The latest Spider-Man movie, yet another story of balancing love and crime-fighting, is no revolution in superhero filmmaking. Still, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have their moments, say critics:
- "The fifth Spidey movie in 12 years is overlong, underwhelming, unnecessary, and sure to be a hot ticket," writes Peter Travers in Rolling Stone. "Audiences still think there may be life left in the Marvel hero with the web thingies. And the team responsible for dressing up the corpse is just gifted enough to fool us maybe one more time."
- In the Philadelphia Daily News, Gary Thompson agrees, calling the film "a long, low-energy movie" with "a plot that is needlessly, endlessly complicated." The Amazing Spider-Man 2 "seems to exist only because the studio would otherwise lose the option to make more."
- But other critics are more positive. "Overlong and repetitive as it is," the movie "at least delivers the goods," writes Peter Rainer in the Christian Science Monitor. "Andrew Garfield, returning as Peter Parker, remains ingratiatingly jittery," and "he matches up well with Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy, who also jangles her way through the proceedings."
- Manohla Dargis has a similar take in the New York Times. "Until a late, lamentably foolish turn," the movie "balances blockbuster bombast with human-scale drama, child-friendly comedy, and gushers of tears," she writes. "Mr. Garfield, who’s making a career out of playing delicate flowers, fits the role, suit, and moist sniffling fine," while Stone "has the zing of a screwball heroine."