This film played better than the previous film, though it did have Peter Parker crying as he seemed to constantly be doing in the first three films. Did I miss something? I don't recall Peter Parker crying in the comic books or animated series.
Once again, they chose one of the more obscure villains for this film, Electro. Also, they changed his powers to the point where he was much more like Static Shock than Electro, making his abilities defy the laws of physics. Still, the did give Electro a pretty good build up, and made him more of a real character, rather than a one dimensional villain bent on reasonless destruction. Honestly, my only familiarity with Electro is from the Spider-man Ride at Universal Studios in Japan.
Also, the overkill with the forshadowing of Gwen Stacy's saftey was too much. If Peter is constantly bombarded by it, and he didn't heed it, does it have any meaning? Obviously it was a lesson for Peter Parker in the comics, but in the film it is a warning he didn't heed.
Finially, Gwen Stacy did get the same ending as in the comics, it's too bad that her story was canibalized and eviscerate for the first film. Fortunately they didn't feel the need to go over the top with her ending.
It's also too bad, as both Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker/ Spiderman) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) fit the characters better than and did Tobey Maguire (Spiderman/Peter Parker) and Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane) in the first three Spiderman movies. Odd that they threw Harry Osborne in at the end of the film, pretty much a throw away villain like they did with Venom at the end of Spiderman 3. Its a horrible waste of two of the greatest villains Spiderman ever had (well actually it should have been the Norman Osborne, instead of Harry)
No comments:
Post a Comment