Posts
Many argue that a reboot of Spider-Man wasn't needed, certainly not so soon after Raimi's movies and the reason was simply the fact that Sony's rights to the character are limited and they'll certainly milk it for all its worth before it returns to the Marvel Universe and, dare I say, The Avengers?
No, the movies weren't needed but I take a sullen enjoyment out of different incarnations of the same character and casting Andrew Garfield was a step in the right direction - no offence to Tobey Magure, a decent actor, but his Peter Parker was a crybaby; no one likes a crybaby - and his chemistry with real-life girlfriend Emma Stone (as Gwen Stacy) anchored the first movie and elevated it above its silly comic-book narrative. It works even better with the second, sweeping away the poor, formulaic nature of the movie and its incredibly flimsy portrayal of supervillains.
Jamie Foxx stars as Electro, a man who takes a tumble into a vat of electric eels, wiping away every ounce of human flesh and matter, replacing it with surging electricity. There is no science to it (phew!) and you pretty much take it as is. His primary scene in Times Square is actually very good; it's large in scope but works well, showcasing director Marc Webb's abilities at setting the stage. From then on, however, it's a mad descent into anarchy - not enough time is given to develop Electro and he side-steps from misunderstood sap to Batman and Robin in the space of a couple of scenes.
Then we have Harry Osborne, the Green Goblin. Dane DeHaan is, again, a better casting decision than James Franco was. He has the right look of charm and unhinged ferocity. However, he seems to be succumbing to his genetic illness far too quickly (again, it's lazy writing, convenient plot ordering and given light by the odd line of exposition) - I'm not even going to start on how quickly it took for him to become accustomed to the latest in high-tec weaponry forged by his father's company - again, take it with a large handful of salt.
The movie rumbles on, showdown after showdown (the lack of creativity in the final act is overlooked due to the emotional conclusion of the movie), never really offering anything new or exciting; as a superhero movie, it's remarkably dull - has the trope become a fad after all these years? I doubt it.
No, what elevated the movie to something other than mindless, meandering action is the coming-of-age story hidden beneath the special effects and multi-million dollar shots. Spider-Man is a teenage at heart, a high-school outcast that gets the superpowers and the girl. His relationship with Gwen is here and there at times as he fights with his own warped sense of morality, torturing himself with the promise he made her father in the previous movie - keep away from Gwen, keep her safe. It's an interesting direction and takes a number of turns throughout the movie, culminating in, arguably, the best moment of the movie. Garfield and Stone have incredible chemistry, very much acting like a young couple in love, figuring out their places in the world they occupy, troubled by the extraordinary circumstances. Within that aspect, the movie works quite well, but, ultimately, it's hampered down and bloated by the influx of maniacal villain that don't belong - unfortunately, this is, once again, a movie that has been stuck inside an upside-down glass and I fear that, like Raimi's trilogy, the third film may be the one to kill it off.
