The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has the distinction, at 54% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes (38% Top Critics) of being the worst reviewed Spider-Man movie ever. I say it's about time (although I can hardly believe it's worse than Spider-Man 3). Even the positive reviews seem to be bending over backwards to give it a pass. The first Amazing Spider-Man was one of the blandest, most mediocre and unnecessary movies I've ever seen- whoever thought that re-booting a barely ten year old franchise and doing more or less the exact same thing with it screamed of a cynical business decision on the part of Sony to use their property or lose the rights for it. But now it seems people are finally catching on (although I'm sure it'll be a big hit anyway). Here's a sampling of some of the responses:
"The successes of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are human, the failures are typical of superhero CGI adaptations. In a world where the incredible is routine, the 'amazing' is mundane." (Globe and Mail)
"How bad is this one...? Amazingly so. Villainy abounds, but the villains are strident contrivances. Spider-Man flies, but does so dutifully, without joy." (Wall Street Journal)
"The fifth Spidey movie in 12 years, is overlong, underwhelming, unnecessary and sure to be a hot ticket." (Rolling Stone)
"The project as a whole conveys a drab sense of bureaucratic necessity, a 'let's get this over with' wheeziness." (Slate)
"I'm still not convinced we needed a new Spider-Man series, but at least this installment is interestingly mediocre instead of actively bad." (Boston Globe)
That last comment is my favorite. "Interestingly mediocre instead of actively bad." Boy, what an endorsement. Whatever chemistry real life couple Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have onscreen is not enough to carry an entire action movie- it just makes you wish they could have been the ones cast in the original films instead of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.
