Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone as Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy. (Sony Pictures)
The reviews are in, and the consensus is that The Amazing Spider-Man 2
is not so amazing — but Andrew Garfield
and Emma Stone
are. The word "chemistry" is being tossed around with effusive frequency when critics write about the young real-life couple at the heart of the film. What makes them so likable? Well let's here it from the critics themselves.
Our own Joe Robberson hated the movie's bad guys
, and wanted more of the couple.
Instead of focusing on what might be a thrilling, doomed relationship, Amazing 2 jettisons the idea in favor of introducing one of the worst villains in comic book movie history and then another one that's not too far behind.
Eric Melin of Scene-Stealers.com
felt like sparks were flying whenever Andrew and Emma got together.
As Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone (who became a real-life couple during the filming of 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man) radiate onscreen chemistry. And although they are both too old to play just-graduating high school students, it doesn’t really matter because of the obvious electricity being generated.
Devin Faraci of BadAssDigest
did not pull punches with the movie's script, but loved the two stars.
Eric D. Snider of GeekNation
And Garfield and Stone are so good you mourn for them. Why are they forced to have their sweet scenes in this pile of crap? Why couldn’t they have a script that valued intelligence or characters or drama in any way?
A.A. Dowd of The AV Club
loved the scenes with the young couple, but worried they were being crowded out.
David Edelstein of New York Magazine
Wedged among the endless introductions, the flashy light shows, and the groundwork for future sequels are the occasional grace notes, most of them courtesy of Garfield and Stone. It’s no surprise that the director of (500) Days Of Summer most excels at the romantic side of Spider-Man, the scenes of playful rapport between the superhero and the geeky dream girl he’s somehow snagged.
thinks the franchise would sink without Emma and Andrew keeping it afloat.
Will Leitch of Deadspin
The new “franchise” was evidently necessary for Sony to make in order to continue squeezing money from the character, and by my lights got by with it for one reason: the breathy, funny, damnably charming Emma Stone. She meshed beautifully with Andrew Garfield, who played Peter Parker like the reincarnation of those hyperneurotic, overmothered juveniles of the ’50s: Montgomery Clift, Anthony Perkins.
was one of many writers who wondered what it would be like to see Andrew and Emma in a sincere relationship movie sans superheroes.
The best part of the rebooted series is the two leads: Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are charming and have undeniable chemistry, to the point that you find yourself wanting them to just ditch the Spandex already and go live in a romantic comedy together.
Christopher Orr for The Atlantic
also felt the movie's script was too terrible for Andrew and Emma to save.
Garfield and Stone do the best they can with the material, and summon up a few moments of incandescent chemistry. But ultimately the movie proves itself too heavy a lift even for its two stars.
praised the couple for bringing a much-needed sense of realness to the movie.
As with the previous entry, the film’s greatest strength is the cutely romantic interaction between Garfield and Stone (no doubt aided by their real-life couplehood, though they’re good actors too). Peter and Gwen ground the movie in real emotions — an important element in an effects-driven fantasy spectacle.
And finally Christy Lemire of RogerEbert.com
writes the couple's chemistry outshines all those expensive effects.
Every scene between Garfield and Emma Stone as Peter’s sharp and assured girlfriend, Gwen Stacy, leaps off the screen. These are the real 3-D effects, the ones created by the flirty sparks between these two actors.
So what did you think? If you've seen the movie, did you like it? Or just like Emma and Andrew? Vote below.