The second movie in the new Spider-man movie series that directed by Marc Webb. I doubt his potential after seeing this movie. I feel someone should take his position before it become too late. In the history of the Spider-man movies, from all the 6 this one is the worst. Commercially it has done a great business that grabbed around $800 million all over the world, but failed to deliver another quality movie for the fans. The movie engaged with the too much character and subplots. The subplots were not placed in the right spots, kind of random appearance brings the chaos in understanding the story. I had a high hope on this movie and it did not supply well. Frankly, I kind of lost interest in Spider-man. Maybe because it was too soon to reboot, I guess. > **‘‘You want to be the hero. > And now you gotta pay the price.’’** The first movie gave a decent re-start for the refreshed Spider-man movie series. And what happened here in this second installment was a disaster. The first thing is it was nearly a 2 and half an hour movie that brought me lightly a headache to carry on thus far. Actually, it was 10 minutes shorter than what it is now, but in the end they have developed a bit longer to show the opening scene of the third movie. When a movie got a powerful hero, it should have equally matched antagonist. If they are matched, then the fight between them are the next thing to bring the best out of it. I think the Electro man did not click as they have expected, at least not to me. The strength he had was something beyond spider-man, but did not unleash him in a perfect manner. Though Jamie Foxx was not bad in that avatar, the filmmakers kind of wasted his presence for not so good scenes. Remember the original Spider-man was the modern superhero movies, I mean it was done using computer graphics. Afterwards 'Batman', 'Iron Man', 'Thor' and all were followed. I like the version with Tobey Maguire in it, though my rating declined by movie after another in the trilogy. This reboot series had a good opening, but failed to get the momentum going. Especially all the emotions were looked fakes that do not appeal like the original movie series did. Yes, it had a wonderful box office and that does not mean the movie is good, either worst. But expected a little better, especially in the negative characters. Andrew Garfield was good, not awesome, because most of his masked parts were CGI. Emma stone was another let down and could not help comparing her with Kristen Dunst, because she was no way near, at all. The Dane DeHaan role had the same issue and I don't know why people did not get better space in the movie that ran 140 minutes long. Like I said subplot spoiled everything I think. The digital 3D and stunts were poor. Yeah, there are many things to complain about it than to praise, but all the answer should come in the next sequel. If that makes bigger, not commercially, I mean with a good story, graphics and performances then there will be no problem. But if it fails, I had to say 'bring back the fourth installment of the original movie series'. Definitely not worth a watch, but anyway most of the guys going to watch it or already watched it.

Spider-Man stuffed once again. Marc Webb returns to direct what Sony had hoped was the second instalment of a longer running reboot of the Spider-Man franchise. Writing this now, I'm armed with the knowledge that once again the web slinger will get another reboot in 2017, which after viewing this sequel comes as no surprise. It's not so much that it's a bad film, or a bad Spider-Man film at that, it's just that it feels all very familiar, whilst simultaneously hugging the same pitfalls as Sam Raimi's Spiderman 3. Webb tries to juggle a screenplay with 3 villains (well two and a half really), a tricky romance between Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and of course there's school, a best friend and affairs of the home heart to deal with. The introduction of Electro (Jamie Foxx) is a good move, inputting a new villain into the spidey world is most welcome. Yet in spite of Foxx earning some level of sympathy with the characterisation, it never really works and unfortunately draws comparisons with a certain Mr. Freeze from another franchise. Dane DeHaan comes in as Harry Osborn, soon to be Green Goblin, again the tortured soul act is well performed, but come Goblin time the make up and effects work is laughable. While Paul Giamati as Aleksei Sytsevich - cum - Rhino, is having fun but is barely in the picture. Stone is the best thing in it by far, while Garfield works hard, but there is no getting away from the fact that they both are - and look - too old for their parts. The action is fun and pulse raising, but there's not enough of it to sustain a running time of 2 hours and 20 minutes. Though on the plus side Webb and his team are to be applauded for choosing a story line that is ultimately bold and contains a great emotional whack. All told it's a shaky entry to the spidey world, one that once again forced Sony into another rethink. Lets hope the next journey spidey goes on has some clarity and streamlined sense. 6/10

Had high hopes for this one because of the first film. Was not disappointed!

I think maybe some of the lustre from Andrew Garfield's first outing as "Spider-Man" had already worn off for this really rather mediocre sequel. This time he has to don his red and blue lycra and save the city - and "Gwen" (Emma Stone) - from the marauding "Green Goblin". There is quite a degree of on-screen chemistry between Garfield and Stone, and as an action-romance, this is at the more entertaining end of the scale. It's the plot and the tech elements that let it down. The visual effects upon which it relies so heavily are really nothing special. Nor, it has to be said, are the baddies. The "Green Goblin" just isn't menacing enough. That might be, perhaps, because Dane DeHaan is one of those actors (a bit like Michael Pitt) whom I never really understood why he made it at all. The make up artists do work wonders in demonstrating his decline into moral turpitude, but as an actor he is just, well, insipid as the poor, misguided and bitter "Harry Osborne". Jamie Foxx has a bit more fun as the sparky "Electro", though that character is largely undeveloped and Sally Field can be relied upon to add a little maternal instinct as "Aunt May", but somehow the whole thing is just one beat off. The first film had a much stronger story and a cast that were still bedding down; this reverses that with much more assured performances from the two at the top of the bill, but with a much less meaty story to back them up. I did like Andrew Garfield in this role - he has charisma as an actor, but this is all just a bit flat and though impressive to watch on a big screen with big sound, is not a film that will make anyone's top ten - even Marc Webb's, I think.