Darth Praxus wrote:
The good first: the performances here are for the most part solid, and in some instances very good. Garfield and Stone's real-life chemistry is a huge help to their relationship onscreen, Foxx is endearingly pathetic is pre-Electro Max, Sally Field is perfect as Aunt May, and DeHaan's performance as Harry is mustache-twirling but for the most part works (more on that later).
That said, this thing is a mess. It's not even its having more than one villain that's the problem. The tone whiplashes between serious and lighthearted, especially toward the end, when Paul Giamatti's Rhino chews the scenery horribly—I can't fault Giamatti for having fun, but the moment itself does not belong. Character motivations fail to make sense in crucial places, particularly in the case of Harry, who goes from reserved but relatively normal and a seemingly nice guy to a raving, bitter lunatic within one scene. The reason provided for this turn, his dying of the disease that claimed his father, makes no sense—the senior Osborn managed to survive for decades with his disease, while Harry is apparently dying of it within weeks of its emergence.
Others have pointed out the massive problem that innocent bystanders cause to the film—there are crowds of them standing just feet from absolute carnage and watching calmly, which drains a huge amount of tension away from each scene that a crowd is present in. In addition to this, Spidey's constant wisecracking in the midst of destruction and innocent people presumably dying in car wreck upon car wreck makes him come off as a bit of a dick immune to what's happening around him.
Finally, as was discussed in the WAYDMs for Raimi's trilogy, I'm sick and tired of scientists who are trying to do good being consistently painted as amoral if not sociopathic bad guys who are directly responsible for the villains of this kind of film. It's not a problem unique to Spider-Man, but it's extremely irritating nevertheless.
Oddly enough, I managed to mildly enjoy the film in the act of watching it; I really want to see a non-superhero movie with Garfield and Stone as a couple, because they're great together, and the spectacle of the VFX was mildly diverting if cartoony and over the top. Still, I can't say it's a good film, though it's better than any of Raimi's installments in the franchise.
Regarding the tone:
Hopefully I explain this well enough to not come across as an arrogant jerk. That is not my point, but this is my read on the film. The tone seems to follow Peter's journey and his internal confliction over being a superhero and being a normal teenager. There is a lot of emotional baggage that comes with him, and I think the film tracks that, and so, appears to vacillate in tone. It struck me that the tone didn't change as much as Peter's attitude was changing. Whether or not that is good film making, or if I'm just making stuff up, I'm not really qualified to say 
Regarding Spidey's wise cracks:
This has (and Eddie can correct me if I am wrong) been a fairly stable trait for Spiderman, and is one of the attractions of the character for me. Spidey is set up as a flawed person who happens to have super powers. I remember him being billed as a "super hero with problems" which is a bit antithetical to the super hero and comic world at the time, since superheros are supposed to be, well, super. Comes with the territory.
Spidey is different in that he isn't a brooding antihero or propaganda poster boy. He is an everyman, and sarcasm is one way that humans deal with tragedy. I don't think Spidey is making light of the destruction, so much as he is trying to shield himself from what would otherwise be an overwhelming situation. Then, in the aftermath, do we see him wrestle with the emotions of the consequences. For me, it is more relatable as a character. It was one of the draws of Spiderman when I watched the cartoon was his wise cracking and jokes in the face of danger. However, in other instances, there would be agonizing cries over the pain he is dealing with. I thought 2 did a good job in the balance of making Peter look like a young adult who is still trying to balance out his life.
Regarding Harry:
Harry, in my opinion, is a tough aspect of the movie. One the one hand, he is played masterfully and the chemistry between him and Peter is very realistic and enjoyable. There is a relationship there that was enjoyable to watch and understandable.
However, I agree that the pacing was too fast and it could have been played out very differently.
Spoilers, just as a precaution:
ShowHarry starts out as a bitter young adult who wants nothing to do with his father. Suddenly, he his given the company and forced in to his father's world, despite not wanting to be in it. So, his bitternesss, in my opinion, is understandable.
I agree that the progression of the disease was accelerated to make hi more desperate. I think it could have been played out longer, setting up Goblin for the next film, after all of Harry's attempts at spider research have failed. Again, he can still use Electro to get in as the head of OsCorp again, but become more of the master manipulator behind the scenes, using villains to try and capture Spiderman. Then, Rhino can be recruited, and his appearance makes more sense at the end, as he draws Spiderman out. Then, in 3, he becomes more desperate and takes more risks and becomes a more overt villain. Which, in the cartoon, was how Norma Osborn became the Green Goblin. Kind of like Iron Man, if Iron man went psycho and wanted to kill people, for fun and profit
While I can agree that the film has its problems, I wouldn't call it mess, as the characters are solid and well presented. I think that the film tries to do too much with too much material and overwhelms itself.
