or they'll lose the rights. And Sony ain't losing the rights to Spider-Man... No matter what.
It's true, where the first film failed to do much new or interesting, this sequel did manage to grab me a few more times. The Electro effects in the first half really worked for me.
Anyway as the last quarter of the film played out, I found myself considering what Spider-Man's supposed to be. He's not representative of the "American spirit", like Superman... and he's not a dark detective, like Batman... he's not about big business, like Iron Man... and he doesn't have the whole wanting to belong or be free thing that the X-Men have always done. Spider-Man is supposed to be more like a regular kid who goes to school, has a family, and tries to have a social life... even if he does self sabotage on a regular basis. These new movies try to capture that feeling. But they always seem to bury it because there are just too many absurd things going on to really give them the time they deserve. Obviously we should never be forced to watch a D train rise out of an abandoned subway as if it's supposed to be cool, because it doesn't make sense to the story... at all. This is almost as awkward as the cranes in the first one, suspension of disbelief only goes so far, and if you want it to go farther you badly have to earn the audience's trust. Something these writers have failed to do time and time again... Still there was one moment that pulled me back from my contemplative mood at the end there. It nearly justified the entire movie for me. And I really might have walked out of there with a skip in my step if that had felt like the message the filmmakers were trying to go with all movie long. Because a little kid who looks up to Spider-Man really can make a difference...
I do keep thinking about the idea of stakes. Are they high enough? Do we, the audience, feel the danger? And while most of the time in these kinds of movies I would say probably not, this time it was a different story. The writers came in with one event they had to do. I knew it was coming because they had set it up in the first movie and if you intentionally cast your movie to pull at heart strings I think we all know what's gonna happen... one of those strings is gonna get cut. Anyone who knows anything about Spider-Man knows what this movie is here for. I'm glad I've finally seen them be "brave" enough to do it. I was disappointed when they didn't try to switch it up in the original trilogy and do the same thing. But what's odd to me is the filmmakers didn't seem to have any restraint in interviews about it. I didn't just expect the event because of the previous installment... I KNEW it was coming because Marc Webb pretty much told me it was gonna happen. To me, that's a strange way to put out interviews before the movie has made it to it's audience.
Essentially, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is better than the first one, but still doesn't manage to resonate because it's just too convoluted with so many peoples' ideas. As a studio I get the desire to have three screenwriters and four story credits because you really just want to get it right. But I think the message that a majority of these movies have accidentally been imparting is, one or two guys who truly understand their craft and deeply care about the content will make you a better movie. Just a thought.