Lawless (2012) Review

Time: 116 Minutes
Age Rating: contains violence
Cast:
Shia LaBeouf as Jack Bondurant
Tom Hardy as Forrest Bondurant
Jessica Chastain as Maggie Beauford
Gary Oldman as Floyd Banner
Jason Clarke as Howard Bondurant
Guy Pearce as Special Deputy Charley Rakes
Mia Wasikowska as Bertha Minnix
Dane DeHaan as Cricket Pate
Director: John Hillcoat

In 1931, the Bondurant brothers of Franklin County, Va., run a multipurpose backwoods establishment that hides their true business, bootlegging. Middle brother Forrest (Tom Hardy) is the brain of the operation; older Howard (Jason Clarke) is the brawn, and younger Jack (Shia LaBeouf), the lookout. Though the local police have taken bribes and left the brothers alone, a violent war erupts when a sadistic lawman (Guy Pearce) from Chicago arrives and tries to shut down the Bondurants’ operation.

I remember watching Lawless a long time ago, and although I didn’t remember it being particularly great, I remember thinking it was at least pretty good. Since I was watching/re-watching other Tom Hardy movies, I thought I’d give this one another go, and my opinion of it is around the same. There’s not much that’s particularly wrong with the movie, in fact there’s a lot of good things about it, from the direction to the cast. I’m just not quite sure that I can call it great, but I still think that it is pretty good.

Lawless isn’t a fast paced thriller by any means, it’s a slow burn gritty drama, and I personally liked it for that. There are certainly signs of greatness, it’s just that there’s just something missing from it. The story is actually rather straightforward and wasn’t anything special for a crime drama. I think it felt just a little too conventional, accessible and neatly packaged. They could’ve done a little more with the story and gone too some more interesting places, Lawless doesn’t really do anything that we haven’t seen done many times before and done better. With that being said, for what it was I was quite entertained for its 2 hour runtime, but it could’ve been a little better.

The cast all around great and are among the best parts of Lawless, although some of the characters could’ve used some more development. This is mainly Shia LaBeouf’s movie, and he’s quite good in his role as the younger brother who isn’t quite as experienced as his older brothers. Tom Hardy is great in everything he’s in, and his performance in Lawless as the leader of the Bondurant brothers is no exception. He doesn’t say a lot (you just hear him grunting most of the time), but he has a lot of screen presence nonetheless, and was effective whenever he’s on screen. This is also probably one of the best performances I’ve seen from Jason Clarke as the oldest of the brothers. Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska provide some good performances, elevating their rather underdeveloped and uninteresting roles with their acting. Gary Oldman is indeed in this movie as a notable gangster, but really they could’ve gotten any actor in the role, he’s only in a few scenes. Don’t get me wrong, Oldman owns every scene he has in the movie, but he takes up such a small portion of the film and wasn’t that central to the plot that it kind of felt like overkill having an actor of his calibre for the role. One of the performances that stood out the most from this movie was that of Guy Pearce as the villain of the film. He’s effectively creepy, slimy and unnerving in this role as a Special Deputy Marshall brought in to go after bootleggers, and especially the main characters of the story. There’s not a whole lot to the character, but Pearce from his appearance to his performance makes Charley Rakes an easy character to hate. It’s quite an over the top and almost cartoonish character and performance but it kind of works for this movie.

Lawless was really well directed by John Hillcoat. It’s a great looking movie, and Hillcoat certainly got the period setting right at least on a technical level, with the locations, the costumes and production design. Also, when it comes to the violence (even though there isn’t a massive amount of it), it’s brutal and hard hitting.

Lawless unfortunately doesn’t quite reach the levels of greatness that it’s clearly aspiring to reach, but it’s a solid movie nonetheless. It was directed exceptionally well, and has a relatively decent story that at least kept me entertained for the runtime. Top that off with a great cast, and Lawless is a movie that’s worth a watch if you like those actors or even just decent crime dramas.

Advertisement

The Kid (2019) Review

Time: 100 Minutes
Cast:
Ethan Hawke as Pat Garrett
Dane DeHaan as Billy the Kid
Jake Schur as Rio Cutler
Leila George as Sara Cutler
Chris Pratt as Grant Cutler
Adam Baldwin as Bob Olinger
Vincent D’Onofrio as Sheriff Romero
Director: Vincent D’Onofrio

In 1879 Rio (Jake Schur) and his teenage sister (Leila George) go on the run across the American Southwest to escape from their violent uncle. Along the way, Rio encounters the infamous outlaw Billy the Kid (Dane DeHaan) and the legendary lawman Pat Garrett (Ethan Hawke). He soon finds himself caught in the crossfire as Billy and Garrett square off in a deadly game of cat and mouse.

I heard about The Kid for a little while, it was an upcoming western directed by Vincent D’Onofrio and stars Dane DeHaan, Ethan Hawke and Chris Pratt. It looked alright but I didn’t have a great desire to see it as soon as possible, I didn’t know when I’d actually see it. Then I found it on a plane so that’s how I watched it. The Kid isn’t great and it’s not nearly as exciting as the trailers made it look, but it’s directed pretty well and most of the performances are solid, bringing the movie up to a level just above average.

I heard that much of the movie is inaccurate to real life, but I’m not familiar with the real life Billy the Kid and Pat Garrett, so I’m just going to disregard all real life events for the time being and treat the movie as a fictional story. I should mention that what is shown in the trailer isn’t necessarily what the movie is focussing on (for example, Chris Pratt’s character isn’t a huge part of the movie), so it’s probably best not to watch it if you haven’t already. It’s a slow burn of a movie, which isn’t necessarily bad but it can feel like a drag at points, with some occasionally some bursts of reasonably entertaining moments. At a point I just stopped caring about the story and just watched it play out. As far as Westerns go it’s fine, but it doesn’t do enough to really separate itself from similar movies. The movie is an hour and 40 minutes long but it feels like at least 2 hours long.

This is probably Dane DeHaan’s best performance in a little while, here he plays Billy the Kid and it was great casting. Ethan Hawke is great as usual, here playing real life lawman Pat Garrett. If there’s a reason to see the movie, it’s for both of these actors giving solid performances. Chris Pratt this time plays a villain as the main characters’ uncle, he’s actually really convincing and I’d like to see him in more of these kind of darker roles. However he probably has less than 10 minutes of screentime, so don’t expect much of him. Jake Schur and Leila George are some characters who get caught between Billy the Kid and Ethan Hawke. I think it’s worth pointing out that Jake’s father Jordan is a producer on the movie, which is probably the only reason he was cast in this role. Jake’s character is really the protagonist of the movie, even when DeHaan and Hawke get the spotlight, Schur is in almost every scene, and unfortunately him and his story just wasn’t really interesting to me. On paper I saw what they were going for, but it was just difficult to care about that story. Actingwise, Schur has some okay moments but on the whole just didn’t quite work, especially when placed alongside Hawke and DeHaan. George fares a little better but you see less of her halfway through the movie.

The Kid is the first film I’ve seen from Vincent D’Onofrio, and he clearly knows his way behind a camera. Locations and production designs are appropriate for a western, and the violence and action scenes, while not very present, were handled well. Occasionally there are some parts of the directing that weren’t so great, the thing that stood out to me most is that Chris Pratt has an incredibly fake looking beard even though it is minor, just very distracting.

The Kid is a relatively okay Western but it’s by no means a must see. It moves at a snail’s pace, fails to keep your attention, and occasionally becomes dull. What makes it work is D’Onofrio’s direction of the whole thing, as well as the solid performances from DeHaan, Hawke and Pratt. If you were hyped from the trailer, you might be underwhelmed by the end result of the movie itself, but you still might be able to get something out of it.

Knight of Cups (2015) Review

Time: 118 Minutes
Age Rating: Sex scenes, offensive language & nudity.
Cast:
Christian Bale as Rick
Cate Blanchett as Nancy
Natalie Portman as Elizabeth
Brian Dennehy as Joseph
Antonio Banderas as Tonio
Wes Bentley as Barry
Isabel Lucas as Isabel
Teresa Palmer as Karen
Imogen Poots as Della
Armin Mueller-Stahl as Fr. Zeitlinger
Freida Pinto as Helen
Cherry Jones as Ruth
Nick Offerman as Scott
Dane DeHaan as Paul
Thomas Lennon as Tom
Joel Kinnaman as Errol
Jason Clarke as Johnny
Katia Winter as Katia
Nicky Whelan as Nicky
Shea Whigham as Jim
Ryan O’Neal as Ryan
Joe Manganiello as Joe
Michael Wincott as Herb
Kevin Corrigan as Gus
Director: Terrence Malick

A writer (Christian Bale) indulging in all that Los Angeles and Las Vegas has to offer undertakes a search for love and self via a series of adventures with six different women.

I remember waiting for this movie for a long time. I wasn’t sure what I was going to think of it as Terrence Malick is a very polarising filmmaker but after watching and liking Tree of Life (which was quite unconventional as a film), I thought that I had a good chance of enjoying it. I recently watched Knight of Cups and… I really don’t know what to think of it. It is beautiful looking and it has a lot of great actors in it but otherwise it really didn’t do anything for me.

Describing the movie is hard. The basic structure of Knight of Cups is split into segments where Bale interacts with particular people. I’ve only seen 3 of Malick’s movies, Tree of Life, Badlands and now Knight of Cups and I liked the last 2. Even Tree of Life, for how unconventional it was I liked it but most of all, I could actually somewhat understand parts of it. I’m not even sure what Knight of Cups is supposed to be about, I couldn’t connect to it. So with that connection to whatever Malick is going for being gone, it takes away so much from the movie. When I’m just watching all these talented actors just internally monologing some deep poetic speech while the camera just follows them and I don’t understand what its supposed to mean, you can see how I would find it frustrating and pretentious. Don’t get me wrong, Terrence Malick no doubt had some idea of what he was filming, he wasn’t just filming nice looking stuff and calling it art. But whatever he was going for, I didn’t get it at all. The film drags consistently and constantly, at times its borderline a parody of a Terrence Malick movie with how self indulgent it is. I find it very difficult to recommend Knight of Cups to anyone, unless you are a die hard Terrence Malick fan.

There’s not really much to say in terms of acting, whereas most of the characters in a film like Tree of Life had some sort of character, from what I can tell all the characters in Knight of Cups represent ideas or something. Christian Bale here is pretty much like Sean Penn in Tree of Life, except he’s the main ‘character’ and appears from start to finish. He doesn’t really at any point become a character and just feels flat, Bale barely gets to do anything to leave an impression. Supporting actors include Cate Blanchett, Wes Bentley, Antonio Banderas, Natalie Portman and Imogen Poots and while they are good in their ‘roles’, they don’t leave too much of an impression either. Some actors involved were straight up cameos with Jason Clarke and Joe Manganiello, and supposedly Dane DeHaan and Joel Kinnamon was in it as well (I have no idea where they were though). The only performance that really stood out to a degree was Cate Blanchett but even then she’s not in the movie that long.

This movie is shot beautifully like all of Terrence Malick’s films. The locations, lighting, colouring, all of that was great and was probably one of the only things I liked in the whole film. That’s honestly is the only thing that I can guarantee you’ll think with Knight of Cups, that it looks great. The film also seemed to have a dream-like feeling to it, and the score by Hanan Townshend also played a part in that.

Having finally seen it, I can see why Knight of Cups was so divisive. I’m not entirely sure I actually like it myself. And it’s not that I don’t like Terrance Malick as a director, I liked Badlands and Tree of Life, and the latter was very unconventional. I guess I just connected a lot more with Tree of Life than Knight of Cups, which is why with KOC, it really didn’t work for me. I guess the movie is beautiful looking and that’s somewhat enough for me to call it somewhat above average but only just. If you flat out don’t like Terrance Malick’s other films, you’d probably hate Knight of Cups. I’m going to try watching Song to Song sometime soon, and I’m just hoping that Knight of Cups was the most Malick film he ever made.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) Review

Time: 137 Minutes
Age Rating: Contains fantasy violence
Cast:
Dane DeHaan as Major Valerian
Cara Delevingne as Sergeant Laureline
Clive Owen as Arün Filitt
Rihanna as Bubble
Ethan Hawke as Jolly the Pimp
Herbie Hancock as Defence Minister
Kris Wu as Captain Neza
Rutger Hauer as the President of the World State Federation
Director: Luc Besson

In the 28th century, special operatives Valerian (Dane DeHaan) and Laureline (Cara Delevingne) work together to maintain order throughout the human territories. Under assignment from the minister of defense, the duo embarks on a mission to Alpha, an ever-expanding metropolis where diverse species gather to share knowledge and culture. When a dark force threatens the peaceful city, Valerian and Laureline must race against time to identify the menace that also jeopardizes the future of the universe.

Valerian was a movie I was curious about. I like some of Luc Besson’s films with Leon: The Professional and The Fifth Element. Also with the cast involved and it being based on a graphic novel that supposedly inspired countless sci-fi stories, I was intrigued as to what the movie would turn out like. Having finally seen Valerian, I feel a little conflicted. Valerian is a bit of a polarising movie, it does some things well but also has a lot of issues. Most of the main actors do quite well in their roles, I was interested in the world and the visuals were beautiful. However the writing is very flawed, from dialogue, to character, to story, there’s a lot of issues. It’s a bit of a mixed bag but I enjoyed it at the same time.

I’ll get this out of the way, the script has a lot of issues. Let’s start with the length, this movie is way too long, it is 2 hours 17 minutes. I don’t have an issue with Valerian being that long but if its going to be that way, the movie should be pretty engaging all the way through, and it really isn’t. This movie at many points could’ve been trimmed down quite a bit. For example, the first sequence with Valerian and Laureline on a mission is mostly decent but its way too long, especially a segment when Valerian’s arm stuck in a box-like device which I swear goes on for over 5 minutes (or at least feels like it). Because of the occasional dragging of the story, I wasn’t paying attention to the movie all the time, near the end it had my attention but for most of the movie it dipped in and out from having my interest to finding the movie to be a drag. Another issue is that this movie relies on way too much on exposition, there are so many moments when people just explain and information dump some things that the audience needed to know. It is hard to accuse this movie of being ‘too sci-fish’ as the graphic novel inspired so many sci-fi stories and movies. Although I gotta give Besson some credit for going all the way with the sci fi aspects, I think he went a little too far with it, and by that I mean the movie is a little weird, not necessarily a bad thing but there were some random moments at times, I didn’t know what was going on (maybe that was the intention). The humour was very hit or miss, and when the humour is a dud, you really feel it. Even though I was reasonably entertained by the movie, I found it hard to care about what was going on, it was predictable and I never felt worried about what could happen. The best part of the script is the world, the world is very interesting, I almost want the planned (and apparently already written) Valerian sequels, just to see more of this world. Overall, the script is a mess, a lot of the plot is fine and the world is nice but there are so many issues in the story, dialogue and pacing that really hold this movie back from being effective.

Dane Dehaan and Cara Delevingne were the leads of Valerian and they had good chemistry, however the writing between them is silly and cliché, it feels kind of forced and you don’t really buy the relationship between the two. Dehaan and Delevingne made the relationship between them somewhat work. Dane Dehaan, while good in his role, did feel a little out of place. I couldn’t tell whether it was the writing or if Dehaan was miscast. Delevingne on the other hand fits right into her role well, she was one of the stand outs of the movie. She has charisma, humour and you can buy her in the action scenes, she was one of the surprises of Valerian. Rihanna and Ethan Hawke are good in their short amount of screentime, very entertaining and fun to watch. There are a lot of brief weird characters and out of all of them, those two were the only ones I liked. The rest were just to random and pointless that I didn’t care for them. Clive Owen is a great actor but here he is wasted. He does try to act well but he’s not in the movie a lot and his role is very cliché and typical.

The visuals of Valerian are the best aspect of the film, its such a beautiful looking movie. The world of this movie feels huge and kinda intriguing. At times some aspects of the CGI did feel slightly off, but maybe its because so much CGI is on screen at the same time. The action itself is fast paced and very entertaining. As previously mentioned, this movie is very sci-fish (perhaps too much for its own good) but the designs for everything from the world to the aliens was great. The overall direction really immerses you in this very different world. The style is a little odd at times, but again, that might have been Besson’s intention.

Valerian is a very mixed bag. On one hand it has plenty of writing issues. On the other hand, I liked most of the main performances, the world was great and the visuals were nice to watch. Even though I like Valerian, I can completely understand people who hate it. Along with its many flaws, it is a very weird movie (however I almost kind of respect Luc Besson for going all the way with this movie). Honestly the only thing I can guarantee that everyone will think of the movie is that the visuals look good. Valerian isn’t one of Luc Besson’s best movies, its not even on the level of The Fifth Element but I’d say its better than Lucy. If you are curious enough, check Valerian out, just know that you are going to be watching a flawed, weird and beautiful looking sci-fi flick. And also know that there’s no guarantee that you’ll like it.

A Cure for Wellness (2017) Review

Time: 146 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, sexual violence, offensive language & content that may disturb.
Cast
Dane DeHaan as Lockhart
Jason Isaacs as Dr. Heinreich Volmer
Mia Goth as Hannah
Director: Gore Verbinski

An ambitious young executive (Dane Dehaan) is sent to retrieve his company’s CEO from an idyllic but mysterious “wellness center” at a remote location in the Swiss Alps. He soon suspects that the spa’s miraculous treatments are not what they seem. When he begins to unravel its terrifying secrets, his sanity is tested, as he finds himself diagnosed with the same curious illness that keeps all the guests here longing for the cure. From Gore Verbinski, the visionary director of THE RING, comes the new psychological thriller, A CURE FOR WELLNESS.

A Cure for Wellness was very polarising upon its release, some hated it, others loved it. It definitely had a lot of potential, I liked the actors involved with Dane Dehaan and Jason Isaacs, I really like Gore Verbanski as a director and the trailer and premise of the movie was very intriguing. So I was definitely interested in how the film would be despite the mixed reaction. Having finally seen it, I personally think that it’s one of the best films of the year.

A Cure for Wellness is a long movie, it’s nearly 2 hours and 30 minutes long but it kept my interest from the beginning to the end. Yes, the pacing is quite slow at times, perhaps unnecessarily at times, but I was nonetheless engaged despite this. This movie is not completely different from anything we’ve seen before, watching it you can recognise some similarities to other movies (such as Shutter Island). What is different is the way the film tells its story, the structure is a little different, all the details of the movie are important to understanding everything, some of these aspects are ambigious and you actually have to really think about to full grasp what’s going on. I know this because that’s what happened with me, there were parts of the movie that I only understood hours after watching the movie, when certain things clicked for me I could more fully grasp what was going on. However generally the movie is straightforward, with maybe the exception with the ending (specifically the last shot of the movie) which is a little ambiguous. However, with many of the details being ambiguous and with all the twists and turns throughout the film, I can see A Cure For Wellness getting better upon repeat viewings. In terms of flaws, there aren’t many to be honest. There was a possible continuity error and the first act is non-linear for no reason really, it didn’t bother me or hinder the film but it did feel unnecessary. However that’s it to be honest.

The acting all around is great. Dane Dehaan is really good in the lead role. There is an aspect to the film where its questioning whether Dehaan’s character is just imagining and hallucinating a lot of what’s happening and Dane pulls it off well. Mia Goth is quite good as a unique patient at the wellness centre, her performance really worked for the movie. This is the first performance I’ve seen from her and I can tell that she’s very talented, she definitely deserves some more work. The best performance of the film however is from Jason Isaacs, who is in the role of the director of the wellness centre, a very sinister character, definitely leaves an impression on you.

The direction by Gore Verbenski is perfect. The cinematography was excellent, everything from the framing, to the camera movement, the lighting and colour was perfect. It’s a beautiful looking movie overall. This movie is full of disturbing imagery, things that make you genuinely uneasy and uncomfortable, and I don’t usually feel like this during movies so that says a lot. The production design is excellent, the location chosen for the majority of the film is a castle and it gives the film a very unique enbironment. This movie also does well at making you feel uneasy, you can tell that something is off, but a lot of the time you can’t pin it down what it is. The sound design was very effective and it all worked to feel very real and unnerving, the creaking sounds of Dane Dehaan’s crutches as he moves from place to place (he is on crutches for the majority of the film) was an example of this. The music by Benjamin Wallfisch ranges from being haunting and eerie to loud and intense, definitely very effective and memorable. I’m confident in saying that A Cure for Wellness is really one of the best directed movies of 2017 so far.

A Cure of Wellness gets everything right, the acting is great, the story is very intriguing and its different structure and storytelling method makes this a unique and fascinating movie. However, it is Gore Verbenski’s direction that ties everything together and makes everything work so well and makes this movie even better than it already is. As shown by the reactions, it seems that A Cure for Wellness is not for everyone. It is a weird movie, along with the dark tone and grim and grotesque imagery, it is a very different movie in terms of its structure, this structure could potentially turn some people off. If you are curious enough however I recommend checking it. I personally think that it’s safe to say that A Cure for Wellness is going to be one of those films which receives a mixed response upon its release but gains a cult following and is later appreciated as an excellent film.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) Review

Time: 142 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man
Emma Stone as Gwendolyn “Gwen” Stacy
Jamie Foxx as Max Dillon/Electro
Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin
Colm Feore as Donald Menken
Felicity Jones as Felicia Hardy
Paul Giamatti as Aleksei Sytsevich/Rhino
Sally Field as Aunt May
Campbell Scott as Richard Parker
Embeth Davidtz as Mary Parker
Marton Csokas as Dr. Kafka
Director: Marc Webb

Confident in his powers as Spiderman, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) embraces his new role as a hero and spends time with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) in between protecting New York from criminals. However, his greatest battle yet is about to begin. With the emergence of Electro (Jamie Foxx), Peter must confront an enemy far more powerful than he is. And when his old friend Harry Osborn (Dane Dehaan) returns, Peter comes to realise that all his enemies have one thing in common: Oscorp.

I have been re-watching the Spider-Man movies in preparation for Spider-Man Homecoming in July. Over the course of these movies I’ve noticed that I’ve been generally liking the Spider-Man movies, I even consider Spider-Man 3 to be a solid movie despite the amount of hate its been getting. I remember when I first watched The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in theatres, I really liked it. Sure, I knew it had issues but I found it to be a decent and entertaining movie overall. I rewatched it recently for the first time in a few years and… it has far more issues than I picked up before. This movie is okay, and it does have some great elements. But a lot of it is mishandled. This movie is shockingly clunky and messy at times, and we are left with an incredibly frustrating and disappointing – if above average Spider-Man movie.

Not to say that there aren’t some great moments, but I won’t lie, this movie is a bit of a mess. Like Spider-Man 3, there is so much going on, too much going on. We’ve got Peter and Gwen’s romance, Peter discovering what happened with his father and Oscorp, Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) becoming Electro, Harry Osborn (Dane Dehaan) trying to find a cure to his Goblin disease after inheriting it from his father, and it’s also trying to set up for future movies. Despite both Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2 having a whole lot going on in their movies, all the flaws in 3’s plotlines were clearly caused from Rami being forced to fit them all into one movie, the plotlines themselves were actually pretty good those issues aside. With Amazing Spider-Man 2, calling the plotlines hit or miss would be an understatement. If I had to describe this movie, I’d say it’s almost like Spider-Man 3, but done poorly. I’ll try to break down the issues with some of these plotlines. The plotline about Peter discovering what happened to his father and his ties to Oscorp was unnecessary, it leads to an completely predictable ‘plot twist’ that everyone saw coming, Oscorp is basially bad, which I’m certain everyone has already figured out before the movie even started. There wasn’t really a reason for the movie to have this subplot, it just sort of emerges around the middle of the movie randomly. Removing it from the movie would’ve allowed time to develop other plotlines (the plotline itself is done okay, it’s just feels unnecessary). The future movies setup feels forced and unnecessary. It introduces Felicia Hardy (Felicity Jones) to be Black Cat later in the franchise (which we never got to see) and there’s of course the failed attempt to setup the Sinister Six with Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino. Without giving anything away, there is a scene with Harry Osborn near the end of the movie which is done to set up the Sinister Six and it just sort of comes out of nowhere, there’s no explanation for why the group is being created in the first place. It also doesn’t help that the villains themselves in this movie weren’t given enough development. I’ll go into more depth with the other plotlines involving Peter and Gwen’s Romance, Max Dillon and Harry Osborn when I talk about the performances. But you can probably tell that I had issues with all of them. That’s not to say that these plotlines are all bad, they do have their moments and many of the ideas had a lot of potential. But they could’ve and should’ve been handled a lot better. Another thing worth mentioning is the tone. It’s like this movie didn’t know which tone to go with. At times it’s dark and emotional with these intense and emotional scenes, other times it is a romantic comedy with Peter and Gwen and other times its an incredibly cheesy action movie, with one-liners and over the top performances. And when I’m talking cheesy, I’m meaning like there is literally a random scene involving a generic evil German scientist (played by Marton Csokas), who likes to listen to classical music (this is in a scene with Electro), basically a cartoonish over the top mad scientist. It’s one of the most over the top cliché characters/moments in the film, and that’s saying a lot. Looking back at that scene, I guess it works in a cheesy way (like in the way that Spider-Man 1 was cheesy), but the issue is that other parts of the movie aren’t as cheesy, so it just comes across as stupid when it pops up. Say what you will about the cheesiness in Spider-Man 1 but at least it was consistent. As for the humour, some of it works, some of it really doesn’t. And again, sometimes the humour is out of place, just like other elements of the movie. The last act is incredibly rushed. The two villains are suddenly fighting Spider-Man and each only take up to 3-5 minutes to defeat, they have even less screentime than Venom in Spider-Man 3. There is a sudden dramatic turn in the third act and while it could’ve been handled better, it does partially work (if you’ve seen the movie you know exactly what scene I’m referring to). As for the actual ending of the movie… it was not that great of an ending, it felt forced and rushed. That’s all I’ll say about that.

The editing of the movies wasn’t that good either. The scene placements are frustrating, sometimes they didn’t fit. For example, there is an intense horror-like transformation scene which is immediately followed by a Peter and Gwen romantic scene, which is completely tonally off, such a confusingly out of place editing decision. Other times the editing decisions just straight up makes the movie worse. For example, Harry in one scene asks Spider-Man for his blood to help save his life, and Spider-Man refuses. In a later scene, Peter learns why he couldn’t give his blood to Harry, those two scenes should’ve been swapped around, because otherwise Peter just seems like a terrible friend. I have no idea if it was written that way or if was changed through editing, but either way, the way the film presented these events didn’t work the best. It’s worth noting that many of these scenes are fine if you watch them on their own, but seeing them in the movie itself really decreases their quality. The first Amazing Spider-Man did lack some scenes (which would’ve really made the villain stronger had they been included) but it didn’t feel like a ton of footage was missing. However, with the sequel it is incredibly obvious that tons of scenes were cut. And it’s even more astonishing when you actually see some of the scenes that were cut. Simple scenes that explains aspects of the movie and develops some of the characters a little more, all of this should’ve been included and keep in mind that some of the footage didn’t even make it onto home video, there’s probably even more footage that was cut which would’ve made the movie better. On another note, the alternate ending is a lot better than the original ending. It’s very different and surprising but the original ending feels forced and not really earned (not to mention Paul Giamatti’s Rhino makes the ending even worse). The alternate ending is a lot quieter and emotional, and was overall the more impactful ending. I guess Sony just wanted to set up the Sinister Six and saw that as more important than the actual better ending for the film.

Andrew Garfield returns as Peter Parker/Spider-Man and he is still my favourite Spider-Man. With that said I had some issues with Peter/Spider-Man here, none of which is on Garfield, he absolutely commits to the part. My biggest issue with his Spider-Man is that he’s involved with so many plotlines at once in this movie and none of them worked together well enough for him to have a consistent arc. Spider-Man 3 made that work by tying the black symbiote suit with the storylines of Sandman and Harry, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 doesn’t give Peter a consistent arc however. So Peter did feel like a weak character unfortunately, he was at his best in the Richard Parker/Oscorp storyline, which ironically is one of the subplots that was pointless. Emma Stone is again great as Gwen Stacy. The issue with their romance subplot isn’t the actors, Garfield and Stone are effortlessly watchable and lovable together. The issue is that its jumbled with all these other plotlines that it wasn’t handled the best, so throughout all the other plotlines, it would just randomly cut to the two of them for no reason. Now with that said, there is stuff going on with the two of them, with Gwen moving to England and this affects their relationship, there was a lot of potential for this subplot. However it wasn’t balanced well in the movie. Still, it doesn’t change that fact that Peter and Gwen are one of the best romances in superhero movies, there’s no denying that. Watching the two of them talk and interact is endlessly entertaining, and you do actually care about them, which is why a certain scene with them in the third act really works, despite how out of place it is (no spoilers).

In this movie, we’ve got Jamie Foxx as Max Dillon/Electro and Dane Dehaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin as the main villains. First, let’s talk about Jamie Foxx. You have to give Foxx credit, because some of the things he has to do and say is kind of embarrassing, and Jamie threw himself completely into the role. Max Dillon isn’t given enough development and becomes a generic villain after he becomes Electro. I do like the initial idea of his character. Before turning into Electro, Max Dillon is a bit of a loner and an awkward guy, no one really likes him, he doesn’t get any respect. He believes that Spider-Man is his friend after one encounter (however he does play up the role way too much, its like he’s playing a cartoon character). If you’re thinking that it sounds familiar, that’s because that’s pretty much Riddler’s origin in Batman Forever. Cheesy dialogue and familiar scenarios aside, the major reason about why Electro doesn’t work is after the first action scene with Spider-Man. After the fight ends in an embarrassingly simple way, Electro is out of commission until he’s suddenly brought back for the climax for 5 minutes. There is no development of Electro after his villainous turn, so at that point there’s not much to like or care about him except for the nice visuals. So Foxx is wasted and misued in the role. It doesn’t help that his dialogue is cliché and silly with such classic lines like “It’s my birthday, time to blow out my candles” and “Don’t you know, I’m Electro”. That’s not to say that there aren’t some good things about him, the action with him is great, I love his look, and his voice is perfect. Electro isn’t a terrible villain but he’s not that good of a villain either. Now onto Dehaan. Out of the supporting actors he comes out with the best performance. Despite the material he was given, Dane fully commits to his part and really gives a great performance. There wasn’t anything embarrassingly bad about Harry/Goblin, but Dehaan was not given the best writing/material to work with. Harry’s friendship with Peter was fine but wasn’t very strong, not enough time is given to developing that relationship (probably because of all the other plotlines in the movie), so that aspect was just passable at best. As previously mentioned, one plotline focussed on Harry Osborn is that he learns that his father (Norman Osborn) is suffering from a form of Goblin’s disease, and that it’s genetic, so Harry has that disease too. While this plotline does have its strong points and has a lot of potential, it is handled poorly. For example, even though Norman only began to feel the effects of the disease later in his life, Harry is already experiencing it when he’s in his 20s, which is just straight up lazy writing. So how is he as the Green Goblin? In the last act he really only poses as a direct villain to Spider-Man for less than 5 minutes, even Electro got more time. A few minutes isn’t enough time for him to be a villain. Still, a lot of things do really work about him, I actually really liked Dehaan’s version of Green Goblin, but again, he needed a lot more screentime.

Despite the issues that the above supporting actors had, there are other supporting actors who had even worse treatment. Some of them were meant to star in future movies but as Sony cancelled the future movies, they now just seem out of place. Felicity Jones plays Felicia Hardy, who was meant to become Black Cat in the sequel. Jones is a great actress, and she is fine in the movie but she’s like in 2 scenes and doesn’t get to do anything. Whereas Jones is fine but forgettable, Paul Giamatti is memorable but cringeworthy and incredibly over the top. He plays the Rhino, and he was put in this movie to set him up for future movies. He’s a very minor villain (only posing a minor threat at the beginning and end of the movie) but somehow ends up being one of the most embarrassing villains I’ve seen in a blockbuster. Despite them feeling out of place, at least they were meant to return for future movies, Chris Cooper wasn’t so lucky. Cooper plays Norman Osborn and before you get excited, don’t. He’s in one scene and doesn’t return to the movie after that. Such a complete wasted opportunity, Cooper was honestly perfect for the role. I guess the only supporting character who served her purpose without being wasted was Sally Fields as Aunt May.

I love the look of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. This movie is visually stunning, especially with the colours, Electro’s blue lightning, Spider-Man’s red suit, Green Goblin’s green glowing glider, its just stunning to watch. A lot of the scenes are filmed greatly, like an aforementioned transformation scene. This movie doesn’t have a lot of action but it is really good when it actually happens. The action itself is fast-paced like the first movie. If there’s one problem with the action that I have, its that this movie can feel a little too CGI, like we are watching a video game cutscene as opposed to an action sequence from an actual movie. Spider-Man’s suit design has changed from the first movie, now it’s closer to a comic book Spider-Man costume. It works but it’s not my favourite look. Maybe because he looks a lot more CGI and its kind of distracting. I know people really didn’t like the designs of the villains but I liked most of them. Electro’s design in the comics looks honestly silly and wouldn’t adapt well into live-action. So his design with the blue look was great, no problems there. I also liked the look of Green Goblin, it made sense given his origin, and he looked creepy and scary, no issues with his look either. As for the Rhino… yeah, I don’t really liked what they did with the character and the same goes with the costume. I know some people have criticised the soundtrack but I liked it, the Electro and Goblin themes are my favourites. Though the use of modern pop songs did really annoy me sometimes. I will say something about this movie, a lot of people had said that the Amazing Spider-Man movies were more Sony’s films than Marc Webb’s. While I’ll disagree about the first film, the second film I completely agree. There’s a constant feeling that there’s something off, it feels like a studio created the scenes, it lacks a consistent directional style. Then again, that might have something to do with the editing.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is by far the worst Spider-Man movie yet. The film tries to have so many plotlines and set up so much but most of the time it failed to deliver. All the plotlines have their flaws and some of them feel out of place in the movie. It is really all over the place. With that said, I wouldn’t call it a bad movie, just a very disappointing one. It had a great cast and most of them get their moments, the action sequences are beautiful and entertaining but aren’t shown often enough. It had so much potential but even if some of it resulted in some great moments, most of the potential was wasted. I know a lot of people absolutely hate The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and despite everything that I’ve said, it’s not bad, I still partially like it. It’s okay overall, just very disappointing to watch.