'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' is repetitive, but Andrew Garfield remains a believable hero

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' actor Jamie Foxx portrays Electro, the best villain in the film. 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' hits theaters on May 2.

Niko Tavernise/Columbia Pictures – Sony Pictures/AP
'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' stars Andrew Garfield (r.) and Jamie Foxx (l.).

Overlong and repetitive as it is, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” directed by Marc Webb in his second outing with the franchise, at least delivers the goods. Andrew Garfield, returning as Peter Parker, remains ingratiatingly jittery. You can believe that this kid, never at rest, could instantly transform himself into Spider-Man. He matches up well with Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy, who also jangles her way through the proceedings. Their body language is contrapuntal.

The sweetness of their young-love pairing is overmatched by the film’s bevy of villains, the best of which is Jamie Foxx’s Electro, an unbalanced Oscorp employee named Max Dillon who has the misfortune to be bitten by electric eels. There’s also Dane DeHaan’s Green Goblin and, in a hilariously maniacal turn, Paul Giamatti as a tattoed Russian criminal who returns in the film’s concluding section as Rhino. (This performance will not remind anybody of Giamatti’s performance as John Adams.)

A word of caution: Most of these superhero comic book movies have a teaser for the sequel built into the end credits. Not so here (or at least not in the press preview I saw). If you sit through an interminable crawl of names only to come up empty-handed, don’t say you weren’t warned. Grade: B (Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action/violence)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.