09 May 2014

LOOK OUT! HERE COMES THE SPIDER-MAN!

If you want to know, in the most profound sense of knowing - the depth of understanding at a level both intellectual and spiritual that imparts true wisdom and not just the recognition of bald facts - if you want to know, with all the fibers of your body, soul, and mind, what corporate accounting looks like in cinematic form, then you should go see The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It is the second film in a series of films designed to stretch as long as Sony can keep it alive, conceived for the single purpose of doing something, ANYTHING with the character while that company owns the rights, for if they are too long dormant in making new Spider-Man vehicles, those rights revert to Marvel Entertainment's corporate owner, The Walt Disney Company. That it has been released into theaters as the "official" first movie of the 2014 blockbuster season is all well and good, but this isn't really a piece of popular entertainment; it's a move in the ongoing dick-measuring chess game played every moment of every day by the half-dozen companies that control all media everywhere.

But heck, when I describe it like that, I almost make it sound good.

TASM2 picks up generally where The Amazing Spider-Man left off in 2012: New York teenager Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) loves classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), but feels that he must be careful around her, since he is also the city's most prominent superhero-vigilante, Spider-Man. So they kind of break up. And this leaves Peter free to attend all his energies to the onslaught of colorful new criminals that happen in movies like these: it seems that Oscorp - the giant multinational tech behemoth run by Norman Osborn (an uncredited Chris Cooper) until his very recent death, at which point it was taken over by his son Harry (Dane DeHaan), a former childhood friend of Peter's - is full of all kinds of bleak and nasty secrets, one of which turns the meek and socially awkward electrical engineer Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) into a blow, glowing avatar of living energy calling himself Electro. And Electro does not at first mean to do ill in the world, but his quick ability to perceive slights, real and imagined, has given him such a cruel attitude that he decides to destroy the Oscorp-built energy grid that powers the whole city. And in this he is egged on by Harry, bitter at a world that has, for all of his 20 years, deprived him of love and any meaningful contact, with his only real inheritance from his father being a horrible, incurable disease. Peter has to figure out not only how to combat a being of pure energy, but also what he feels towards Gwen, for while they are surely still in love, there seem to be nothing but reasons why they can't be together.

I can forgive you for wondering if somewhere in that word salad, there's a plot. But TASM2 doesn't have one. The one and only thing that's truly amazing about the film, in fact, is that its able to haul itself over the two-hour-and-twenty-minute mark without actually having any kind of shape, narrative or emotional throughline, or clearly established stakes or conflict. If the filmmakers seemed to have any real talent, intentions, or ingenuity, I'd be happy to call this a cross between a CGI-laden big studio tentpole and neo-realist storytelling, in which scenes are strung together not because of their linear connections, but because Peter Parker's life would tend to consist of moments such as the ones we see, happening all out of order and without reference to each other.

But none of the four individuals credited with crafting the screenplay and scenario - Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, Jeff Pinkner, and James Vanderbilt (the last is the only with previous Spider-Man experience) - seem very likely to have had visions of De Sica dancing in their head, and TASM2 is so particularly similar to Orci & Kurtzman's many exercises in noisy explosions, action at the expense of narrative cohesion, and characters who bark out aphorisms in place of having psychological traits, that I think it's fair to call a cigar a cigar. Nor does director Marc Webb seem especially inclined to give the film much personality: the whole thing is carefully anonymous, even more than his TASM1 was, with the only scenes in which there's any sparkle at all in those where Garfield gets to interact with his real-life girlfriend, Stone, or with Sally Field as Peter's loving and kind but prickly aunt May. Here at least, the film has the energy of watching actors giving each other good feedback and helping each other into emotional states that resemble feelings.

Mostly, though, it's a machine, designed for the apparent sole purpose of making unpleasant, erratic objects. Away from the two women, Garfield's attempt to play Peter/Spider-Man's jokey, irreverent attitude comes across like the biggest entitled dick you ever met (and, in fact, even in most of his scenes with Stone and Field, he's a bit too cocky and selfish for comfort; I think this might be part of his alleged character arc, though like everything else about the writing in TASM2, it starts out of nothing, doesn't have any flow, and goes nowhere), and the characters he faces off against are agonisingly flat. So much for the human element. As far as being a blunt-force popcorn movie, it does have, maybe, the most consistent and visually appealing CGI in any Spider-Man movie to date(discounting Electro, a complete fizzle on every level - scripting, acting, design, execution), and intermittently solid setpieces, though all of them are, as will happen, conspicuously over-edited (and by no less an editor than the usually-great Pietro Scalia!), plagued by slow-motion, and hobbled by the worst score Hans Zimmer has composed in years: bouncy, brassy nonsense that would be a better fit for a swashbuckling '40s B-movie than an urban action epic.

There are a few moments that completely work: the first time we see Spider-Man in action, swooping through New York, is the best-such sequence the franchise has produced, with a more kinetic camera and better sound design, and the film's emotional climax is surprisingly effective given how little this film works to earn it by itself (it's a character-based moment that assumes we've been following the characters through two movies - legitimate, but annoying).. But there are far more moments that utterly flop: the opening and closing scenes are especially, respectively an irrelevant flashback and a gaudy tack-on that strangles whatever sort of shape the movie has managed to take, in favor of adding a spurious commercial for whatever movie comes next in the franchise. Or the creation of Electro scene, so contrived and arbitrary as to be legitimately bad-movie hilarious. If TASM1 committed the terrible blockbuster sin of being boring, TASM2 doubles-down: it is boring and sloppy and stupid. When future generations of pop culture historians analyze the process by which the superhero movie fad ended, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they point to this as ground zero.

4/10

18 comments:

  1. Tim, you're a smarter guy than I. You watch a lot of really difficult films that I can't even begin to figure out. If you can tell me what the thematic throughline of this film is, I'll pay you any amount of money you desire.

    Its been a long time before since I've seen such an inept and stupid fuckin' movie. A film that never settles on a tone, has no clearly defined dramatic stakes, that has completely pointless action scenes(take out Electro from this movie, how does it affect the story?), which such awful exposition dumps(We got news reporters telling us how action scenes work, and Oscorp speakers explaining eels to employees who work there), and worse of all, a completely selfish douchebag in Peter Parker. This is one of my favorite fictional characters here, and I fear he's got at least another decade of outline-driven, committee-created, bland bad cash-ins to go through.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "When future generations of pop culture historians analyze the process by which superhero movie fad ended, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they point to this as ground zero."

    God willing. And the opening line of this review was probably the most succinct assessment of ASM2 that I've seen thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yup, I hated this. I hated it pretty much the moment I walked out of the cinema, which is rare for me, and the hate has only solidified itself in the time since. This is just monstrously inept screenwriting, no plot, just an interminable progression of shit happening.

    The structural trainwreck almost bothered me more this time out than what an insufferable prick Peter comes across as, but that's still there all the same. The heart of the matter, I think, is that he essentially has no motivation to carry on being Spider-Man. The Raimi films got it right when they showed Peter's main motivation as being guilt, a sense of moral obligation and atonement that demanded he keep wearing the mask despite the fact that it was fucking up his private life. In this rebooted series, Peter initially adopted the identity of Spider-Man to seek revenge for Uncle Ben's murder... then to stop the Lizard, who he felt indirectly responsible for creating... then... what, exactly?

    When Toby Macguire was pining after Kirsten Dunst in Spider-Man 2, it was easy to feel sympathy for the guy, because we understood why he couldn't just stop superheroing. Garfield just comes across as an entitled prick who wants to have his cake and eat it, who wants to keep his hot girlfriend without having to sacrifice what amounts to a hobby.

    Also, he looks like a mashup of Edward Cullen and Justin Chatwing in Dragonball: Evolution, and talks like Shia LaBouef in the Transformers movies, so I'm already seeing red even before he does anything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jeremy- If I could answer that question, I'd be even more smug than I already am. It makes things worse that the movie has, in the form of Gwen's valedictorian speech, a perfect excuse for lazy "let's spell out the plot" writing, and instead it's wasted on even lazier foreshadowing, with dialogue that literally makes no sense with any different ending.

    And I can't believe I forgot to mention the narration about eels! Such an apocalyptically dumb bit of writing.

    Will- Well, thanks! I do try my best.

    Thrash- Brilliantly said. I feel like the last scene with the Rhino tried to address the idea that Peter feels compelled by morality, but it felt SO DAMN FAKE, relative to everything that had gone before.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also the poster looks completely ridiculous when you turn it the "right" way up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been twisting my ipad all over the place trying to see what the Spider-Man poster looked like upside down to no avail. The ipad always self corrects. Then I tried capturing a screen shot but that didn't work either. I hope I won't have to resort to standing upside down, but you made me very curious about what 'ridiculous' looks like ...

      Delete
  6. I skipped this and watched Locke (best film I've seen in 2014 so far) instead, and I'm a much happier person for it. Of course, there's only like four or five other people watching with me, while TAS2 is probably at full capacity.

    It really annoyed me that a lot of people I knew already knew this is going to be a huge flop, but they still went to watch it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Jackie:

    http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/6-new-movie-posters-that-prove-hollywood-has-given-up/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Thrash. The whole article was fun.

      Delete
  8. I'm actually a little surprised, Tim. You like formalist experiments and you like musicals!

    OK, I'm not actually surprised at all. You tend to hate audiovisual experience action movies--Speed Racer, Tron: Legacy, and Thor, for example, films I adore--unless they're just about perfectly done, like Gravity.

    I've often wondered how exactly you square that with your affection for what I perceive to be much the exact same kind of film as ornamentation, e.g., Sleeping Beauty, Suspiria, or Flash Gordon--movies I'm also extremely fond of, but not known for having especially well-executed plots. Is it as simple as hating neons?

    Still, I figured you'd discuss this aspect of the film in more detail than Zimmer's orchestral contribution. Maybe it's just a matter of me not being well-viewed enough: has the use of score to represent the voices in someone's head ever been done like this before?

    The moment where the music is revealed as diagetic turned it from a really, really good movie into a straight-up great movie, for me.

    Clearly I am the only person in the world it did that for! I mean, you're not remotely off-consensus here, I just expected you to give it a little more shrift than "corporate crap." Which I freely admit it also is, but...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I didn't hate this movie as much as everyone else here.

    (Wow, look at the low bar!)

    The alleged plot is so full of holes to basically just be one giant hole, the character motivations are... Uh, yeah...

    I thought Jamie Foxx did a valiant job of battling the script to a draw right up until the "blow out the candles" line, but after that... Emma Stone was, again, tremendous in the role of Gwen, even when the script led her to some unfortunate places. I continue to like Garfield as Spider-Man and absolutely fucking hate him as Peter Parker (which is the opposite of how I felt about McGuire, although I never had nearly as extreme levels of hate.) I think Dane DeHaan did as well as humanely possible with a character that needed a lot more establishing than he got (for fuck's sake, Sony, cut the crap no one cares about regarding Peter's parents, and spend some time developing the Peter/Harry friendship so that maybe anyone will care about it's dissolution.)

    However, slow motion in action scenes has never bothered me, and I genuinely thought they were, from a pure spectacle level, the best action scenes the Spider-man films have ever delivered. Sure, they don't deliver any emotional content like Peter vs. Norman at the end of Spider-Man, or the subway battle in Spider-Man 2, or the Emo-Pete vs. Harry fight in the mansion over Mary Jane in part 3, but they were well made pointless action sequences.

    Ultimately, I think it was a better film than TASM, but, hey, we're right back in "wow, that's a low bar" territory.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey now, I dig TRON: Legacy, and I have the 3-D Blu-Ray to prove it ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, post-Cloud Atlas (which I adored), I probably do need to give Speed Racer another chance.

    None of which has much to do with TASM2, I know; it's a movie that I just find very... samey.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rats, I knew I should've checked that first!

    In case it did, I really didn't mean for it come off as a "gotcha" question. Sometimes I feel like I'm very easily amused by pretty colors, and wonder if I'm missing serious flaws by other formal metrics, like editing, that you're seeing.

    E.g., with Amazing 2, I just didn't see the over-editing you're talking about... well, except in that plane fight, that may as well have happened in a different movie (and, iirc, there's some indication it was actually supposed to).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, no "gotcha" was interpreted. I just lack the energy to write a real response at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Late to the party but I have to say reviews like this are why this blog is the best in the biz. I refused to see the first one because of its bald faced corporate origin and redundancy, and I'll probably watch a couple of minutes of this on a streaming site, but at least your reviews have been highly entertaining if nothing else. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm just so fucking sick, exhausted, dog tired of my cinema being dominated by one genre of film, season in and season out. Ten years on and Spider-Man 2 is beginning to look like the corporate approximation of Krzysztof Kieślowski.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "and the film's emotional climax is surprisingly effective given how little this film works to earn it by itself."

    I dont understand why people say this. I would give a lengthy argument about how the scene is too melodramatic and how the comic books did it better. But this video did it for me. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sQeqSOxpD8

    What do you think of its teachings?

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.