The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment


Instead of reviewing this movie, I think I’ll just let J. Jonah Jameson sum up my opinion:

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment

Okay, seriously, Sony: Where’s the real movie?

Hyperbolic opening aside, folks, part of me even now can’t quite believe this thing called The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a real movie. It isn’t that I feel like an elaborate prank has been pulled on me—I feel like I just visited a parallel universe where superhero movies never got out of that awkward phase in the ‘90s where no one quite knew how to make the damn things. A world where Bryan Singer and Sam Raimi never came along to set things on the right track.

It’s not like I’m shocked the movie’s bad. After all, the first Amazing Spider-Man was shit, and it’s not like bad superhero movies don’t happen all the time. But The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was bad in a very special way. It had that blend of incompetence and out-of-control camp that we haven’t seen since Batman & Robin.

The article continues after this advertisement...

And you know what? I almost liked the movie for it. Instead of the usual anger and depression that comes from seeing one of my favorite superheroes bungled, this train wreck elicited nothing but laughter. You can’t be mad at someone who essentially just shat themselves in front of you. I suppose at this point my enjoyment is purely schadenfreude at seeing how badly Sony has been handling this franchise since firing Sam Raimi. Serves them right.

I suppose it’s best to start with a compliment, and to be fair, there is good stuff to be had in Amazing Spider-Man 2. In fact, the first 10 minutes or so (not counting a dull prologue revisiting the subplot about Peter Parker’s dad that continues to be the albatross of the series) is indisputably the strongest opening of any Spider-Man movie to date. Spidey’s web-slinging is brought to life more beautifully than ever before, the script has finally given Andrew Garfield some decent one-liners to work with, and the opening action scene (where Spider-Man apprehends Paul Giamatti, who later becomes the Rhino) is fun and charming and lacking the obnoxiousness of the first film.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment

I especially enjoyed the “Day in the Life of Spider-Man” montage, which included, among other things, a genuinely adorable and heartwarming moment where Spider-Man chases away bullies who are demolishing a little kid’s science project, which he then fixes for him and walks him home. It really gives the impression that perhaps this film might actually get Spider-Man, presenting him as witty, kind, and genuinely heroic, nailing his image as a hero to the common man in a way the previous movie never did. If the film had kept up the momentum of the first ten minutes, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 could’ve easily been the best Spider-Man film since Spider-Man 2.

Unfortunately, things go south almost immediately from there. It quickly becomes apparent that the film is hilariously schizophrenic, a Frankenstein mash-up of two entirely incompatible movies. Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy occupy the movie’s better half: a quirky romantic drama not dissimilar to director Marc Webb’s own (500) Days of Summer. This is good stuff for the most part, owing largely to the genuine chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and the fact that it seems to be the only thing Webb is genuinely interested in filming.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment

Unfortunately, these scenes keep getting interrupted by the villains, who seem to be under the impression that this is a Joel Schumacher movie. Everything about the villains and everything connected to them is incongruous and embarrassing, to the point that the only logical explanation for any of this making it past the editing room is that Marc Webb truly did not give a shit.

Jamie Foxx’s character, whom I shall dub “Urkelectro” for obvious reasons, is the most embarrassing, if only because a talented actor is wasted on a terrible role that ends up having no impact on the story and could have been cut from the film without affecting anything.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment

His “character arc” (if it can be called that) is a baffling choice, a blatant rehash of the “fanboy gone bad” routine last seen with Syndrome, Aldrich Killian, and the Riddler in Batman Forever. Foxx’s attempt to seem like a socially awkward loser is hopelessly unconvincing, and about as timely and relevant as Revenge of the Nerds*. He’s clearly miscast. It’s not an issue of his range; he’s proven himself capable of playing vulnerable and pathetic characters before. It’s just, well, with Django Unchained still fresh in our memories, it’s a bit ridiculous to cast Jaime Foxx as someone who desperately wants to be Andrew Garfield.

[*Once again, this franchise’s habit of sticking in archaic nerd stereotypes to contrast against the decidedly un-nerdy new Peter Parker comes across as unnecessarily mean-spirited.]

Things don’t improve once his character turns into Urkelectro, either. The film keeps throwing these weird, out of place comedy beats into the middle of all his action scenes, complete with quirky slapstick music. There’s a moment in the final confrontation when, in the midst of high drama with hundreds of people about to die, Urkelectro starts playing his dubstep theme song using power station pylons (and we know it’s happening in-story because Spider-Man actually comments on it).

It’s all so laughable to watch that you can’t help but wonder why they ditched the character’s ostentatious costume from the comics in favor of this Blue-Man-Group-in-a-scuba-suit garbage. Yellow and green spandex could not possibly have made things any sillier. To top it off, the CGI effects for Urkelectro’s powers look like dogshit, owing mostly to too many different colors being used. The result is action scenes that look like a bunch of extras running from highly destructive rainbows.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment

But the Golden Crown of Suck rests upon the head of Dane DeHaan, who I’m completely convinced was never cast, but simply wandered onto the set one day, completely stoned*, and they just decided to start filming. I’ve never before seen an actor try and fail to be Nicolas Cage, but by god if that’s not what DeHaan is doing here.

[*By the way, what’s with Harry Osborn always being played by actors who have a glazed, stoned look in their eyes? Is this a reference to the character being a drug addict in the comics or something? If not, it’s a weird coincidence.]

DeHaan’s performance is out of control in the worst way, totally bizarre and directionless, and a surefire Razzie winner come year’s end. He’s so bad that by the time he puts on his hideous costume to become the Green Beavis, it’s almost an improvement… almost.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment

Spoilers follow…

But the movie’s biggest failure comes at the end, when the two halves of the movie collide, and it comes time for Gwen to do the only thing Gwen Stacy is known for. Anyone remotely familiar with the comics saw this coming way in advance, and the trailers have made every effort to confirm those suspicions. But even if you’d never heard of Gwen Stacy before Amazing Spider-Man, the foreshadowing is so stunningly obvious I can’t imagine you won’t immediately guess what’s coming. Gwen practically announces at the beginning of the movie, “I’m totally gonna die later, so look forward to that.”

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment

But even with a lot of build-up, the Gwen Stacy death sequence is so poorly handled it ends up being the funniest part of the movie. This is partially due to the Green Beavis’s costume and makeup*, but also because when he finally shows up, we’ve already spent so much time with Urkelectro that we’ve forgotten this movie had an actual plot to get back to, so it basically comes out of nowhere. Not to mention the staging and tone is so melodramatic in the laziest way that it becomes impossible to take seriously.

[*Seriously, Marc Webb, if you need an explanation as to why the Green Goblin is green, you probably shouldn’t be making Spider-Man movies.]

Gwen’s death scene is so funny, in fact, that it almost distracts from how offensively misogynist the whole thing is. Not because Gwen dies; that’s fine. It’s the context in which she dies. Peter has spent the whole movie being protective of Gwen while being haunted by the ghost of her father who wanted her to stay away from Peter for her own safety. When Peter goes off to fight Urkelectro, Gwen insists on coming along despite Peter’s best efforts to stop her. She even makes this big speech about how no one’s telling her what to do and she’s making her own decisions. The end result is that when the Green Beavis kills her, the reaction is essentially, “oh, why didn’t poor, fragile Gwen listen to the men in her life like she was supposed to?”

End spoilers!

Aside from the inconsistent tone of the film, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has the same core problem as Amazing Spider-Man: a fundamental misunderstanding of the main character. After two movies, I think I have a good idea of what my issue is with Andrew Garfield: he’s actually a pretty decent Spider-Man, but he’s an awful Peter Parker. Tobey Maguire, who’s gotten a lot of unfair flack since his series ended, had kind of the opposite problem, in that he was a great Peter Parker but only an okay Spider-Man. If you can only nail one of these, being a great Peter Parker is far more vital in the long run.

What the Amazing Spider-Man series completely fails to understand about Peter Parker is that Peter is not “cool”. Garfield’s Peter constantly struts around, self-assured, always ready with a clever one-liner, kisses his girlfriend onstage at graduation, and follows it up by high-fiving the principal. In short, he’s no different when he’s Peter than when he’s Spider-Man. And that shouldn’t be.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) is a campy embarrassment

The whole point of being Spider-Man is that power and anonymity is what gives Peter the freedom and confidence to be a fearless wisecracker when he’s out saving lives. Spider-Man is cool. Peter Parker is not. He’s Cameron Frye, not Ferris Bueller. All those things that people say bother them about Tobey Maguire’s performance (“He cries too much!” “He’s a wimp!”) are the very things that made him such a great Peter Parker. Broad, dated archetype or no, Peter is the kind of classic nerd that’s inherently confused and vulnerable in ways everyone can relate to, even if they don’t excel in science or wear glasses. Turning Peter Parker into a trendy, detached hipster is the worst possible thing they could have done.

I wish I could say this film had potential that just wasn’t realized. As I said, I liked the opening, and that same sense of fun makes a brief comeback in the final few minutes (the little kid with the science project even comes back!). But potential would imply that someone gave a shit. Potential would require there to be an idea here worth salvaging. Even with the minor improvements (I do love the fact that the color palette has actual color in it, and the new Spider-Man costume is the best it’s ever been), The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is still ultimately soulless and hollow.

Basically, the franchise has been stripped of the man that gave it life. Say what you will about the Sam Raimi Era, but the man truly loved and understood this character, and his films had vision, charm, and most importantly, consistency. Marc Webb has delivered none of that. If someone told you this was a happy little movie, if someone told you this was everything Spider-Man could and should be… somebody lied.

You may also like...

  • Immortan Scott

    Green Goblin that looks like a Power Ranger > Green Goblin that looks like Beavis

    Good review, you nailed exactly why it’s bad.

  • I agree with 99% of this review except the part about the science project kid standing in front of a battle mecha like a fucking idiot. It was in my opinion one of the worst scenes in a super hero movie I’ve seen.

  • CaptainCalvinCat

    I have to admit something here – I think, I’m one of the few, whom not hated Spiderman 3. I had no problem with the story, with Emo-Peter, with Venom… I was a bit miffed, when I heard, they would be making a new Spider-Man movie and it would be a reboot, but I thought it was not that bad. I’m curious, how I will see this one. ^^

  • Cameron Vale

    In this new ‘Amazing Spider-Man’ film series I see a lot of similarities to that 2008 ‘Spectacular Spider-Man’ animated series, which was well-liked despite being even worse.

    • I am going to have to disagree with you. “Spectacular Spiderman” was a great iteration of the character, the animation was smooth and had a style comparable to “Batman the Animated Series”, the villains had good updated looks, and it respected the source material without being shackled by it.

  • Murry Chang

    I had to stop where you say the first ASM was shit, because I just recently saw it for the first time and honestly liked it better than all 3 Rami Spider Man movies. I felt it captured the essence of the character better than the first 3 did, and the stunt work was WAY better. Heck, Spider Man even used his webs in a more comic book like way. Totally planning on seeing this one even though I’m completely positive that 3 villains is too much for any Spider Man movie to carry.

    • Wizkamridr

      The asm was better than spiderman and spiderman 3. Spidey 2 was just okay.

    • Why did you have to stop reading? Is it impossible to listen to an opinion contrary to your own?

      • The review is a little mean spirited. There are some movies that I agree are really bad, and will deride them, but this review has a lot of vitriol.

      • Murry Chang

        No, I’m older than 10, but with about 100 reviews of the movie at my finger tips I’m not going to spend time reading a review by someone who is obviously going to be negative right from the get go.

        • So that’s a yes, then? You literally just said you’re not reading this review because it’s contrary to your own opinion. I mean, that’s fine, read whatever the hell you want. If you want to only read the reviews you agree with, go right ahead. But if it’s too much of a waste of time to read my review, why are you wasting time telling me you aren’t going to read my review?

          • Murry Chang

            No, I said my opinion is contrary to yours, but even if it wasn’t I wouldn’t have read the review because it was obviously going to be negative from the getgo. I made the comment because A: I wanted to slightly critique your negative start and B: I wanted to express my own opinion. That’s what comments are for!

          • Your opinion on the review you did not read.

          • Murry Chang

            Well the first paragraph or so. Maybe you should start off less negative and more funny next time?

          • I’m not a comedian, and when a movie gives me a negative experience, I circumscribe that negativity onto paper in the most constructive manner possible. Honestly, the intro the this review is more comedic than normal for me since the film had me so tickled.

            And if I’m such a waste of time for you, why are you continuing to waste MORE time arguing with me? Why is it so important to you that I KNOW you didn’t read my review?

          • Murry Chang

            Ah ok, see I’ve read this site for almost 10 years for funny reviews of bad movies and TV shows so I’ll just skip your reviews from now on, cool?

            I never said anything about you being a waste of time, you’re the one that brought that up. I’m also not arguing, at least not from my POV; I noticed someone had commented on my comment, so I explained my comment, and then you jumped in.

            Regardless I’ll just be skipping your reviews in the future so this shouldn’t be a problem again, have a good weekend!:)

          • You too! Have fun living in your bubble of intellectual inbreeding. 😉

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            OUCH…. ^^

          • mamba

            “Start off less negative”? This is the Agony Booth, it’s actually unusual and only comparably recent to have a movie here that is LIKED.

            I liked the way he started, he had a tone and an opinion and he set it right from the start. You stopped reading as soon as you knew he would be skewering it. Sorry, but you clearly just don’t like differing opinions!

            Which is fine of course, but you can’t comment on an article you…haven’t…read! That’s no different than reviewing the movie BEFORE watching it, based solely on the trailers. How do you know that he didn’t make an awesome point that you just didn’t think about? You don’t, and are too biased yourself to allow for the possibility.

            In other words, lighten up! Nobody’s forcing you to read the article, but when you start commenting on it without reading, you just look foolish.

  • Wizkamridr

    I grew up with the comics and 60s cartoon. I love spidey but have not been impressed with any of the movies. The 70s tv show was also pretty bad. However I do like the japanese version. Kamen rider meets spiderman.

  • I thought “Amazing Spiderman 2” was fine. There is nothing really offensive about it. I will agree that its pacing is poor and the ending is drawn out (mostly because Sony wants to have a lot of characters to sell a lot of action figures). But I like Peter and Gwen, and having a movie that is more about super-romance and the pitfalls of it is not common in superhero movies aside from the obligatory love interest that shows up often.

    If they had patience and decided on either Green Goblin or Electro and built toward a showdown that includes Gwen’s death, and then ended the movie with the funeral (and the Mister Fierce scene moved after the credits) then it would have flowed a lot better.

    I think the Green Goblin stuff was to just put a new spin on what has already been in a live action movie (really that doesn’t matter, the idea that they got turned into monsters because they were looking for a cure to a condition makes a lot more sense then the old explanation of, “I did it for the yuks”. and it also fits with the same themes as the Lizard from the first movie).

    This might sadden you all to hear, but Spiderman’s bad guys are not all that complex, most boil down to “Animal themed science victim” or “Element themed science victim”. What really has to matter is whether Peter is funny (check), smart (check), and there is a sense of peril to himself or those around him (check). Themes about Mad science and how it can be abused are also there (check) so I have a hard time understanding people saying this is “shit”. It is not “Transformers” which had a lot of off color and racist humor. It just has some structure problems put in by the studio who wants to sell action figures.

    Marc Webb is catching too much flak. Honestly the man should be lauded for how well the movie manages to work considering what was obvious studio meddling (look at the script writers, who are both understudies of Damon Lindeloff, all of the crowded narrative, just without the hollow symbolism).

  • Alexa

    I had a slight conversation with Gail Simone on twitter on the film, well I responded to her and she responded back once. But generally she talked about how she liked how the film portrayed that Spiderman is nice. He does good things for people and is funnier than the previous Spiderman, in which she insinuated that he was never funny, which I have to disagree on. And she made a lot of good points about the film, but I still couldn’t agree that Garfield was better than McGuire, because of what you said. Being that Garfield is a good Spiderman but is a terrible Peter Parker. And yeah that goes back to the makers trying to nail in the point that Peter is “cool” and isn’t “nerdy” and we know this from him skateboarding and stuff.

    Really that’s problem, the characterization comes across as really obnoxious, annoying and forced. His portrayal really irked me, and the scenes he had with Gwen were pretty annoying honestly as well. Granted the two actors have chemistry, but that doesn’t mean that their scenes together were good. I just wasn’t engaged with the previous film as I was with Raimi’s which yeah might have a lot to do with nostalgia, but generally Raimi just does a better job at directing actors and scenes than Webb. He’s more seasoned and more willing to have a fun tone, with serious moments sprinkled in once in a while, as opposed to having an awkward “serious” tone with some forced funny moments.

    Plus long live JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson!

  • Wizkamridr

    Japanese spider-man to finally join American universe:

  • Ares Lancaster

    So… What you’re saying is… Remember how Peter Parker acted in SM3 (before the dancing)? How much of a smarmy jerk he was? Imagine if Peter acted like that ALL THE TIME! That’s what ASM’s Peter Parker is.

  • Cristiona

    Huh. And here I thought the problem was just that Spider Man was a dull, uninteresting, overrated superhero. I dunno, I was just never that interested in him. I’ll take Spider Ham any day.

    Oh, also, Electro looked like the dude in Infamous: Second Son. Just awful costuming and realisation. I wish I knew what they were thinking. Marvel managed to make freaking Loki’s costume work. Sony should have been able to do something with Electro.

    • The_Stig

      When I first saw Electro all I could hear in my head was the Cinema Sins guy saying “Discount Dr. Manhattan”

    • Alexa

      I’m not a big Spiderman fan either, but my grievances with the film come mostly from a film geek perspective than a Spiderman geek perspective. ASM is a pretty bad example of competent filmmaking IMO. It’s badly paced, edited, and again the characterization just is not good, not so much the Spidey part but Garfield’s Peter just is not fun, engaging, or sympathetic.

  • Wizkamridr

    Why does everyone look like a cosplayer in this movie? Just kidding.

  • The_Stig

    My opinion of ASM 2 is that when it works, it really really works. When it doesn’t, it fails spectacularly. Its biggest failing was spending more time setting up the story for future movies than telling its own, and that hurt the film bad. I’m still not a fan of Garfield’s portrayal of Peter Parker, but he nails Ol’ Web Head.

  • conservative man

    I’ve said it before to people and I will say it again, there was no need to remake spiderman in the first place. Yes the third film was a dissapointment, but at least the first 2 films were very good in my opinion and they captured my attention and affection that I will always have for those movies and for the actors that portrayed those characters in the original spiderman triology. In the end however my personal love for spiderman in general ended years ago when marvel decided to get rid of mary jane and turn the clock back in the spiderman universe, when he was killed off recently in the comics many people were upset about it, I told people it didn’t matter because in reality spiderman died years ago, we just didn’t know it at the time. 🙁

  • doc

    It wasn’t horrible. Take out Iron Man 2 and Spiderman 3 and you have a good movie.

  • Gallen Dugall

    Spider Douch-Brah

    • I keep hearing this? What makes him a “Brah”?

      • High fiving the principle, for one thing.

        • If he had done that while dressed as Spiderman no one would have seen it as out of character. If they chose (in this continuity) to have Peter be more comfortable with himself in his civilian identity as a result of being Spiderman then what is the harm. Similar behaviors happened in the Ultimate continuity.

          If there is anything in the movies to like it is the casting of Garfield and Stone, they have good chemistry and they portray the characters well.

          When I picture a “Brah” character I think more of someone like…. the main character from “Pain and Gain” played by Mark Walhberg. Who bears no resemblance to Peter other than them being out going.

          • Yes, it wouldn’t have seemed out of character, because Peter Parker and Spider-man aren’t supposed to act the same. As I said, that’s the whole damn point. Garfield has ZERO range in the role. He plays Spider-man exactly the same as he plays Peter Parker. He plays him the same before he gets bitten by the spider as after. The same goes for after Uncle Ben died, after Captain Stacy died, hell even after Gwen dies. He has not decernably changed ONCE in the entirety of this series so far (which to be fair is more of a failing of the script that Garfield, but he’s not helping). Say what you will about about Tobey Maguire, at least his Peter Parker grew and changed and evolved. His Spider-man wasn’t identical to his Peter, and gaining his powers DID visibly affect his personality.

          • I disagree. While Peter was not completely helpless prior to getting his powers in the first “Amazing” he was still a loner who was seen as odd, and he had a penchant for invention. After he gets his powers he at first acts out (the basketball scene for instance), and he changes after Ben dies by slowly becoming Spiderman.

            But again, this is a different continuity, and in this one Peter allows his civilian personality to be more confident and outgoing because he is Spiderman, remember in the first film that he only really talked hit on Gwen after webbing her on the roof top. That is a shift in character, he lets her see him as the hero and when she is around he lets himself be outgoing.

            If anything Tobey’s Spiderman was the one who never evolved. He was still the sheepish crying Peter in the 3rd movie that he was in the first. Andrew’s interpretation is not that Spiderman. They are different and fit within the tone of their respective franchises. Neither is bad, nor markedly inferior.

  • Doc Skippy

    I think I’d rather play Spider-Man on my Sega Genesis than subject myself to this movie.

  • Brian

    I think calling this movie “horrible” and likening it to Batman and Robin is… extreme. The movie is certainly filled with problems and has gaps of logic in its story and plot and I think they mis-handled the power and point of Gwen Stacy’s death but the movie isn’t nearly as horrible as 90% of the stuff in B&R and Spider-Man 3. I liked the look of Electro and the “speedo” Though Green Goblin’s look could’ve gone through another round in the design phase. Again, lots of problems in this movie. But worst of the Spider-Man movies? Certainly not. Worst of the superhero movies? Not even ranked. I’d watch this movie 100-times over before watching B&R or Superman 3.

    • Muthsarah

      Bear in mind that our resident Flynn Rider stand-in doesn’t hate B&R as much as you might think:

      • I’m the “resident Flynn Rider stand-in”? Not sure how to take that, but I think I like it. 🙂

        • Muthsarah

          Look at your avatar again.

          Dark hair, lil’ chin fuzz, eyebrows and smirk right outta the Dreamworks manual (yes, I know he’s Disney), bedroom eyes. Check, check, check.

          • Why, Muthsarah, you’re trying to seduce me. 😉

          • Muthsarah

            Me?! Nah. It’s been so long since you’ve posted a vid, I can’t even remember what you’re like.

            But if only the site had a perky ex-blonde with big eyes that we could all ship you with. Apparently, that’s the next big thing here.

          • Shippers? I could have shippers? 😛

            The sad thing is, I don’t even look like that anymore, I’ve gotta full beard now.

          • MichaelANovelli
  • Endorenna


    I…well, I completely disagree that Gwen’s death was misogynistic. I saw the point to be that Gwen did not need any guy, her father or Peter, to make her decisions for her, and she came to help save lives even though she herself could die. And she did die, but she knew that she might, and she chose to take that risk.

    I realize that you did not say that the movie itself is misogynistic, just that one scene, but I would like to also point out that I found the movie in general to be completely non-misogynistic, based largely on how Peter and Gwen were going to resolve their romances. Instead of the usual Romantic!Movie tripe where the female lead gives up her dream opportunity to be with “her man,” Peter was going to go with her so she could have her dream scholarship/career. That made me extremely happy.

    As far as Peter Parker being confident in this movie, I saw that as an offshoot of him being Spiderman. As he got more confident in Spiderman, his confidence in himself grew, and that extended beyond him being in costume, beyond his use of superpowers.

    Is this movie perfect? Haha, nope. Electro and his motivations are pretty silly, and the Green Goblin looks pretty eh (though I actually liked the way his actor did things – hamming it up a bit, but not quiiiite too much). But, I think you give it more criticism than it deserves.

    Of course, I liked the first Amazing Spiderman, and I hated the Sam Raimi movies. Your mileage may vary.

  • Sykes

    DeHaan reminded me so much of Nick Stahl in this. Not in a good way. Maybe he can have a strong career getting parts that Stahl is too old for?

    P.S. ASM2 — Bitterly disappointing. No shock there, considering the writers.

  • André Manuel de Rosendo-Isidro

    Duuuude! You’re alive! I’ve been following you from your blog, and then you stopped writing there without any explanation whatsoever. I thought you stopped reviewing or something. Glad I was wrong!

    In terms of this movie, this might sound weird, but the only thing I didn’t agree with you was the way Gwen’s death was handled. I thought it was really well handled despite the differences from the source material. Other than that, what you liked in the movie I liked (finally a reviewer that mentioned the “day in the life of Spiderman” montage! For me it was the best bit of the movie) and what you hated I hated also, and still I didn’t dislike this movie, in fact, I really liked it. It’s kinda weird, but it’s a matter of weight, I guess. I expected different things from this movie than you, and it happened to be what they got right the most.

  • MichaelANovelli

    I don’t know that I buy that Maguire makes a more convincing nerd character. Out of all the people who work at this site, for example, more of us are like Andrew Garfield than him. 🙂