The Amazing Spider-Man 2

The series with Andrew Garfield is certainly more likeable than the decade older one, even though they have almost the same visuals and love story. Emma Stone is more natural, Spider Man is more human-like (more realistic), and the action is more robust. However, it is still the most childlike comic book hero among the main ones, and it still isn't grasped as it could be – or rather, it is still a sterile Hollywood action movie with a lot of clichés, corny scenes, and expected twists that don't necessarily need to be there. It's the same thing for the twentieth time. It's charming, but it's already getting repetitive. (05/01/2014)

The first film was about hormones, the second accepts the fact that it has to expose the character to something more fundamental (death, responsibility, loneliness) and somehow develop and problematize the character. Unfortunately, there is a syndrome of beating empty straw with the expression of a farmer whose cattle have died. The clichés and love twists are so stupid that even the nonchalant Webb loses grace and the whole thing is reminiscent of the weak moralistic moments of Raimi's trilogy. A certain inconsistency also continues between the detached adolescent escapades in the clouds and quite harsh moments (the introductory scene is something like Nolan would do) / an effort to motivate the villains more comprehensively. It's nothing that Spidey would excel at, so exactly, as was said here - the action is excellent and imaginative, whilst the link between it is a bit barren. Still nothing that offends me, but also nothing I would watch with increased attention and affection. (04/24/2014)

With the overlapping romance with Gwen Stacy, who is very iconic in the original comics, this story takes on a new dimension. The friendly enemy is also quite a nice element. It really doesn't take much to make even the umpteenth Spider-Man interesting, just don't retell the original and it's much more consumable. (01/20/2017)

Unlike the previous film, which I liked only the second (third) time, I liked this Spider-Man immediately. I won't hide the fact that it scored points with me mainly because of the added perspective and really funny moments, but it is equally due to the bombastic action - much better and more imaginative than in the first film. The actors are every bit natural and likable, and the bad guys are alternately sympathetic and terrifying, as they should be. The finale made me hold my breath, even though I knew what was coming. Moreover, I don't even regret that Hans Zimmer replaced James Horner, because after some time (together with a few other people I don't know) he put together a really good music combining classical orchestra and electronics, and gave Spider-Man a nice fanfare theme. It's just a pity that Osborn Jr. didn't get more space, perhaps at the expense of Peter and Gwen's drawn-out romantic line.__P.S. The scene in the credits is completely unnecessary and bland, although from the X-Men world.__P.P.S. What about Uncle Ben's killer? Will we get to him in the next instalment? (04/23/2014)

A lot of users here complain that this film is boring, uninspired; the same old fairy tale. But I personally liked the second/fifth outing of Spider-Man and got everything I needed at the cinema. On the audiovisual side, it is good, the effects are nice and impressive, and it was all underscored by Hans Zimmer's impressive music. The story was simple, but I wasn’t expecting anything else. I both laughed and grieved at the film and marveled at the action sequences. Halfway through, I thought I would only give it three stars, but the last twenty minutes made me rethink everything. In short, a typical popcorn movie that will disappoint especially those who expect too much from it – I was satisfied, though. (04/25/2014)