The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Slammed by Critics

Batman and Robin was supposed to be an action movie, but i felt the acting was horrible, like they did it on purpose.

If you're talking about Roger Ebert, than that's bad. Ebert reviews are horrible as a lot of his reviews are based on a certain audience than rather his own enjoyment.

So you loved The Mummy 3 too?

Have not seen The Mummy 3.

I just finished editing my video review of the film; my computer is rendering it right now and will be done doing so in ten minutes. So, I'll have the video posted in one to two hours, depending on how fast YouTube processes it.

*minor spoilers*

I saw the movie a few hours ago and I thought it was solid. The cast and the acting were good, I like Garfield and Emma Stone. The action sequences were cool and I liked the mix of humor and heavier emotional moments (particularly near the end). The only major issue I had with the film was the slightly convoluted plot. It wasn't confusing per se, but I feel like the plot could have been tighter overall. For example, the sub plot regarding Peter's father could have been cut all together. Going into the film my biggest concern were the three villians (we all know how Spiderman 3 turned out) but it really wasn't an issue. One of them is just a cameo, and the other only shows up near the very end.

I wasn't a huge fan of the first film, so hearing that the second is worse doesn't make me want to see it.

Here's my review. Check it out.

Well, if Master Live is part of that audience, then isn't that MORE reason for him to trust Ebert's reviews?

I meant for example,

His review of Flintstones The Movie(1994) had him dissing the movie because it may be more for adults than kids. That doesn't make sense. Its fine mentioning that in reviews but the main review should be based on rather you liked it or not.

56% on Rottentomatoes isn't a horrible score, it's divisive, I'd rather watch it myself and make my own opinion.

I can think of plenty of utter pure shit that scored top marks, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy carries an 83%, garbage, Great Beauty was also junk, got an 91%, Cremaster 3, one of the worse films I've ever seen, it got a 65% which is fresh... pretentious scores, all of them.

56% to me could mean a lot of things, could mean hey it's not trying to win any Oscars but could be fun to watch anyways, it could mean a bad movie with a pity score since it's a strong and important franchise; I'm gonna watch it myself to form my own opinion. 50-ish percent we also got shit like John Carter. Hey, it's a coin flip, you maybe like it, you might not; typical about any movie I go see these days.

What you should probably ask yourself before even attempting to see a movie like this should be - does the movie seem even interesting to you in the first place? I mean, are you like "I just want to see it because it's a Spider-Man movie"? Because if so maybe you'll end up getting what you wanted out of it. But if you're like "I don't really like Spider-Man but if the critics say it's good then I'll see it because it probably has great cinematography and special effects and acting", if you go into it like a film snob then you'll act like it's an offense to the senses... but in ways, I think film snobs get off on acting disappointed, they'll probably go see it just to harp about it.

Thing is, I've enjoyed each of the Spider-Man films, but I find them utterly forgettable, I enjoyed them enough but not enough to want to see them again, I will not rent them, watch them on TV, let alone buy their DVDs or collector Blu-ray/DVD/digital combo packs. They're worth a gander, and nothing more. I wouldn't mind if this film is forgettable, the rest were, but I enjoyed them when I watched them.

A 56% approval rating at the beginning of the period in which a film is in theaters is horrible because approval ratings tend to decline over time. Heck, the approval rating for this film is now down to 54%.

I thought it was horrible, and I liked the first one. The CGI was awful, the acting was garbage (Harry Osbourne was laughably bad), and the writing was terrible. I love action movies and usually I can get past terrible writing/acting, but this was just garbage. It was almost as if it couldn't figure out whether it wanted to take itself seriously or not. It was also 2.5 hours long...why?

Also, a 56% is not horrible at all...what the hell are you talking about? The average score on RT is much, much lower than that.

The first one wasn't even that great to begin with. And I have no idea why they decided to try three villains again with this one... Spiderman 3 was easily the weakest entry of the original trilogy, I have no idea why anybody thought that it'd work this time around.

All these comic book movies are getting old anyways.

Also, I find it really ridiculous so many people bitch about having a cohesive, serious story in these movies. I mean, if the story is solid then all the better, but these are movies about dudes running around in spandex fighting people with ridiculous powers. this goes for comics in general... They're already so ridiculous and over the top that it's silly when a fan is like "okay, that's just too ridiculous." Where's the line here?

This movie was worse than expected and I went into to this movie with already low expectations. The story was all over the the place and too many villians. I thought I never say this, but spider man 3 was even more watchable than this crap.

The only thing about this movie was the guy who played Harry. He was a better Harry than James Franco and better looking too.

I can't wait for Sony's lease to run out so the spider man movie rights can go back to marvel so marvel can make a decent spiderman.

James Franco, at the time he shot Spider-Man 3, was better looking. This guy, Dane Dehaan, looks like he hasn't slept in years. However, he did play a better Harry. Anyhow, what did you think of the points I raised in my video review?

i liked it a lot, i don't get the hate.

Aye. With Sam Raimi, even if it was "what could be" a simple scene he could inject it with energy and creativity.

I just saw this movie a few hours ago, I gotta say that it was good, and that it got bogged down by all the set up and plot they stuffed into it.

SPOILERS!!!!!!!

I feel like there was so many amazing things, but also some lackluster ideas thrown in. Acting all around was great, this movie convinced me that Garfield is a perfect fit for Parker/Spidey. Stone does a great job and her chemistry with Garfield is so perfect. Foxx is phenomenal, I love the way Electro is written it was a villain I really felt sympathy for, and his theme is amazing! I feel like the music was very well down, as was sound all around. The voices in the background during the Times Square scene was a neat touch. I really wish he was in it more because once he is down he is out for a good chunk of time, which I felt was very disappointing. While I'm talking about the villains, the film is not over stuffed. The issue comes at the end after the final electro fight.

The movie introduces Harry Osborn, and I feel like the movie really rushed him into becoming the Hobgoblin. There was never a chance to really establish Harrys and Peters friendship. Also an issue over Spidey helping Harry seems really forced to not work so Harry becomes evil right at the end. He shows up right at the end and gets swiftly defeated. However he does kill Gwen, which really forced to me. I felt like they should have saved Hobgoblin till the next movie, as well as Gwen's death....however I really did feel her death; it is a touching moment.

Also Rhino is 'technically' in the end of the movie for like, three minutes at the very end. It is basically there to set up Rhino and end the movie on a lighter tone than Gwen's death.

About the midway point is what takes the movie down for me. It is all plot, and story, and things movie at a slow pace. Its all of the Harry/Parker's Parents/ Gwen relationship storys taking alot of time. I understand this is a big part of Spider Man, and it is interesting to see this all play out but it leaves a gap of action in the movie. As I said earlier Electro is out for a good chunk of time and this is a shame is a very well written and relatable villain. Really,its not the villains, but the number of sub-plots they try to rush through. I feel like if they had made the Harry plot as a back burner and just established him and Peter's friendship AND THEN made him into the Hobgoblin next move it would have worked much better.

END SPOILERS!

To bring my wall of text home (TL;DR) It was a really good movie with great acting,sound, and visuals as well as characters that gets bogged down from rushed sub-plots, as well trying to squeeze too many in to set up for the next movie.

Doesn't that just undermine the entire relationship dynamic between Peter and Gwen? It seems like nothing more than just a cheap, manipulative plot device that tosses away the significance of her death in the comics just to end the film on a slightly less optimistic note--as well as try and set up a whole cinematic universe with these characters--and I'm not sure that it's capable of doing so. A whole movie of nothing but the Sinister Six? Who wants to see a Spider-Man movie WITHOUT Spider-Man?

I'm just wondering because I still can't make it past the first one with Andrew Garfield (so I can't fairly judge the merits of that film), and I'm just indifferent to this one.

I suppose it does. I mean they have a couple scenes of mourning and establish Spidey retires for a while before coming back at the end (Like a 5 month montage), and I felt like it would have been a stronger ending if they ended it there, or at the very least cut the whole Rhino thing. There was a nice speech at the end from Gwen that is played (it is a graduation speech that peter missed at the start) and I feel like if it ended on that it would have a bittersweet note. She may be gone, but she would want Peter to stay strong, it just felt well spoken and a good way to help Peter get ready for the sequel.

However, I don't really feel it undermines the whole relationship. The death was very emotional and I really felt that moment; and that doesn't happen often for me in film. The Rhino thing really just feels like they didn't want to end on a downer in a Spider-Man movie, its there to also set up Rhino and the Sinister Six, but as cliche as it was, it never felt like it was meant to rob the emotional aspect of the film; the emotions the movie invokes really is a strong point. Its an odd way to end the film, and it really showcases how the movie spends time setting up sequels, but it didn't kill it for me.

I am interested in seeing how the Sinister Six movie plays out, and I wonder if Spidey will be in it at all. I am hoping for the best, Villains are alot of fun so I hope they do it right. Honestly though, the movie I'm getting hyped for (and probably shouldn't) is Venom. I have been wanting to see Venom in a movie done right for so long! He is one of my favorite comic book characters and a whole movie about him is amazing, I know the material is there too, so i dope they don't mess it up. There are also rumors Carnage will be in it (INTENSE SYMBIOTE FANBOY SQUEAL) so I hope they do the full Symbiote story and have Spidey in the film as well somehow.

And really I want to say go see it. There are a lot of little touches and things I loved about the movie (EX: anything relating to Electro, just the way they did how talks is really cool). Yet, there are things that keep this from being the amazing movie it can be. Honestly, this movie sold me on Garfield. Right out the gate he plays a great Spider-Man. Its much better than the first one.

With the midway slow down, rushed Hobgoblin, and throwaway end scene holding it back, I'd still say it was solid.

It was enterntaining

Really waiting for the next big franchise to take off.

No idea whats it going to be.

No it didn't. They added that at the end to show Spider-man was still watching over the city. Did not detract. And Andrew does a better Spider-man....not so whiny like Maguire.

Rotten Tomatoes isn't like Gamespot or IGN... it's an aggregator, that collects views from all critics and gives an overall impression of how MANY people liked the movie. There is no means to quantify a movie's "quality" in RT's system.

@BluRayHiDef: Finally took the time to watch one of your reviews. Don't really agree with everything you said but I think you do a very good job explaining your opinions. Maybe I'll start watching your videos now; they're entertaining =)

Glad that you enjoyed it. As for me explaining my opinions well, I actually write scripts for my videos, so that I am coherent. I don't stick to the scripts verbatim, but follow them quite closely.

Anyhow, what did you agree with and what didn't you agree with?

@BluRayHiDef: It's mostly about you preferring the previous trilogy. Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are 2 actors that annoy the crap out of me, so having them both as a couple really made me hate that trilogy; I felt they had as much chemistry as 2 sacks of potatoes (and their acting was comparable) so I think this movie was better than the whole old trilogy. Other than that, I agree with you even though I didn't feel the action sequences were that poor =)

He rated movies based on how well they accomplished what they set out to do. He probably felt that The Flintstones failed at trying to be a kids film.

Love the random non-hidden spoilers thrown in a topic that isn't even dedicated to users thoughts on the movie....

RT lists the average rating in smaller font right below the Tomatometer score.

Anyway, don't care for this film at all but it makes sense that the score is more mixed. Now that there are so many superhero films standards have gotten higher. Back when Spider-Man 3 was made the cinematic landscape wasn't filled with them.

Different sites use different scales and standards for scores, so the average rating given on RT is an extremely loose concept of "average rating". As for this movie's score, I'd simply say that Marvel upped the ante with their movies, while this movie simply had a hard time keeping up.

@RedEyedMonster8: He rated movies based on how well they accomplished what they set out to do. He probably felt that The Flintstones failed at trying to be a kids film.

See that doesn't make sense. He should based his final opinion from his own perspective not a children's perspective. Also if you remember the movie, it did seemed like it could appeal to that audience who grew up in the 60's(when the cartoon series started)

I prefer Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 because it strikes an emotional cord with me; it has a soul. The romance between Peter and Mary Jane, and Peter's personal struggles (i.e finances, poor grades, guilt regarding Uncle Ben's death, and his fading powers) are so impactful. Also, the ending is brilliant; Doc Ock's realization that he was wrong and Mary Jane's discovery that Peter was Spider-Man made the ending so satisfying.

first of all half of the reviewers liking it means nothing at all, reviewers have zero objectivity. The Anchorman sequel got above 50% and it was one of the worst movies ever, Spiderman 2 is similar. It literally has portions of the ps4 game in the movie, rampant product placement, no plot for a good portion of the movie and it was only made because Sony's spidey license expires if they don't make them quick enough. If you like the movie that's fine but objectively it is bad from an artistic, theatric storytelling point of view. It's one of those movies you have to admit is awful.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is what results when a man known for directing a romance flick (500 Days of Summer) directs a high-budget, superhero film. I'm starting to think that Marc Webb was chosen to direct because of his surname.

I just saw The Amazing Spiderman 2 and for the most part I agree with the critics. If i were to score it I would probably give it a score somewhere between 6 and 7 (6 is the critics average score). For the good it was an exciting film while at the same time did not rely to heavily on fight scene after fight scene to make the movie. The quirky comedy that spiderman is known for was also present and moderately well done. Also (SPOILER) the Gwen Stacy scene (you know the one) was fantastic. I was glad the films makers had the balls to include that in the film. The ability to be rid of a major character is fantastic in my mind. Also Andrew Garfields fantastic emotional range as an actor is outstanding. However the film did suffer in many key areas. One major problem was the issue with character motivations. Characters seemed to change so rapidly that I had trouble figuring out their motivation for doing so. Electro I thought was poorly written. It wasn't plausible to me that he would want to kill Spiderman so badly. Jamie Foxx played the character well but he couldn't change the poorly written nature of that character. Also the love, on and off-again, it's complicated scenes were also far to draw out and they made me almost want someone in that relationship to bite the bullet. Some circumstances, (harry dropping the "flash drive to discover it works" and "I overheard talk about secret projects") were far to coincidental to be believable. Overall it kept me entertained and I thought it was better than the first but some of the problems were difficult for me to overlook.

@Bardock47: @hallenbeck77: Thanks for the unmarked spoilers guys, saved me the trouble of watching the movie that I kinda wanted to watch.

The Amazing Spiderman 2 sucked ass , Spiderman 3 was far better than this peice of crap. Only good thing about the movie was Harry Osborne, Awesome actor for his age.

My bad...but then again if you're a fan of the comics, you kinda know what to expect--especially since the plot is taken from there, and it's about over 40 years old. Not trying to be a jerk.

Without going into specifics, the bit with the kid was really bad. It was clearly a "spider man stirs the harts of the people" thing but that was seriously just dumb and not subtle at all. The train scene in spiderman 2 when he is unmasked and they try to help him, that was awesome, this was dumb.

The Pianist is a fantastic movie.

@BluRayHiDef Also I really like your video's. Its nice to see someone actually review the product itself without focusing too much on creating a "character" for themselves to get hits. I cant stand the over the top reviewers, the shouting, swearing, heavily edited stuff. Its nice to be provided with a down to earth accurate representation of the subject matter. Good work.

Thanks. I'm glad that you enjoyed it. I'm actually thinking about making a video in which I compare TAS2 to Spider-Man 2 (2004).