Menu
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Awards
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Entertainment
Movies
What was the last film you watched?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 333722" data-attributes="member: 23"><p style="text-align: center"><strong><span style="font-size: 22px">The Amazing Spider-Man 2</span></strong> (2014)</p> <p style="text-align: center"></p> <p style="text-align: center"><img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newdvdreleasedates.com%2Fimages%2Fposters%2Flarge%2Fthe-amazing-spider-man-2-2014-03.jpg&f=1&nofb=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 513px" /></p><p></p><p>This has been on my viewing bucket list for ages, and means that I've now watched every Spider-Man film from Sam Raimi's original to <em>Far From Home </em>(I've still to watch <em>No Way Home</em>).</p><p></p><p>I finally watched the first Andrew Garfield film a little over eight months ago, however in that time I've watched the entire MCU, including most Spider-Man appearances. This gave me doubts that I'd enjoy the second film due to switching from one reality to another. It didn't help that I knew <em>ASM2</em> was poorly received. Or perhaps it did, since I went in with reasonably low expectations.</p><p></p><p>I was dreading Jamie Foxx's version of Electro since he's so far removed from the character I grew up reading, but found him tolerable enough. The character as portrayed here felt very DC. He initially reminded me of Richard Pryor in<em> Superman III,</em> and his origin - starting out as a slightly goofy underdog-type character and ending up as the Big Bad - strongly evoked Selena Kyle/Edward Nigma/Pamela Isley in the three Nineties <em>Batman</em> sequels. It's far from terrible, but feels dated and poorly thought out. The electrocution and aftermath was nicely dark, but once he began glowing it just looked like a video game. The character's aesthetic was too effects-heavy, and the effects weren't top-notch a lot of the time, though mercifully he looked less like Arnie's Mr Freeze than I'd feared he might. </p><p></p><p>Andrew Garfield is great once again. Having had a comprehensive overview of all three Spider-Men, I maintain that he's the best actor of the three. Not that this <em>necessarily</em> makes him the best Peter Parker/Spider-Man, but there's certainly a strong case for that here. Emma Stone is very engaging indeed as Gwen. Gwen's an interesting choice, I think, since for me she's very much a character frozen in the Silver Age of comics (which many say actually ended with her death).</p><p></p><p>Sally Field is very much Sally Field. Mileage may vary on how good a thing this is. She gets one of her typically overwrought shrill monologues (contractual, I shouldn't wonder) when May is distressed and dumps all her burdens on Peter. It's a very May Parker thing to do, but I never really see May in her. I could easily be watching <em>Steel Magnolias.</em></p><p></p><p>The backstory with Peter's parents plays completely against the very premise of Peter's character as an ordinary kid from an ordinary background developing extraordinary powers. I appreciate that the films needed to go in a different direction, following so soon from the Raimi trilogy, and I suppose this is simply an outcome of this. The actors certainly help sell it, and perhaps it was worth all the daft revelations for that wonderfully atmospheric scene where Peter discovers the abandoned subway station.</p><p></p><p>In fact all the new stuff with the secret espionage is, for my money, preferable to the film doing its own spin on scenarios that are familiar not just from the comics but from earlier films. In these areas, the film is more obliged to go in a different direction, so Harry becoming the Green Goblin is given a new spin and it's diluted many times over, not just because it's been so recently filmed, but also because we don't see Norman as the Goblin. As Harry, Dane DeHaan is fine. The arc with him trying to get hold of Spider-Man's radioactive blood in a bid to cure him is at least somewhat engaging. As the Goblin, it's a mess. Harry was the Goblin for about five minutes in the comics and the screentime given the character in the various film series is very disproportionate. I wouldn't mind if it were done well, and can only hope the MCU's inevitable spin on it will be more authentic an engaging.</p><p></p><p>The tragedy at the film's climax is again hampered by it position as a reboot. All the pieces are in different places and so the cinematic telling of one of the most important stories in comics history ends up being done in a way that doesn't ring true.</p><p></p><p>Seeing the trademarks of various Spider-Man villains in the secret Oscorp lab - the Vulture's wings, Doctor Octopus's tentacles, the Rhino suit - is mildly tantalising. Clearly this was planned to be a world where each villain could be pretty much made to order by Oscorp, which has a sense to it (even if the concept is a bit of a cheat in the same way as mutants - past their initial concept - are an easy, lazy way of having a ready-made origin without having to get truly creative). This is a world where the Sinister Six could come together quickly which could have been interesting. All in all, though, it's the villains that let this film down.</p><p></p><p>Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone make up for this, though, and while it's not Spidey's finest cinematic moment, it's not really a bad film.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mel O'Drama, post: 333722, member: 23"] [CENTER][B][SIZE=6]The Amazing Spider-Man 2[/SIZE][/B] (2014) [IMG width="513px"]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newdvdreleasedates.com%2Fimages%2Fposters%2Flarge%2Fthe-amazing-spider-man-2-2014-03.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/IMG][/CENTER] This has been on my viewing bucket list for ages, and means that I've now watched every Spider-Man film from Sam Raimi's original to [I]Far From Home [/I](I've still to watch [I]No Way Home[/I]). I finally watched the first Andrew Garfield film a little over eight months ago, however in that time I've watched the entire MCU, including most Spider-Man appearances. This gave me doubts that I'd enjoy the second film due to switching from one reality to another. It didn't help that I knew [I]ASM2[/I] was poorly received. Or perhaps it did, since I went in with reasonably low expectations. I was dreading Jamie Foxx's version of Electro since he's so far removed from the character I grew up reading, but found him tolerable enough. The character as portrayed here felt very DC. He initially reminded me of Richard Pryor in[I] Superman III,[/I] and his origin - starting out as a slightly goofy underdog-type character and ending up as the Big Bad - strongly evoked Selena Kyle/Edward Nigma/Pamela Isley in the three Nineties [I]Batman[/I] sequels. It's far from terrible, but feels dated and poorly thought out. The electrocution and aftermath was nicely dark, but once he began glowing it just looked like a video game. The character's aesthetic was too effects-heavy, and the effects weren't top-notch a lot of the time, though mercifully he looked less like Arnie's Mr Freeze than I'd feared he might. Andrew Garfield is great once again. Having had a comprehensive overview of all three Spider-Men, I maintain that he's the best actor of the three. Not that this [I]necessarily[/I] makes him the best Peter Parker/Spider-Man, but there's certainly a strong case for that here. Emma Stone is very engaging indeed as Gwen. Gwen's an interesting choice, I think, since for me she's very much a character frozen in the Silver Age of comics (which many say actually ended with her death). Sally Field is very much Sally Field. Mileage may vary on how good a thing this is. She gets one of her typically overwrought shrill monologues (contractual, I shouldn't wonder) when May is distressed and dumps all her burdens on Peter. It's a very May Parker thing to do, but I never really see May in her. I could easily be watching [I]Steel Magnolias.[/I] The backstory with Peter's parents plays completely against the very premise of Peter's character as an ordinary kid from an ordinary background developing extraordinary powers. I appreciate that the films needed to go in a different direction, following so soon from the Raimi trilogy, and I suppose this is simply an outcome of this. The actors certainly help sell it, and perhaps it was worth all the daft revelations for that wonderfully atmospheric scene where Peter discovers the abandoned subway station. In fact all the new stuff with the secret espionage is, for my money, preferable to the film doing its own spin on scenarios that are familiar not just from the comics but from earlier films. In these areas, the film is more obliged to go in a different direction, so Harry becoming the Green Goblin is given a new spin and it's diluted many times over, not just because it's been so recently filmed, but also because we don't see Norman as the Goblin. As Harry, Dane DeHaan is fine. The arc with him trying to get hold of Spider-Man's radioactive blood in a bid to cure him is at least somewhat engaging. As the Goblin, it's a mess. Harry was the Goblin for about five minutes in the comics and the screentime given the character in the various film series is very disproportionate. I wouldn't mind if it were done well, and can only hope the MCU's inevitable spin on it will be more authentic an engaging. The tragedy at the film's climax is again hampered by it position as a reboot. All the pieces are in different places and so the cinematic telling of one of the most important stories in comics history ends up being done in a way that doesn't ring true. Seeing the trademarks of various Spider-Man villains in the secret Oscorp lab - the Vulture's wings, Doctor Octopus's tentacles, the Rhino suit - is mildly tantalising. Clearly this was planned to be a world where each villain could be pretty much made to order by Oscorp, which has a sense to it (even if the concept is a bit of a cheat in the same way as mutants - past their initial concept - are an easy, lazy way of having a ready-made origin without having to get truly creative). This is a world where the Sinister Six could come together quickly which could have been interesting. All in all, though, it's the villains that let this film down. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone make up for this, though, and while it's not Spidey's finest cinematic moment, it's not really a bad film. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?
Post reply
Forums
Entertainment
Movies
What was the last film you watched?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
