yes, this is me once again on the cutting edge of reviews of all the latest movies, or not. i know that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 came out some 2 and a bit years ago, look you see, but it's only fairly recently that i got around to sticking the disc on and having a gander.
whilst the world at large, and i would for a change be part of this, is all excited about Spider-Man Homecoming being on released during 2017, i figured why not throw my comments out about this film, on the off chance it was of passing interest. and, why not.
if nothing else, i suppose, it gives you all, with you all being those interested in such, a chance to look at the artwork off of the DVD in the format of Commodore 64 mode off of my new camera. with some purple like VGA coming up for the disc.
so this film came out in, i think, 2014, yeah? i picked up the DVD in late 2015, maybe early 2016, off of Toys R Us. it was going for some obscure if not obtuse price, around £1.36 or some other such permutation of a pound and arbitrary pence figure. i couldn't remember any good reviews of it when i saw the film at that price, but also i recalled finding the first one off of this sequence of Spidey films being not so bad. it did, after all, have Denis Leary and Martin Sheen in it.
quick overview for those that wish to read no more for fear of boredom, spoilers, etc? sure. it's not half bad, with all the lead actors being excellent. it's not that good because the pretty basic - perhaps flimsy - plot is stretched over some two hours and fifteen minutes for no apparent reason.
right, for those of you wishing to risk boredom and intend to read on, please note.......
and they are due right after this next image, which is of the DVD in purple hue as promised.
plot? i don't remember exactly how the first one all finished off but it must have been that the coppers of New York or wherever Spider-Man lives decided that Spidey was quite smart, as they seem to celebrate his antics in vigilante justice dispensing rather than try to chase him down and arrest him. off he goes, then, merrily trapping criminals and that. in the mean time in his guise of Peter Parker he's also dating that lass (played by Emma Stone, i think), doing some school stuff and trying to work out what happened to his parents. also, dark and shady things are on the go at Oscorp.
one of them is trying to kill, via death by electrocution accident, Jamie Foxx. it doesn't work out ever so well if the intention was for him to be dead, for instead they transform him into some dude called Electro, who is the ostensible misunderstood villain of the piece. the other, more overt or direct villain, turns up later in a limited but quite nasty capacity in the form of Peter Parker's chum, Harry Osborn, son of Norman.
it's a decent film, but deeply flawed. the main issue is the one suffered by The Dark Knight Rises. whatever merits and good points there were in respect of The Dark Knight Rises, an undeniable issue with it was that for a Batman film it had suspiciously little Batman in it. likewise, for a Spider-Man film, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has very little Spider-Man in it. yeah, sure, Peter Parker's plight in being Peter Parker has some interest, but we all wanted to watch a super hero movie, not some teenage angst piece.
in terms of Spidey / Peter Parker, yes, Andrew Garfield was good in the role. there was nothing wrong with how Tobey Maguire did the part, but this Garfield lad doesn't have the problem of a really whiny voice like what Tobey has. i believe, however, that Garfield got fired off of a possible third one before the decision to reboot, for the 3rd time in 15 years, was taken, as the head of Sony got upset with him for not going to dinner with him. stay classy, Sony.
going on the end of this film, however, ditching Amazing 3 was a shrewd move. it was all set up to be an incredible mess, with many "classic" Spidey baddies being reduced to mechanical outfits what regular criminals wore. it would have been a spectacular mess.
other than Denis Leary turning up and looking all broody and mean from time to time, the biggest plus here was Jamie Foxx. at least, at first. in the more human than human parts of the film he was in, he was truly superb as an anonymous, repressed office worker. he truly is an exceptional acting talent.
the spookiest part of the film? the lad what plays Harry Osborn, Dane DeHaan. he looks eerily, spookily like an early 80s David Bowie. if they ever make a biopic of Bowie, and one senses that this is inevitable, get Dane to play the man or don't bother.
would i recommend it? sure, if you have a lazy Sunday afternoon available. no, it's not the best Spidey film i have seen - that's Spider-Man 2, which Alfred Molina graced. but this is not the worst, either. yeah, Spider-Man 3 is most probably the winner of that accolade.
anyhow, i would suspect this review is too late to be of any practical use, but if it's been interesting, well then so much the better!
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!