subplots. The parents history subplot is the worst of them, and that should have just been dropped completely. And the movie spent too much time trying to build up the Sinister Six (much like Iron Man 2 spent too much time building up The Avengers). Had they trimmed down on that and cut out the parents, and maybe 5-10 minutes of the Gwen will they/won't they, they could have easily had time to strengthen Electro's story and the relationship between Peter and Harry. They also didn't *need* to make Green Goblin appear at the end as a villain. They just wanted the infamous scene from the comics (which was already changed up anyway due to setting). They could have had the film end with his Goblin appearance or something as a cliffhanger.

    The film isn't terrible by any means, I don't think, and I feel too many people are being a little crazy with their "BEST EVER!" or "WORST EVER!" mentality towards films lately. But it definitely does have its flaws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the multiple subplots were the issue for sure. When I say "too many villains", I'm talking about the Green Goblin mostly. It's like we just set Electro aside for a while and focus on him, and Harry acts differently in every scene.

      I'm guessing that seeing this in the theaters would have pushed a lot of this back. There are some gorgeous scenes with Electro that probably looked great on the big screen. At home, it was just too hard to push aside a lot of the sloppy construction. Still, I wouldn't call it the worst ever. It's just disappointing.

      Delete
  4. Watching this in the cinema, I actually enjoyed it. Sure, it's very loud, flashy and ... well loud. There were a lot of aspects I liked - Gwen Stacy is definitely a highlight for me. Emma Stone does a fantastic job with her, though I have some sort of soft spot for Emma Stone - she's just so damn likeable! Dane Dehaan's casting excited me - I could really see him as Harry, though like you, was disappointed how little time he got.

    The soundtrack for AS2 was very good. I enjoy listening to it. There are about 6 contributing artists to the entire score, you'd think that'd be one too many, but it works really well!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can imagine that the soundtrack was great to hear at the theater. It was pretty impressive on my little home speakers, and they're hardly very advanced. I agree that the strongest part of the movie is the chemistry between Stone and Garfield. That's worked in both films. The rest of it didn't work so much.

      Delete
  5. I did not mind Electro's storyine but it should be in a different movie. This one should have focused on Spider-Man/Peter Parker's relationship with Gwen Stacy and Harry Osborne/Green Goblin. It's ending is one of the most famous stories in comic book history and it gets turned into a a really small moment. If Garfield is upset with the outcome of this movie, will we get another reboot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vern, It's interesting that you mention Electro as the issue. I've heard a lot of complaints about the Harry subplot but few the other way around. I know that they pulled such a huge moment from the comics and agree that it's muted because there isn't enough build-up with the Green Goblin. Garfield may be upset, but I'm not sure Sony is too mad. It still made a lot of money overseas.

      Delete