User reviews

I can't say I went in to the theater with high hopes. I did enjoy the first installment of this unnecessary reboot, almost anything seemed like a step up from "Spiderman 3", and Garfield felt way more natural than Maguire, and Emma Stone is always welcome. But after seeing the first trailer I thought it seemed like a total mess, and I wasn't convinced by Electro one bit. Unfortunately I was spot on, I hoped to at least get an enjoyable time at the cinema with my friends, but ended up feeling quite uncomfortable and laughing throughout most of the film.

Garfield and Stone has their chemistry and does their best with the incredibly thin script and cheesy one-liners, but their potential quite beautiful scenes together gets lost in the over-full and messy plot. I can't buy an emotional scene that is interrupted by heavy dub-step and a blue electric guy.

Oh Jamie Foxx, how did you go from Django to this? Before he goes all CGI-Electro he tries to play the nerdy unseen scientist (with a worse comb-over than Christian Bale's 'Hustle'-look). As Electro it's hard to say how much is his fault, and what can be blamed on the rest, I'd go with the rest. You don't sympathize with him nor do you believe how fast he becomes this super-villain.

Everything that Dane DeHaan did so well in "Chronicle" just feels unnatural and (maybe not misplaced, but wrong) here. And his character development is way too rushed and quite unnecessary for this film, it just becomes another sub-plot standing in the way of what really matters.

Sally Field does good work as Aunt May, but leaves no lasting mark. Paul Giamatti's Russian criminal is just in the way and only gives a couple of dreadful and laughable scenes. And then there's the mad German scientist named Kafka and I rest my case.

The action and visuals isn't bad, but still doesn't make up for the low "trying to be Marvel"-comedy and horrific soundtrack, a soundtrack that almost itself destroys the film throughout the exhausting 142 minutes. And sometimes it feels like the movie is taking us as an audience to be stupid, with pointers to what is going to happen. I would like to say that you might enjoy it if you just try and see it for what it is, but it's hard, but hopefully possible! It had an interesting start, with a glimpse inside the past and Peter's parents, but it's left underdeveloped, as is almost everything else, to make room for all its action and villains.

It's amazing how the difference between two big-budget superhero-movies can be so huge, if you put this against "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", a great and, opposed to this one, original film.

Oh how I wish that Marc Webb could have continued with a "(500) Days of Summer"-esque movie instead, he could keep the sub-plots starring Garfield, Stone and DeHaan, and it could very well be a great film, and probably not such a waste of talent.

Both Amazing Spider-Man films get a lot of hate, and while for me they weren't as bad as all that(if anything personally they were moderately enjoyable films) I do agree with a lot of the criticisms for both. Some say the sequel is better, personally the first while being very over-familiar and unevenly paced and with a severely underdeveloped villain the first was a little better but still fell far short. There are good things about the sequel. Once again it is very stylishly made and the special effects are better this time round, while the action sequences provide some thrills. The chemistry between Peter and Gwen is still sweet, Peter at the grave is actually quite moving and the closest the film ever gets to having any emotional impact and some of the acting is good. Andrew Garfield's performance is much better here, he doesn't ever quite capture Spider-Man's vulnerability but he is much less smug and tones down the quirkiness. Emma Stone is a charming and very likable Gwen, Sally Field gives seasoned support as Aunt May although she doesn't have much to do and Dane DeHaan does a great job showing Harry Osborn's slow descent into fear and loneliness. However, Jamie Foxx despite looking really cool doesn't do anything with Electro and looks lost and Paul Giamatti is completely wasted and gives a rare bad performance. The script and the way the characters are written don't help, the script is very thinly sketched and tries to balance comedy and pathos and does so awkwardly, to the extent the comedy feels overly-broad and out of place and the pathos apart from one part is non-existent literally. And the film does suffer from too many characters and most of them with little development, with the two leads the most interesting characters. There are two too many villains(the same problem that Spider-Man 3 had) and none of them developed very well, Osborn/Green Goblin just about musters due to DeHaan but his development still feels rushed and some of his actions out of the blue, the villain also deserved a much better resurrection which was cheaply done. Like Lizard in the first film Electro is very one-dimensional with no motivation, or shall we say no obvious one, and Rhino feels like a just-there-for-the-sake-of-it character. The story doesn't suffer from being over-familiar like the first Amazing Spider-Man but it does suffer from a very sprawling structure and a lot of it feels over-stuffed and plodding. The music has its moments and does fit better than James Horner's for the first Amazing Spider Man but it does lack pace and one of those pleasant-to-listen-to-but-easily-forgettable scores, three composers are credited and the score sometimes sounds like that is the case. All in all, moderately enjoyable and visually impressive, and Garfield is much more at ease here, but it does suffer from trying to do too much and feels empty and emotionally-lacking. 5/10 Bethany

'The amazing spider man 2' presents itself as a a very entertaining popcorn movie with the likes of Andrew Garfield at the helm of the character Spider-man, in which he is perfectly suited. He delivers again the second time around as a relatable teenager who is just graduating from high school and is having problems with his love interest Gwen Stacy played by Emma Stone as he is concerned for her safety. As the film opens we see that he is back to his usual of fighting crime, and the city itself have accepted spider-man as a hero . Peter Parker has a lot on his plate in this one as he discovers the mystery behind his parents abrupt disappearance from his life as a young boy where he delves further into the truth. He is also challenged by the antagonist Electro played by Jamie fox as a man who seeks to be noticed by others. Among the new characters is also Harry Osborne Peter Parkers childhood friend from the past who has come back to New York city where he learns a terrible truth about Oscorp and the Osborne family curse, as he tries to seeks out spider-mans help.

As a whole this is a very enjoyable film that has many flaws but are excused by the very well done action scenes that have very impressive CGI, especially the New York central scene with Electro. The relationship between Peter and Gwen is well done as that is director Mark Webbs strongest points to making a movie that involve the relationships between the key characters. The acting is fine by the main actors which also includes the likes of sally field who plays Peters Aunt may and newcomer to the series Jamie Foxx is okay too as Electro.

The gripes that I have about the film is that it is all a bit clustered, with too much going on, which brought me back to the terrible spider man 3 but definitely no where near that bad. I think that Harry Osborn could have been fleshed out more as a character and also cast more appropriately. Electro was an exceptional villain from the film as we see the problems he suffers through in life.

Overall many fans of the series and genre and genre will enjoy this experience. The film has great acting and the movie is worth it for the entertainment value with awesome CGI, but the movie strives to hard to be bigger than it should be, and expands too much as the film runs overlong by the two hour mark. Mark Webb did an excellent job putting this film together but their is much too that can be improved on for 'The Amazing Spiderman 3' which I'm sure will be very successful as well as this film when it opens world wide.

Solid 7/10

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is the worst movie of this hero, with terrible story and villains and boring romance. Max Dillon, a.k.a. Electro, is a needy moronic lonely engineer that worships the Spider-Man and after an accident, he becomes a powerful stupid enemy that destroys part of New York. Harry Osborn, a.k.a. Green Goblin, is poorly developed; when his father is on the death bed, he learns that he has the same disease that is killing him and becomes CEO of the corporation without any experience. Soon he makes a quick research, has a short dialog with the Spider–Man and becomes his enemy after an announced accident. The romance between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy is boring and repetitive. There is an importance in Peter Parker's parents and Uncle Ben is practically forgotten. There are good action scenes and special effects but that is all. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "O Espetacular Homem-Aranha 2: A Ameaça de Electro" ("The Amazing Spider-Man 2 – The Threaten of Electro")

I'm a big fan of comics, particularly Marvel's characters and I grew up adoring Spiderman and most of the adaptations that have been made. The 90s animated series ruled, the Raimi trilogy made true the dream of a real action movie of the webhead but threw it all away in the final installment and this franchise..... just doesn't feel right to me.

The main issue I have with Amazing Spiderman both 1 and 2 is that the writers seem to misinterpret the aspects of the hero and it's surroundings. Spidey comes out more silly and clowny than witty and sarcastic. He is annoying to the guys he's fighting like a mime can be annoying when you walk by him in the sidewalk and chooses to displayed all his talents for you to see, and that's just not the feeling I think this character should provoke. All that, added to the crowds cheering behind a police line while Spidey fights a villain makes it all too childish for my taste.

What's really sad is that Andrew Garfield is the best Spiderman there is and will be. He has embodied the character amazingly and any shortcomings are due to the screenplay he's has to work with. Same goes to Emma Stone, a brilliant young actress that has returned dignity to our beloved Gwen Stacy after what Spiderman 3 did to her. Them and the greatly accomplished CGI scenes of Spidey's web swinging, which are what I've always thought that these scenes should look like, are the beautiful things about this movie that end up wasted in a context that doesn't do justice to a wonderful character and it's even more wonderful universe.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the unwarranted and unnecessary sequel to 2012's equally unnecessary and unwarranted The Amazing Spider-Man. It almost goes without saying that this is a staggeringly transparent cash- grab on the part of Sony and to a lesser extent Marvel, but the question is, is it worth your time and money?

The short answer is, absolutely not. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 evokes unavoidable comparisons to the masterstroke of the 2002-2007 trilogy, Spiderman 2, which was unquestionably superior in literally every conceivable fashion. As a matter-of-fact, you'll often wish – during TASM2's 140 minute runtime – that you're watching Spiderman 2. But how can that be? As Buzzfeed like to remind us, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are delightful; Dane De Haan is a promising young actor with a striking resemblance to a young Leonardo Di Caprio and Jamie Foxx is an experienced actor playing a potentially strong villain. Behind the camera, director Marc Webb impressed everybody with (500) Days of Summer and a string of well-known music videos, so what could go wrong? The answer, as is often the case in failed blockbusters, is lazy, shitty writing. It will be of no surprise to anyone that screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have each had a hand in at least one Transformers movie. But I digress.

TASM2, much like its predecessor, tediously and uncharismatically explores the mystery of what happened to Peter's parents, while Peter himself unconvincingly gets adjusted to his new life as Spiderman. Typically, there is also an antagonist who pops out of the woodwork courtesy of Oscorp (which surely by now should've faced at least some legal scrutiny for becoming a world-leader in the manufacture of supervillains), and Harry Osborn also appears as the harbinger of an inevitable Green Goblin return. This much has surely been made obvious by the trailer.

While this movie has some legitimately impressive action set-pieces, it succeeds only in turning a respectable group of lead actors into scenery-chewing, Saturday-morning-cartoon caricatures. During the film's non-action scenes, the leads unforgivably adopt ham-fisted pseudo- representations of their real-life personalities - I'm referring in mainly to Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone here. It becomes insipidly clear as the film goes on that their off-screen personality as a "cute celebrity couple" has been allowed to directly influence the writing. Often it feels as if they've just been thrown into a scene and told to improvise, and riff off of their natural chemistry. This is cute to watch, but when you suddenly remember that the last scene finished with an argument (or even an official break up at one point) it does make you question how well the writers knew their own screenplay. They chuckle and fawn giddily over each other, in spite of the fact that the narrative demands that they behave otherwise – like real human people would.

Poorly written scenes are not in short supply, and they encapsulate the knuckle-bitingly poor dialogue that mutilates this movie from beginning to end. The dialogue in the original trilogy was far from Shakespeare, but it was firm, utilitarian dialogue that moved the plot along. Here, everything is awkward and confused. It also through this poor scripting and story-telling that it becomes unescapable to realise Peter is in fact, quite obnoxious and douchey in this incarnation of Spiderman. Look at the plot from the villains' point of view as the film goes along, and you'll see what I mean.

Ultimately, TASM2 just left me feeling quite sad. The writers' tendency to open up plot holes the size of craters, and the bizarre shift toward Adam West Batman-style "campy" villains just made everyone seem like a dick who wasn't worth rooting for. By rebooting the Spiderman franchise this early – and getting a great cast to boot – Sony have made the unspoken promise that they've corrected the mistakes that the original trilogy made, and even improved upon its positives. However, they have achieved neither. This series has thus far done everything that the original series did, but slightly worse. Anything new it's tried to do, it has done poorly, and frankly I feel like a sucker for going to see it.

BUT HEY, THEY'RE MAKING A THIRD ONE WITH DOC OCK AND VULTURE AND OTHERS. GET OUT YOUR WALLETS.

TASM2 has had a number of things going against it, namely:

1) The bar has been set very high indeed for Super Hero films -- esp. the Dark Knight Trilogy, Avengers, Cap, Iron Man and X-Men DoFP have all been on average fantastic. It's great for comic book lovers like most of are. Not so great for film directors and producers that don't really bring their A game.

2) The plot is extremely unoriginal and very derivative -- for a refresher on a fantastic re-boot, re-watch Batman Begins. Or 007 re-boot Casino Royale with Craig James. When I saw that for the first time, I was like "what the heck... is this James Bond? This is absolutely fantastic!" It hits you right between the eyes. Does anyone get that sense from watching the TASM / TASM2 films? Not I.

3) The villains (i.e Electro and GG) not only looked ridiculous, the dialog was uninspired and the costumes looked liked they were made from someone who had never read a comic book. Rhino was embarrassingly bad. Really.

4) But, the main thing the TASM series has going against it is, frankly, Andrew Garfield. I don't think he's a bad actor. He was miscast, that's not his fault I guess. But he isn't a convincing Peter Parker. He's too old, he's too lanky and too depressing. Spidey / Parker, if nothing else, is bursting with personality with an amazing sense of humor, and he's gutsy -- I'd argue that only Captain America rivals Spidey's level of bravery / courage. As Parker, he has everything going against him -- loner nerd, has to hustle part-time job -- but I think deep down that's why comic book fans love and identify with Peter -- because WE could be Parker, hence, WE could be Spidey. That's why we root for Spidey. At least that's why I do.

And I didn't feel an ounce of that from TASM2, and I have no interest in seeing TASM3 knowing we will get more of the same.

Went to theater with great expectation but was disappointed.Amazing Spider Man 2 was a waste.You really don't need to watch the full movie.All the action that u see in the trailer that is all the entire movie got nothing extra.Through out the movie Spidey kept on looking for what was wrong with his parents while we all know that answer.Nothing out of the box popped out. Character build up of the villains were poor and boring.Rhino was not even in the movie.The movie was slow paced.CGI was excellent.Andrew gave a good performance as Spiderman.But very very poor and boring story.There was no suspense.I will give it 5/10.

I am a massive fan of spiderman, im 32 years old and i have loved comic book hero's since i was a child, if your anything like me i love the serious side of the comic book movies like the new batman movies, i really love the dark side to it all.

This movie from the start is really cheesy, once you watch the movie you will understand what i mean, marvel seem to be doing this a lot recently with their movies, captain America winter soldier was the same, its all quite innocent humour, all the kids in the cinema were in stitches with the silly one liners.

Some parts of the movie just didn't add up, the bad guy learnt how to use his powers in literally two seconds.... hope that isn't a spoiler....

There is good points in the movie too, there is a couple of good actors in it plus the special effects is amazing!! but not spiderman! lol

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the latest Spider-Man film by Mark Webb. The film stars: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, and Dane DeHann. The movie starts out great, showing how Peter (Garfield) has gotten used to being 'Spider-Man'. He's protecting New York's citizens, putting it's bad guys behind bars, and being the friendly neighborhood hero we all know and love. He is also in the midst of a complicated relationship between him and Gwen Stacy (Stone) involving Peter's hesitance to involve Gwen in his dangerous job as Spider-Man. And before long we meet the films antagonists, Electro (Foxx) and Harry Osborn (DeHann).

Coming out of The Amazing Spider-man 2, I'm weighing out the good and the bad. This movie has its fair share of both. For example, the movie has some great action sequences, making use of stunning visual effects in the process. But these scenes are too short and too few for a 140-minute movie. This, in turn, makes the movie feel sluggish and slow to the point. Fortunately performances by Garfield and DeHann pick up the slack. There is a major improvement in Garfield's acting since the first of the films and DeHann plays a compelling Harry Osborn, even if his darker side as Green Goblin doesn't get as much screen time as Foxx. Which brings me to another downside, Electro. Electro's role in the movie is questionable, as he hardly gets any screen time himself, and doesn't measure up to his evil accomplice, Green Goblin.

As a whole, Amazing Spider-Man 2 has some good acting in it, looks great visually, and is good enough to make an entertaining addition to the Spider-Man franchise.

This movie has quite amazing expression of the villain "Electro" and their fight scene was really nice. I never thought Electro could be on non-animations. But this movie crashed my perception. It did it!

If you are a visual-maniac, Spidey 2 would be good choice for you. :)

However it was screwed up by "poor" story. Poor story does not mean simple story. In this case, it was too much complex for hero action movie. It makes me not able to focus on the visual. There were so many unnecessary stories :(

If the story was simple enough, overall rating could be better.

Overall score : 5/10

Using jamie fox as electro,is an insult to electro

I wouldn't necessarily class myself as a superhero whiz-kid, but I do know a bit about what to expect from a good film and unfortunately this was below average. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh, but if you compare a superhero franchise such as the Dark Knight to the writings of Kurtzman & Orci, you'll understand that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not so amazing at all. These writers had previously worked on such films as the Transformer series, so how could they forget how to write an action film within a year? The typical last second save of a persons life, is literally text book stuff. When will we see something that isn't inevitably predictable?

What enraged me was the lack of originality, the poor continuity and excessive/unnecessary use of music throughout the production. I can only question whether the audio department had done their jobs correctly if they believed adding an inappropriate/unnecessary songs would mask their errors. Maybe I'm looking too far into it and in fact it was an attempt to appeal to a younger target audience. Regardless, I didn't like it.

For anyone who isn't familiar with Webb's work, you should know that throughout his career, directing action/adventure movies is not a regular occurrence; which is evident within The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It just shows that anyone with a slight interest in action and a high budget can produce a run-of-the-mill action film.

By employing just under 400 people within the visual effects department, Marc Webb clearly states his intentions for the movie. Its no secret that the Spider-Man films are nothing less than visually amazing, but when the plot suffers as a result of this you have to question Webb's decisions.

Nevertheless, this film was entertaining and the casts performance was exceptional, in specifically Garfield (Spider-Man). I imagine the younger target audience would get out the cinema and instantly be mimicking Spider-Man's web-slinging abilities.

'The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)' is not as bad as some would have you believe, in fact I'd even say it's better than the first 'Amazing Spider-Man' movie. It's still an under-cooked and over-produced mess, though, one that is most certainly the result of too many cooks (and super-villains) in the kitchen. There are scenes that provide passing entertainment - for example, the spider-swinging sequences are fantastically realised with honestly some of the best visual effects I've seen - but the feature then gets bogged down in exposition and stupidity as a corporate espionage plot comes into play and then promptly fizzles away, leaving us with nothing but the empty promise of sequels which, after this film failed so spectacularly, will now never see the light of day. 5/10

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is unfortunately a less enjoyable movie than its predecessor.

I like the idea of a character Like Max, but I don't think he was well-executed. The themes are reoccurring and many character choices are infuriating. Thankfully in the end the writers pulled something I never thought they would. That saved the movie from being absolutely horrible.

The directing got worse, Jamie Foxx's performance is terrible compared to the ones he gave before. The cinematography and editing are terrible. I couldn't see anything during the fight scenes, everything was too fast. The sound was awful, when Spider-Man was in the air it felt like hearing Andrew Garfield screaming in a booth, no sound of wind or anything else surrounding the scene. The score is cool, but doesn't always suit what's on screen. The acting performances were surprisingly bad. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had their time to become the characters they play and they did, but almost everyone else was terrible.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is something that shouldn't have been let made. It did a few things better than the first one, but what it did worse made the movie unenjoyable.

I still don't know what is the point of these Amazing Spider-Man movies? Three Spider-man movies came out before, so why are the directors making the same movies again? Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are good actors, but not good as the originals. I found Tobey Maguire and Kristen Dunst way better at being Marry Jane Watson and Spiderman/ Peter Parker. I don't get what is the point of going to the movies and watching a worse version of Spiderman. Why didn't the director make a Spiderman movie with a different story line. This is what happens when greedy people want to make money and cant think outside the box. Hollywood cant come up with any new ideas? I love Spiderman, but I disliked this movie for its lack of originality.

The only reason why I am giving this movie 5/10 is because of the action. There was action, but that's not enough for a movie. I watched the first Amazing Spiderman movie, and now I have watched the second. And I have to admit they are getting worse. Do not go waste your movie on this, which is an exact copy of the original Spiderman 2. What I suggest is, if you have a DVD of Spiderman 2, or have Netflix, go watch it there instead of watching this crappier version. I am not even going to see the third from how disappointed I was. Save your money and watch something original, and something you don't know what's going to happen every second.

This movie was a big let down. It wasn't bad, but it seemed as if this movie felt very forced with many unnecessary scenes. It definitely wasn't edited properly. There are many mini plots and scenes that have no significance. At times I felt like this movie had to fill out a checklist of scenes that had to be in the movie even thought they don't fit into the story, which they are many. The acting was great. Dane was my favorite character. And it's nice to see Spider-man being silly and making jokes with his enemies. I thought the CGI was a little bit too much. I liked it better when film makers used CGI to make things seem more realistic. Now it seems as if it's used to make things look more like a cartoon. The villains weren't developed properly. Electro wasn't a good villain because he had no clear motive. He was a psychological mess. These types of people don't make good villains in movies, neither in real life. This movie has no excuses. They just needed to find a reason for him to hate spider-man, it's poor screen writing. Rhino and Goblin are in it for an insignificant amount of time. There was no room for them, but they squashed them in anyway. But the main reason why I didn't enjoy it was because of the story and it's structure. The audience can't get emotionally involved with anything because there are too many plots. When this movie kept switching plots around you sometimes forget that other things are going on. And when they reappear you don't care anymore. This film tried to put too many apples in a bag that wasn't big enough, so the bag broke. The script had many other flaws, especially with dialogue. The script was the main reason why this movie suffered. I guess they should of thrown out that checklist.

While the studio was too busy to create spectacular action sequences, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" struggles with nonstructural plot, comical script and weak character development. The movie is overstuffed with unnecessary material and some coincidences moment that would make audiences feel exhausted also appearing many new characters affected this second installment into unfocused at storyline. Marc Webb as director seems confused to gather the two main villain and failed to introduce them properly. Surprisingly, the positive side of the movie comes from Peter Parker-Gwen Stacy's love story. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone successfully to portrait two teenagers who are madly in love and their chemistry put this movie into a different level of superhero franchise though it sometimes feels more like soap opera. Overall despite poor executed at storyline, "The Amazing Spiderman 2" is undeniably romantic and still entertaining as summer blockbuster movie, also an unbelievable performance from Andrew Garfield has stolen sympathy that is needed and promisingly opens a gate to the next chapter of Spider-Man.