Animated Film Fever Continues

Animated films seem to be coming back with a vengeance and success this year. I’ve only been reviewing movies for about a year, but my eyes have always been on the ratings. I’ve stated before that Rotten Tomatoes is my comparison point for my own ratings, a digital wall of other opinions. Never have I seen a non-documentary film reach almost one hundred percent until How to Train Your Dragon hit theaters in 2010. That movie was alright, but it’s sequel is far superior. Both movies rank above a 95% (top critics), only ten negative reviews for the second installment. A mystery has unfolded before me because neither film is a 9/10. It’s baffling how in love critics and audiences are with How to Train Your Dragon 2.

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes

Genre(s): Fantasy, Animated, Dragons, Action, Comedy

Concept:

Trilogies seem to be the desired movie format of the moment; thus this installment sets up for another sequel coming out in 2016. Yet, How to Train Your Dragon 2 does hold against severe criticism. Ultimately, this is kids movie that adults can enjoy as well (sounds familiar right?). Three narrative threads interweave to form the story, thus I had trouble articulating the core concept. However, Hiccup and his family remain at the center. This sequel accomplishes two objectives:
1) Hiccup’s personal struggle is resolved, resulting in him maturing.
2) The world is expanded. New enemies and bigger dragons appear. With a bigger world, more plot opportunities can be seized and explored as long as it stays canonized. To be honest while the movie is fantastic, I feel a little cheated. Conceptually, the original and it’s sequel can’t be distinguished from each other because they are the same. Vikings fighting other dragons with their dragons. That’s not far off from Vikings fighting dragons.

Character:

Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), Stoick’s son and future Chief. Similar to Peter, Hiccup’s character remains static. He is brave in a non-traditional way and intelligent. His circumstances and reactions change, but these do not constitute character development. The only noticeable growth comes when Hiccups’ naivety is fundamentally challenged. Yet, the film doesn’t give Hiccup an appropriate amount of time for this change to manifest.

Stoick (Gerald Butler) is Chieftain of Berk. He plays a surprising and fundamental role in showing Hiccup what it means to be a leader, a positive force for his son. It’s rare for parents to be present in children’s movies. Most conflicts a child protagonist faces would never exist if parents were alive/in their lives. Self-empowerment and familial obedience don’t coexist well. Yet, Stoick’s presence works. Hiccup and his father have a meaningful relationship while the kids retain their independence. He’s one of my favorite characters.

Toothless (Randy Thom) the black streak in the sky. His relationship with Hiccup is nothing less than adorable and the main appeal of the franchise. Despite sharing a majority of screen time, hes not much of a character. Loyalty and friendship are what define Toothless, thankfully there is nothing wrong with that.

Valka (Cate Blanchett) is Hiccup’s thought to be dead mother. Her character was particularly interesting, and the most compelling. Stolen from Berk when Hiccup was young and stayed away due to the circumstances that followed. She is unsure, emotionally troubled and socially awkward when the family reunites. Living between worlds, never knowing which one you belong in creates a fascinating character. Valka and Stoick together reinforce forgiveness, furthering the family dynamic that synergies in this film.

A Plethora of other characters could go in this section, but the story doesn’t focus on them enough to justify effort.

Story:

This sequel doesn’t shift the basic story structure. Hiccup goes off exploring, finds something or someone; and brings the news back to his village, usually shocking the entire village. Despite the expanded world presented to me, basic structure tainted that experience for me. We see more dragons and step a bit into their origins. There are in fact greater dragons than a queen from the previous movie. While generic, a few elements caught my attention. Drago Bludvist lands far down on the list of “compelling villains”, however, his dragon army presents the critical dynamic. Not all people will live in peace with dragons; some will choose to enslave their power for evil. How will Berk deal with those people? One could read events in this film as an analogy for a couple relevant social issues. That’s pretty deep for a kids’ movie.

Speaking of adult themes in a film for children, death comes uninvited.

Stoick’s death was unexpected. I have pride in my ability to predict events in a narrative. My guard was down this time around. Once the scene was happening, I saw how it would play out. That’s like watching a bird fly towards a window and right before impact someone says, “hey that bird is going to die.” Stoick is a major franchise character and writers were brave enough to kill him. They have my respect.

Scenes involving Hiccup and Valka are the best part of the movie. Dragons become more than pets, becoming majestic beasts—or as close as Dreamworks animation can manage—that should be respected and protected. I fell in love with How To Train Your Dragon 2 because it reinforces the value of a family and not just a figurative “family” consisting of close friends. Stoick always tells Hiccup, “We protect our own.” There’s wisdom in that oath. Hiccup grows into the role of chieftain by his father’s actions and words. Humor carries this movie to success as well. It’s subtle enough to never disrupt important scenes, but presents amusing bits in the chaos. Throughout events, Snotlout and Fishlegs fight for the affections of Ruffnut who falls in and out of love with Eret. These moments break the tension of otherwise intense action sequences.
The Nitpicks

The whole story was paced at a little slower than Sonic’s ring runs. Progression is swift, not leaving much time for characters to be introspective and properly deal with emotional interactions. However, I am lenient because of the target audience’s age. Toothless’ “power-up” when fighting the Alpha dragon comes too suddenly and with great convenience. Besides Hiccup, none of the other characters get much attention which cause them to appear one dimension. I was excited to see Hiccup and Astrid progress in their romance, but it never happened.

Score: 8/10

This is one of the few truly family friendly movies parents can take their kids to see. Apart from small amounts of kissing, objectionable content doesn’t exist. That alone already boosts my rating. Problems can be seen, but nothing big enough to damage the merit of this film. As sequels go, one couldn’t ask for a better movie. Take the family to movies and you won’t be disappointed. Let’s hope number three will as good if not better. 

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

Maleficent Doesn't Get Her Due

In one my previous posts, Maleficent ranked number four. My interest in the movie fluctuated as May 30th approached. Disney villains are generally very flat or one dimensional, but Maleficent has great potential for additional depth. The basic narrative archetype allows for more complexity. Sadly, like Godzilla, this film didn’t meet my expectations. IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
Genre(s): Fantasy, Action
Concept:

Maleficent is a retelling of a retelling. Disney’s reconstruction of the French fairy tale works for kids, but simplicity doesn't satisfy for adults. Not all re-creations are successful. The 1996 film adaptation of Will Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet was disastrous. That film should be ground up into dust and forgotten. Other films fall into the same category; however, I remain excited about the reinvention of stories. Maleficent and her world offers significant expansion potential. Humanity’s kingdom has a companion, a land filled with magic creatures called the Moors. A fragile peace keeps creatures and people in separate lands, stemming from a history of bloody conflicts. We see moments in Maleficent’s life that shape and mold her villainous actions. A meaningful relationship with princess Aurora as her “fairy god mother” adds narrative complexity unexplored by Disney’s animated adaption. This film had potential to being a truly fascinating story. Characters:

Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), the ever familiar villain. I was expected her to fill the traditional role and nothing else. However, Maleficent’s complexity emerges through two distinct paths. A Hero who defends the Moors from the greed of humans, betrayed by a close friend causing her hatred grow unhindered. Lack of motivation was Maleficent’s greatest character weakness, evil for evil’s sake is not compelling. Revenge and Betrayal aren’t original, but they work well enough. Yet, Maleficent’s being is never completely evil. She grows attached to Aurora, spending most of her time watching over the child. It’s a refreshing redesign, but she never steps out of “new” and into engaging.

Stefan (Sharlto Copley) is the only human Maleficent ever trusted and the future king. Unfortunately, that’s where the character description stops. Stefan resembles a maguffin rather than a character. His motivations make sense, but his purpose culminates in moving the plot forward.

Aurora/Sleeping Beauty (Elle Fanning) is Stefan’s only daughter. Due to the blessings of the three other fairies, her natural beauty, intelligence and grace could melt the hardest of hearts. Aurora’s character develops almost as much as Maleficent. The girl brings her back from hatred, reigniting hope for human and Moor coexistence. Innocence embodies itself in Aurora. She provides a stark contrast to Maleficent’s dour mood. Scenes with the two together are enjoyable. Author’s note: Dakota’s younger sister being in a movie at all makes me feel very old.

Diaval (Sam Riley), a crow who owes his life to Maleficent. Through her powers, he takes on the form of many creatures; my favorite being a dragon. While remaining loyal, Diaval does provide a moral voice of restraint. I liked this because Diaval keeps the spirit of his character in Disney’s adaptation.
Story:

Concept and certain characters are strong, but story is the weakest link. I hoped Maleficent would give one of the most renowned Disney villains a deserved background and character depth. Sadly, that didn’t happen. It’s a struggle to find positive elements of the plot because there are so few of them. Conical events are included—certain characters are slide-lined while others take a paramount role—but nothing radically different. I blame the screen writer Linda Woolverton. She wrote the Lion King and it shows.

World building and a plot without loose ends are two elements of a successful story. On both fronts, this films falls short. Compared to Disney’s version, this adaptation presents an expanded universe; however, not a well-constructed universe. The previous King tried to invade the Moors to take their “riches.” Maleficent and friends defend their kingdom, furthering division between each race. Humans are greedy and magic creatures are innocent, that’s too one-sided. Besides Aurora and prince Philip—who barely makes an appearance at all—no humans are good. This situation makes Maleficent an extra sympathetic character; her wickedness derives from their hatred, a reactionary revenge. World design to build up a character portrayal is poor writing and lacking in the necessary complexity for conflict to be believable. Stefan’s betrayal and character progression are predictable.

The second problem manifests at the end, a complaint I make far too often. Aurora can bridge the Moors and humans together through an unexplained method. Unfortunately, events unroll in a fashion that leaves Maleficent’s solution with many loose ends.

After Maleficent’s curse is lifted from Aurora, a battle ensures between Stefan and our beloved villain. The wicked king falls to his death, Aurora whisks away to the Moors where she is crowned as the queen of both realms. Prince Phillip shows up and all is well. Except that a deep hatred still exists between races. No one in the human kingdom acknowledged Aurora as Stefan’s successor and her ascension to either throne would could mass political upheaval.

For a kids movie like Frozen or Tangled, these over-sights aren’t a problem. However, Maleficent should be a movie for adults, but the story isn’t written that way.

Despite my vast description of the film’s failings, there are positives. Similar again to Frozen, True Love’s Kiss appears in an unexpected way. The fairies who take care of Aurora are amusing to watch. Angelina does an excellent of portraying Maleficent which sells the show. Lands of the Moors looks fantastic and creature design is rather unique.
Score: 6/10

What a wasted opportunity. Maleficent suffers more from what it lacks rather than it’s current flaws. If you’re looking for kid friendly movie, go forth and conquer. The rest of us will hold our breathe for truly great adaptation.

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

The Fault in Our Writing

Romance movies generally put me off. I am a romantic, but the typical romance film amounts to nothing more than a chick flick. When I heard about The Fault in Our Stars, cynicism throughly convinced me this movie would be absolutely awful. The title alone encouraged me to claw my eyeballs out and do something manly like bear wrestling. It looked interesting enough to see and hilarity, which had nothing to do with the movie, ensued. This genuine romance surprised me, another instance of my low expectations being demolished.

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
genres: teen romance, drama, tragedy
Concept:

Disclaimer: I have not read the book, but I assume it to be better than the movie on general principle. A love story about cancer patients brings a whole new meaning to the phrase, “heavy handed.” Despite the excellent romance that unfolds, emotional manipulation kept getting in the way. This movie was so desperate to see my sadness that I resisted the entire time. The romance between Hazel and Augustus was held hostage. It’s the writers said, “See this touching romance? Be sad that both of them have cancer and prepare to be emotionally destroyed when one of them dies.” *malicious laugh*. I get a similar feeling when reading the Song of Ice and Fire series, waiting to see which character dies next. A far more interesting concept would be seeing Hazel or Augustus dealing with the death of the other. Flashbacks could show romance and tell a great story of a young person, with cancer, overcoming a tragedy. Some might argue the end of the Fault in Our Stars fulfilled my previous statement, but it was weak at best. Besides the cancer, this concept could slotted into any number of generic teen romance movies.

  Characters:

Hazel (Shailene Woodley) is our perspective giving character, events center around her. Despite residing in a generic romantic heroine archetype, Hazel displays significant agency. Her pessimistic attitude refreshed me due to it’s realism. Cancer is hard in the twilight of one’s years and even worse at sixteen. Hazel’s reluctance to emotionally connect with anyone makes a great deal of sense. Why get close when you could die tomorrow? Yet, she is not an ice queen. Seeing changes as her relationship with Augustus progresses was huge boon for this film.

Augustus (Ansel Elgort), the man who opens Hazel’s heart. Unlike his lover, Augustus is harder to enjoy on screen and not for the obvious reasons. Compared to Hazel, Gus seems less natural and synthetic. His cigarette metaphor is idiotic and unoriginal. Even if the metaphor shows Gus as an eccentric cancer survivor, there are a plethora of other methods to achieve that goal without stupidity. Gus falls further than Hazel into romantic archetypes and doesn’t break free. Only dying brings Gus to Hazel’s level. Despite his humor and charm, Gus still fears death and seeks to leave his mark on the world. That’s real character revelation that stems from reality.

Isaac (Nat Wolff) is Augustus’ best friend and third wheel for all of the film. Granted he gets a small amount of screen time, but he’s always the single guy. Some amusing scenes occur with Isaac and his role does expand as the movie progresses.

Van Houten (William Dafoe) is the author of An Imperial Affliction. The book mirrors Hazel’s situation. Both Hazel and Gus seek to know the meaning behind the ending of the novel. As a writer, this character made me laugh. A prolific author turned recluse who has no social skills at all and is a giant ass-hole to boot. While the scene involving Van Houten is powerful, his character felt a little pointless.

Frannie (Laura Dern) and Micheal (Sam Trammell) are Hazel’s parents. Like Van Houten and Gus’ parents, I struggle to place these folks as characters. Frannie has more screen time than Micheal, but they’re just overprotective parents who seek to make Hazel as happy as possible. Every time Laura was on screen, I was expecting a velociraptor to bust through a window or unlock a door.
Story:

I won’t worry about spoilers because most folks that see this movie have read the book. The events that unfold follow logical progression and don’t seem unrealistic. Seeing Hazel’s relationship with Gus flourish and evolve is the best aspect of the film. Sprinkled throughout the story are some emotionally powerful moments. I saw struggle, pain, sadness, happiness, fear and contentedness all in one movie which is fairly impressive. Sadly, my narrative praise stops here. Problems: If one couldn’t foresee someone dying in this film then that individual lives under a rock. Based on a book means nothing if the narrative is predictable. This is by far The Fault in Our Star’s greatest flaw. I saw Augustus’ death coming before the movie started because one of them had to die. Hazel’s death would have been too easy, a five year old could predict that. Why is this a problem? People will rate the effectiveness of the film by how many people are profusely weeping at the end. I don’t think that’s a good marker of quality. Narratively, death is the easy escape. A story about two cancer patients falling in lover and dealing with the consequences of their illnesses could be a heavy-handed, but fascinating story. More complexity is required if neither person dies; a more original climax must be conceived.

That is the genesis of my suggestion in the ‘concept’ section. I was interested in their romance, not their cancer. Augustus’ death shifts focus back to the illness, the least engaging part of the narrative. Cancer gave Hazel and Augustus the foundational connection they needed to fall in love, but the situation lacks the emotional struggle that follows ‘loving’ someone. I would have preferred one of the pair to suffer cancer, not both. A new, unique situation would be conceived allowing a better romance to emerge. If tragedy is the goal, place the narrative after Augustus’ death. The film didn’t have enough time to illustrate Hazel’s grieving process or Augustus coming to terms with his eventual death.

Another flaw on Gus’ character stems from the maguffin. His actions move the plot forward and try so hard to please Hazel no matter what the cost. He spends his wish (from the Make-A-Wish Foundation) to go on a trip with her because she wanted to meet the author. This aspect of his character would be endearing if it didn’t feel fake and pandering. A couple scenes bordered on offense. Making out in the attic of Anne Frank’s house is rude to say the least. I’ve heard many stories about majorities of movie watchers crying, but I guess my heart of stone remains unchanged.
Score: 7/10

What I do on the Weekends

Regardless of my long complaint about the narrative, The Fault in Our Stars does impress me. It could have been significantly worse. The acting was superb and casting equally so. I recommend taking a date to this movie. Not the best romance of this year, but it can stand proud. A special thanks my friends and a few strangers (David, Stephen, Scott, Sam and Cierra) that made the theater experience unforgettable, never have I laughed so hard.

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

Good Science Fiction Returns to the Big Screen

It’s been a rough few years for Tom Cruise. For an actor with his credentials, he’s headlined some crappy movies. Didn’t know who Jack Reacher was and after watching Jack Reacher; still didn’t know and didn’t care. Oblivion was a science-fiction train wreck and Rock of Ages was funny, but forgettable. I thought grim times would continue until Edge of Tomorrow surfaced. Frequent visits to Rotten Tomatoes help me decide which movie to watch next. Tom’s latest endeavor got a string of positive reviews; thus, my expectations were elated. Thankfully, this blockbuster didn’t disappoint.
IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
genres: action, aliens, war, time-travel, science fiction
Concept:

Why is Edge of Tomorrow such a good film? The basic premise is not groundbreaking and I can think of a dozen movies involving aliens and humanity’s potential extinction. A smaller number of movies deal with time travel, but that is getting worn out as well. However, combine the two concepts together and cinema gold emerges. Hollywood didn’t fathom this idea on their own. The movie is an adaption of a Japanese light-novel called All You Need is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka; therefore, I attribute some this film’s success to the source material. Time loops throw a wrench in the cliche, giving birth to an unexplored science fiction story. Characters are allowed to grow and development in ways that a normal action movie wouldn’t allow. New struggles manifest: can an invincible enemy be stopped if you could reset the day indefinitely? Despite some poor aesthetic design and a forgettable trailer, Edge of Tomorrow has an exceptional concept for a science fiction film.
Characters:

Bill Cage (Tom Cruise) is the soldier who is caught in the time loop. When I say “soldier” that means an officer in the marketing division of the United States military. Cage is thrown into the invasion force with no battle suit training. He is refreshing character because fear and cowardice rule him. His best skill is selling the battle suits to the public, not fighting in them. Cage’s soldier skills improve through reliving the same battle field hundreds of times and his connection with Rita deepens.

Rita Vartaski (Emily Blunt) is the woman who won the only battle against the Mimics. She represents hope for the human race. For Cage, she is a teacher and mentor. The battles have hardened her to the point of complete detachment. Even after she discovers Cage is looping back in time, Rita remains closed. To the film’s credit, her relationship with Cage remains platonic. While an Inkling of romance does exist, neither Rita nor Cage have the chance to explore those feelings.
Story:

Repetition drew me into this movie. Cage relives the same day thousands of times throughout the film. One might imagine this would get boring. Thankfully, the writers realized how mix repetition and story progression. Each time Cage resets the day, new moments are revealed through his actions. Some days he tries to convince the people around him, other times he’s goes straight to Rita. Spinets of scenes are replayed for continuity, but Cage’s day never played out exactly the same.

Aesthetically speaking, Mimics are a mix between aliens (Aliens) and a cyborg.

Awesome, right?

Their moments are fast, unpredictable and deadly. It’s hard for a movie to sell a terrifying enemy. Edge of Tomorrow shows the audience an enemy that cannot be destroyed. The minute those soldiers hit the beach head a massacre ensues. Mimics are akin to an autonomous natural disaster, creatures humans don’t understand or able to stop. This ominous feeling dominates in the entire film, creating wonderful tension. Cage and Rita are never safe; their moments of ease are fleeting. A surprising amount of suspense occurs considering this is an action flick. I enjoyed that no one else could be convinced that Cage was looping through time, despite some impressive logic form the duo. Desperation rules all of his actions because only Rita can be trusted. The tension continues to build until the apex before the climax. It reminded me a little of Argo in this regard. A fatal flaw does stymie the plot.The Bad

Trending with some other great films, Edge of Tomorrow’s ending is the weakest link. The climax is heart wrenching, yet heroic. Sacrifices are made that the loop can’t turn back; hope is achieved at a great cost. Unfortunately, the resolution makes the drama of those sacrifices pointless. Also it creates a temporal inconsistency. Events that bring about the closing scene conflict with established facts about the time travel power. It’s too neat and nice. It seems the writers wimped out because the audience might demand a happy ending. However, these things happen. Nit-picking: I thought the design of the military suits was rather stupid. They should have taken more inspiration from the light novel.
Score: 8/10
Similar to Her, a disappointing ending doesn’t kill this film. The writers did an excellent adaption. It’s definitely one of the best science fiction movies I’ve seen in quite some time, go see it.

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

The Underwhelming Spider-man

After a long hiatus, I’m back. 2014 has been a good year for movies. Gems have emerged from sea of garbage that usually overwhelms us all or at least me. Super hero movies have received massive amounts of hype and the second installment of the Amazing Spider-man was no exception. After the tragedy of Toby Maguire’s Spider-man, Andrew Garfield is a superior choice. Success following the first movie raised standards for its sequel. Were those standards met? The jury is still out on that.

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes

genres: action, super hero, science fiction, drama

Concept:

Spider-man’s story is well known to comic readers and thanks to a series of cinema disasters, known everyone else as well. The Amazing Spider-man 2 resides in a odd place. A trilogy’s basic function: movie one introduces the world, characters and some times a trilogy wide conflict. Movie two develops characters and deepens the conflict. Movie three resolves characters and conflict. Each movie has its own mini conflict, but successful trilogies have an arc that hovers above each part. Nolan’s Batman trilogy worked because each movie built upon one another. The last Spider-man trilogy failed because the movies were awful and narratively disjointed. Webb’s trilogy is a definite improvement. Unfortunately, lack of direction plagues the second installment.

The Amazing Spider-man 2 felt like an introduction movie even though it was a sequel. No new conflicts emerge and old ones are rehashed. The villain, circumstances and flow of time change, but core conflict doesn’t progress. This movie presented me with nothing new.

Characters:

Peter Parker/Spider-man (Andrew Garfield) is the web slinging hero of New York city and the most frustrating character in the franchise. Static and unchanging are the two words I use to describe our hero. Most superheroes share Spider-man’s identity crisis, balancing their normal and extra-ordinary lives. Peter’s struggle exists on a deeper personal level than other super heroes. Yet, this installment offers no forward progress.

Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is Peter’s girl friend and the second most compelling character in the film. I like her relationship with Peter because she is a resolute force in his life. Unlike other super hero girlfriends, Gwen knows what must be done and isn’t afraid to endanger herself. Her strict sense of justice brings her closer to death. Sadly, the film didn’t add any depth to Gwen either.

Harry Osborne/Green Goblin (Dan DeHann) is Peter’s long lost friend and son of Norman Osborne. He takes the prize for the most compelling character. Terminal illness is cliche villain motivator, but it works so well. Harry’s struggle emerges from the fundamental fear of death that all humans share. His desperation to fight his father’s disease leads him to demonize Peter. What a stunning fall to darkness, too bad Electro gets all the screen time.

Electro ( Jamie Foxx) is a deranged electrical engineer who gains super powers due to a work accident (sounds really familiar). I hated this guy from the minute he was introduced. The film properly establishes Electro’s motivation and illogical actions, but this villain is devoid of character. The writers really expect me to believe that a mentally deranged man can hold a job as an electrical engineer? Seriously? Oscorp is supposed to be corrupt, but the circumstances leading up to Electro’s death are beyond stupid. Even shady corporations have some level of safety equipment, yet our dear engineer has to balance on a catwalk rail-guard while reconnecting a live electrical line. They weren’t even trying to produce a semi-realistic accident.

Story:

For those who are familiar with the Spider-man comics, The Amazing Spider-man 2 displays the paramount event in Peter’s life. The relationship that fundamentally changed who he would be become before meeting Mary Jane. Narratively this movie is a giant milestone, the one that really counts. Folks will say that the beginning and end or a story is important because those are what the audience will remember. I agree, but the middle bits are equal in value. Peter’s adventure this time around is swindling me. I was waiting for a punch line of joke that I didn’t know. It’s too draconian to imply that this movie is a waste of time, but the premonition was not far from me.
The Good
Positive elements litter this mediocre production. Usually, I don’t mention actors due to the difficulty of assessing their talents. Some characters or stories hinge upon how well an actor(s) can perform the role. Garfield and Stone provide an exceptional performance. The relationship between Gwen and Peter is the main conflict. Peter continues to struggle with guilt induced by ignoring his pact with George Stacy. When Peter and Gwen were together, I couldn’t help smiling because they were organic and natural. The romance didn’t feel forced, these two were happy just be around each other.

The movie should have focused on their relationship. Unfortunately, like a child with ADHD, the romance is shallowly addressed with many interruptions.

Gwen’s death was fantastic. A few inches would have saved Gwen, but Peter was seconds too late. The impact was doubled through ambiguity. As the scene played out, I hoped she would open her eyes. However, in my mind, I knew otherwise. Peter has the same realization despite his desperate cries, futility telling her to live.

Peter also learns about his past and why his mutation occurred. I liked this because too often Super hero powers are given a bogus explanation or none at all.
The Bad
As mentioned earlier, the narrative lacks direction. Electro is the embodiment of this narrative debacle. I know he is one of the big villains in the comics, but his presence makes the plot convoluted. Screen time is allocated to Electro before and after his accident which detracts from Peter and Gwen. Right now, I sound a bit like a pre-teen girl demanding more time for her favorite couple, but bear with me.

Given the importance Gwen’s tragedy, a majority of the first half should have focused on the young lovers alone. Harry/Green Goblin should have developed in parallel with Peter. Due to Electro’s presence as the “villain of the day”, the events above seemed rushed and unfinished. Technically, having Harry as the only villain would have been rehashing old territory. Webb probably wanted to stay away from the previous trilogy, but the film would have benefited if the Goblin took the throne again. Electro could have been replaced with a lesser villain from the Spider-man universe who worked in tandem with Harry, allowing Peter and Gwen to develop more depth. I think The Amazing Spider-man 2 broke under pressure from summer expectations. Summer blockbusters are almost always action films. My plot suggestions might remove too much action; thus, the film has to be released later or risk tanking in the box office. A risk the producers and/or Webb were unwilling to make.

Combine narrative confusion and repetitiveness to make a mediocre film. Peter’s struggle doesn’t change or deepen. I consider that a failure of the film because Peter’s suffering supposedly increases, yet nothing new is presented. I’ve seen him sad and depressed. After the tragedy, Peter should been destroyed emotionally rather than sad. His character needed to shift. The changes I wanted see might manifest in the sequel.

Score: 6/10

^ me after the movie

This movie was a rather large disappointment. I enjoyed watching it and the entertainment value is high, but the sloppiness is hard to overlook. It’s a shame that Spider-man can’t stick it on the big screen. A very interesting, deep and tortured super hero that is stymied by bad writing.

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter