User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1373 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 26, 2012
    Its been a mere decade since Sam Raimi helmed Tobey Maguire (as twenty-something Peter Parker) and company together to set the modern standard for the webslinging hero. As the first two films experienced both commerical and critical success, it's understandable as to why the latest project, The Amazing Spider-Man may strike some fans as being "too soon." But, such popular wisdom didn't halt the 500 Days of Summer director Marc Webb from attempting to prove the nay seyers wrong. Challenged with the prospect of following 2002's Spiderman, this Spidey-film, in production, suffered from the sole disadvantage of being a subsequent act: avoiding semblance. Being a remake, however, involves at least some similarity. In any regard, the film succeeds in distinguishing itself largely due to the new Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield. Known for his spotlighted performance in The Social Network, Garfield assumes a modernized persona in 'Spider-Man.' He, though playing a bit older of a teenager than did Maguire in his debut, is instantly accepted in his role, having a fresh-faced innocence framed with anxious tics, angst, wry humor, and an unpretentiously down-played charisma that realistically reflects towards today's youth. Moreover, unlike the hackneyed "nerdy" image Maguire attained, Garfield is a punkish, skateboarding, internet-surfing, texting teen who just feels right; factor in the tall, lengthy stature that fills the red and blue arachnid suit which draws a far closer semblance to the comics than does Maguire's diminutive clumsiness. Peter Parker, then, is an abounding improvement; we even get to see him as a child in the Prologue. His love interest, the newly monikered Gwen Stacy--no more scarlet-headed Mary Jane--played by the ultra-talented Emma Stone is a beachy, yet intelligent blonde, all emo-short skirts, high boots and blimpingly gazing eyes underscored with thick-painted eyeliner; she is terrific and delightfully lighter and more expressive in character than the cold, equivocally taciturn Mary Jane of previous films. The two together, though, don't always stick like one would want them to, as the pathos and jokes don't land consistently, but individually they work wonders. When a mid-plot twist reveals Gwen's father (Denis Leary) is head honcho of the police force, (Leary miserably nods along) the divided love affair between the two crossed teenagers assumes more of the same division as between Peter and Mary Jane, and ups the ante in cohesive sentiment. As for Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, they are near perfect castings but neither is used nearly enough. And, the one-armed scientist-reptile-symbiote, Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) the screenplay's poor excuse of a villain, is a character no more an antagonist than Peter Parker for a chunk of the film. He is brought to his monstrous transgressions by one Dr. Ratha, who demands that Connors create an antidote for an ailing company superior. While The Amazing Spider-Man does devote some attention to character revamping, namely Peter Parker and the fledgling Gwen Stacy, as well as capturing some subtle nuances from the comics, it also fails to web its components together, often revisiting the same plot points of its predecessor. Though forgiving the latter is sensible, the former is impeachable. What we're talking about: plot contrivances, continuity errors, gaping lapses in logic, and embarrassing coincidences. For one, not nearly enough is said about Peter's parents, particularly his father. Early on, Peter is searching the web (why is a teenage prodigy using Bing?) and it is there he whimsically finds an article of his father with Connors. Others include: what happened to Uncle Ben's murderer? What happened to Dr. Ratha after he was seen in his vehicle on the Williamsburg bridge? Why are no photos taken of the 8-foot tall reptile rampaging through cars like magots? Why are a swarm of lizards walking on a web of Spiderman's in the sewer? Who writes "Property of" on anything? Why do crane operators work during evacuations? If Dr. Connors' reptile-transforming serum was ephemeral, and thereby needed to be injected every four hours or so, why would he expose the entire New York population to it?; the effects would be short-lived. And, the last I will mention, why is Denis Leary the only police officer on the roof of the building in the finale, when hundreds of other SWAT personnel are meandering on the street, watching the hero and villain fight? It's these contrivances and more that mar all that 'Spider-man' offers; director Marc Webb can only feint the mishaps with unfulfilled emotive closeups that merely break up the pervasive silliness for a short time, but such aren't ever forgotten. By the looks of it, the making of 'Spider-man' was lost right from the boardroom; oh, there it is, WHOP! It's an icky mess to clean up. Expand
  2. Jul 9, 2012
    Seen "The Amazing Spiderman" tonight. Wasn't expecting much but very pleasantly surprised. Its better than the original as well for me. For sure its darker and the Peter Parker/Spiderman character is closer to the comics. More time is spent building the story, however this means the film takes a while to get going. Its worth it though as the relationships between Parker and those around him are given more time to develop. The action scenes are good and 3D is really great with the skyscraper web-slinging inducing real vertigo. Check it out. Expand
  3. Jul 9, 2012
    Spidey is spicy than ever! Ready or not, here he comes. They take Spider-Man to THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) level. Darker! More realistic! And more serious! But don
  4. Jul 20, 2012
    I was very sceptical about seeing this reboot so soon after the last franchise did a good job with Toby at the helm of Spidey. I never heard of Andrew Garfield before this movie, but I thought he did an amazing job at portraying "youth angst". This is a must see even if you liked the previous versions!
  5. Jul 5, 2012
    The movie is indeed AMAZING!

    It is by bar the best Spider-man movie yet!! Spider-man is agile, fast and his acrobatic movements are really well performed. This is the best spider man characterization yet, it outdoes the 3 previous movies. In previous films, spiderman was very slow and felt heavy, and his acrobatic movements were a bit lame. In this movie the action sequences are
    spectacular!! Also the effects and the CGI are top notch.

    The story is really well done, even though it forces some events a bit, that you may think require more time "completed", but still; the plot is well written. I have to say that this movie is an improvement over the previous ones in every aspect. The way he gets his powers and why he has them are better explained (even though that is not how it happens in the comics lol). The acting is good, you can feel the emotions and motivations of the characters. GO AND WATCH IT!!! IT IS ONE OF THE BEST SUPER-HERO MOVIES EVER!!!!
  6. Sep 24, 2012
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a decent quality film and a pretty fun ride. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are excellent, with Garfield remembering to be a human first and a superhero second, and stone having great chemistry with the web-head as Peter Parker's highschool sweetheart Gwen Stacy. Denis Leary is also superb as Gwen's over-protective, condescending but well-meaning police captain dad. Rhys Ifans is less successful as The Lizard, the film's most prominent antagonist, his performance inconsistent, his character's motivations ill-defined and his CGI-transformed appearance looking a little off (an anthropomorphic face grafted onto a reptilian body turns out not to be the cleverest design decision in motion picture history). It's nice to see a new take on the titular hero that's more like Smallville than Sam Raimi's trilogy, but you do feel a little cheated at the film's conclusion with its many hanging plot threads that will doubtless be resolved in the sequel(s). Though The Amazing Spider-Man breaks new ground in terms of its slow-burning style of storytelling, the key beats in the plot are predictable and cliched, and the film as a whole is far too long, though I'm not sure which scenes could justifiably be cut to improve pacing without negatively impacting the story as a whole. It's oddly gratifying to see director Marc Webb finally attempt to address the (theoretical) physics involved in someone swinging from skyscrapers, and by executing many of the film's stunts in reality using sophisticated wire-work and harnesses, he manages to avoid the slightly rubbery Spidey of the Raimi era. The Amazing Spider-Man is a solid foundation for a new franchise that remains pleasingly grounded and promises to explore the lesser-known lore of the Spideyverse. The post-credits scene also suggests that the sequel could go to some really interesting places now all that lengthy exposition is out of the way again. Expand
  7. Nov 30, 2012
    This is by far the best spider man movie yet.Never thought a reboot of spider man would be 10 times better than the first spider man movie.Maybe it was the story line of the first spider man movie that made me fall asleep or could it have been the acting of Toby Maguire that made me hate Spider man 1,2 and 3. so when saw the trailer for the amazing spider man I truly thought this could probably be the worst spider man movie ever made.But never judge a book by it's cover or in this case never judge a movie by it's cover the amazing spider man is easily one of this year's best movies in my books.Glad I did not judge the movie by reading the other reviews given by other users on this website.Just have to say again the amazing spider man movie is the best one yet and I truly hope there could be sequel's if the amazing spider man so good who knows how good the sequel's could be. Expand
  8. Jul 4, 2012
    A pretty good movie I may say myself however the still think Spiderman 2 is the best Spiderman film ever made. The 'Amazing' Spider-Man is a pretty solid movie especially to all you newgens can't be stuffed watching Maguire's acting. The cast is solid but I feel that they wasted the Lizard's character. Its not that the actor is bad but I don't feel that did much to try and flesh him out like Doc Oct.

  9. Jul 8, 2012
    Lets give you the bad stuff first. I take away 1 point for the lack of Spider-man action. As you may already know from reviews... It takes a bit of time before you get proper costume.
    When Spidey action does kick in, you grab some popcorn and it's over before you even put it in your mouth. That's most of the action sequences obviously some are longer than others. 1 point deduction for
    weak Spider-man character building.
    You know how in Sam Raimi's version you got or understood a healthy amount of time had passed from when Parker first becomes (the real) Spider-man to him getting famous from the media? Well that is non existent in this and it's taken for granted that you should know that has happened.
    Yeah it's not fair to force Mark Webb replicate what's been done before but it makes the new film seem rushed and haphazardly put together.

    The last 1 point taketh away is what I like to think of as the George Lucas writing technique... Lazy story writing and the need to connect everything together. Treating you like a dumb4ss.
    You know this big world we live in!? Wouldn't it be cool if we condensed that so it seemed like that "WHOLE WORLD" was the size of a street?! Wouldn't that be cool? Wouldn't it?! My grandpa knows your grandpa and he's also gonna know a kid who is gonna invent RD-D2 and C3PO! Every body is connected yay!! Who needs random? Random? Pfft, randomness is so overrated and unimportant. The Good.
    Everybody gives an Oscar winning performance. Martin Sheen is everybody's uncle! Sally Fields portrays aunt May with such sadness that you get what Peter feels.
    Emma Stone... this girl can make a Uwe Boll film good. She is Gwen Stacy. 100% better than Dunst's Mary Jane. Rhys Ifans does a very good mix of cold and hot as Curt Connors. He can go either way and which ever way he turns you accept it.
    Dennis Leary didn't need to be there and seemed a bit star overload. But he gave a non Leary performance meaning he can act differently when directed right.
    Andrew Garfield again not much needs to be said about this guy. Ever since his role as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, you knew he was going on to juicier stuff. This guy can act and in this he has Peter Parker down to a tee. Akwardish guy that is believable when he comes out of his shell and his Spider-man ego is just like his comic book self.

    The effects are good but what do you expect in this day and age? It's a far cry from Raimi's weirdly plastic CGI Spider-man at least from the first movie.
    The first-person view free running scenes are fun in 3D giving you a chance to see it through Spidey's eyes.
    The story is good but not amazing though it flows well. It's a more upbeat Spider-man film that the ones preceding it. Which is a sigh of relief because I wanted to slap Raimi's Peter Parker when he blubbered and whined. None of that here. No whiney Mary Jane either!
    Without giving away anything their are little minute details in the movie that should be applauded.. Watch it to see what I mean.

    As much as I hated the EMO "woe is me" overtones of Raimi's Spider-man. It's the superior film over Mark Webb's. Raimi being an actual lifetime fan of Spider-man knew how Spidey fought and moved. Though I guess we could defend the new version as more inexperienced Spider-man.
    It's not too inferior mind... It's just that nothing new has been put on table. You would have thought with The Avengers film coming to fruition at almost the same time they would have liaised and came to the same conclusion that a lot of costume time would have been better. If only you could splice Raimi's and Webb's films together then you'd get the perfect Spider-man.
  10. Jul 5, 2012
    This fresh reboot takes the original film to all new levels with a slightly more fleshed out stores and three-dimensional characters (figuratively and literally). The lizard may not make quite as good of a villain as the Green Goblin, but Garfield's Spiderman dominates. Tobey Macguire who? Emma Stone provides a relatable love interest and truly allows you to feel for her character. The cinematography and visual effects are top notch and help to provide a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Expand
  11. Jul 12, 2012
    Even coming from a guy who loves the old spiderman films, i have to admit that this new movie is very well done.The performances are first rate. To me andrew garfield has a certain charm, and suits the spiderman character better than that of tobey maguire. Emma stone also exhibits a type of sweetness in her role of gwen stacey. Though the film has a large amount of character developement, and it honestly takes about 30 minutes for the first time that you get to see spiderman. But once the action starts, there is a lot of it. This is all in all, a great reboot that i think is better than the original. Expand
  12. Jul 6, 2012
    This is the first Spider-Man movie since 2007's Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is just what a summer reboot looks like! The movie was awesome, I saw the Tuesday night showing before people were getting ready for 4th of July weekend. The ending was shocking, but I can't say any spoilers right now! However, my guess is that there's gonna be a sequel to the movie soon if Andrew Garfield is gonna come back reprising Spider-Man. I believe The Hobgoblin should be in the movie, but I don't know yet. It was a great reboot and I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises coming out. I hope there's gonna be a line. Collapse
  13. Jul 9, 2012
    Quite a refreshing film actually. The new approaching was well developed and thoroughly planned, even considering It wasn't a smart idea to reboot the saga so early. Despite a little tuned off with a few things, it manages to give a totally new focus on the plot and still resemble the Spider-Man idea, very clearly and precisely.
  14. Jul 6, 2012
    Yeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-Man shots while jumping from building to building. Garfield's acting while Peter Parker saved this movie, and lucky for us, that pretty much dominated this movie. Expand
  15. Jul 5, 2012
    This is pure comic book entertainment value. I consider this the best Spider-Man origin story yet. Its better than the original Spider-Man, but not quite as good as Spider-Man 2. Its hard to go back to having one superhero after seeing a movie like The Avengers, but The Amazing Spider-Man is a fantastic reboot because of high-powered action and high charisma coming from the film's leads. Also, The Lizard is the best Spider-Man villain since Doc Ock. Expand
  16. Nov 21, 2012
    You're going to love this movie if you're new to Spiderman and the history behind this character. If you're an old Spiderman fan, you either loved it because you love Spiderman so much or hated the movie because it did not exactly portray the origins of Spiderman and his powers, except for Uncle Bens death. For an 2 hour film it seems the movie spend most of the time showing how a guy went from being the hipster d-bag at starbucks to the hipster d-bag holding a starbucks cup with super powers trying to do a kick flip in an abandon garage. Compared to the Dark Knight: Rises and the Avengers, this super hero movie is a super zero movie. I can't pathom how hard I tried to keep this movie from boring me to tears with scenes only suitable for teenagers who are going through puberty and can get off with such bland story line. Expand
  17. Jul 3, 2012
    It's very hard for me to assign a number rating to this film, but I think a 7 is as close as I can get to the truth. I'd like to give it higher, but I don't think I could justify an 8. This is a pretty good movie. Nowhere near as good as the Avengers, but it definitely holds its own. The acting is great; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have great chemistry and Rhys Ifans is great as Dr. Connors. The action scenes are great and I think Garfield does a far better job at showing the wise-cracking side of Spidey than Tobey Maguire did.

    Where this movie falls down for me is that I don't feel it knows what it wants to be. While I think overall it is darker than the original trilogy, there are some moments that feel very cartoonish. Which would be fine, but it clashes with the dark tone of the film.

    tl;dr This film is good. See it if you like Spider-Man.
  18. Jul 8, 2012
    I am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes this installment too repetitive in several spots. While I have high hopes for this production team, we have to wait for the inevitable AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to see this interpretation flourish. Expand
  19. Jul 4, 2012
    Way better than the previous Spider-man films. Much improved screenplay, beyond blockbuster-quality-acting. Visual effects were clean. Cinematography was commendable.
  20. Jul 4, 2012
    Tone is all wrong. Awkward only plays effectively until the awkward situation is resolved. This movie is as awkward as the main characters who never grow out of it. This movie has no sense of fun and no sense of Spider-Man or Peter Parker. Keep asking yourself...what does this kid want...and see if you find an answer. The movie was actually boring and the most satisfying moment was watching the credits role. Even the after-credits teaser was lame. Really?? Expand
  21. Jul 7, 2012
    While I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with Spidey and Lizard are back and forth battles and great to watch. The one thing I was really worried about was the cast, luckily they proved me wrong. The comparisons are inevitable, people (including myself) will compare Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire unjustly. Maguire had 3 movies to cement his legacy, Garfield just this one. With all that said, I think Garfield does a better job of being Peter Parker than he does Spider-Man. He's a spot on Peter Parker in terms of size, mannerism, the way one would picture a "real life" Peter would act. As Spider-Man however, it's a bit raw. He brings the constant sarcasm and wit that the Maguire Spidey didn't do too much, but Garfield did go a bit over the top at times. Emma Stone, who plays more quirky characters in her career, ends up doing really well as the level headed Gwen Stacy. Rhys Ifans does a better Curt Connors/Lizard than expected, you could really feel for his character, also appearing pretty bad ass in the fight scenes as well. Very well done for Sony, hoping they take this trilogy in the right direction. Expand
  22. Jul 3, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This reboot of spiderman is in no way bad, but definitely has room for improvement. To start off, everything looks great, the web slinging, spidey in his suit, and the Lizard. Andrew Garfield is a much better Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire, and I loved all of his smart quips during fights, its just a classic Spider-man thing and I really loved how Garfield played this role. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was likable, but overall was much more under developed compared to Parker and Dr. Connors. Speaking of Connors, he was awesome...until he became the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choice as the leads villain, but just didn't pose a huge threat to Peter or Spidey as I had hoped he would. My major problem with the movie as whole, however, was that Peter never found the guy who killed Uncle Ben, and I realize that maybe he realized what he was doing was immature as Capt. Stacy (played by a surprisingly good Dennis Leary) knocked Spidey for beating on criminals of the same type, but the director could have at least had more closure to the whole story arc, and it just abruptly ended as the Lizard came into play. All in all, a solid superhero movie that has room to grow into something great and I can safely say that I am looking forward to where this iteration of Spider-man goes in the future. Expand
  23. Jul 9, 2012
    Proving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New York and more vindictive Peter Parker who surprisingly exhibits more angst than Spider-Man 3's Venom. Andrew Garfield is amazing, he's just talented and a perfect cast for a teenage confused by his new found power but still with some wry humor. He's more organic, relaxed and looking very young beyond his age. His relationship with his surrogate parents is humbly relatable. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker and Sally Field as May Parker are brilliant, a kind authoritative figure and affectionate sympathetic guardian, respectively. The bond between them is seemingly genuine, a heartfelt care despite their ongoing tribulation. Martin has delivered one of the more convincing speeches in a rather private context than grandiose fashion of superhero pep talk.

    Emma Stone is okay as Gwen Stacy, she's clever and doesn't fumble in the role of damsel in distress, a great incentive by the director. And she's also hot, no upside down kiss this time. Rhys Ifans plays Dr. Curt Conners, Peter's somewhat mentor and also enemy. He's a confident albeit reclusive brilliant scientist, harboring less than secretive motive to repair his flawed physique. His acting is good, facial expressions are still present in his scaly CG persona, but his character has been plagued by the same schizophrenic mentality as previous archenemies.

    Acrobatic action is the ever present hallmark of Spider-Man, it's more flowing and enjoyable. I like the Spidey-cam, or whatever they call the first person view of Spider-Man is. If only it's more evenly utilized and edited to coexist with the action, it's probably more exhilarating, but that's just a minor complaint. The movement is fast but still regains the clarity of surrounding, which is important on making sense of what transpires on the screen. You can still see the CG effect of the combat, although it
  24. Jul 3, 2012
    This version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields, and Rhys Ifan. Each of them did a wonderful job of making their characters feel very real and genuine. The effects were really good as well (except for the lizard, which looked really weird). My big problem with this film is that it spent a little too much time on exposition and it relies on some of the same old super hero cliches and sentimentality making the movie seem "cheap" at times. It's also follows a very similar path as the original Spider-Man, and even though the filmmakers pulled it off, I wish they could have taken it in a different direction. But the bottom line is that it's an entertaining, better than average super hero movie, and I'm kinda looking forward to a sequel. Expand
  25. Jul 14, 2012
    This movie was decent but it wasn't terrific. I do think that Andrew Garfield played an excellent Peter Parker, alot better than Toby ever could. However, the story was kinda shaky, which is disappointing since I'm a huge fan of the Gwen Stacey storyline, and Emma Stone is a wonderful actor. However, they really missed the mark with her character I think. But the overall story was just disappointing. The Lizard was never the best Spiderman Villain and it translated here. I did like the fighting end sequence, which was really well done. However the stuff up to that was fairly lackluster. This definitely wasn't as good, or anywhere near the level of The Avengers from earlier this year and, with Chris Nolan's track record, I can't see this being as good as The Dark Knight RIses either. I believe this movie had to be perfect to come out on top in this superhero heavy summer of movies. Instead it was only good and only being good will get you 3rd place out of the 3 Mega Superhero movies this year. Expand
  26. Jul 16, 2012
    The Amazing Spider-Man is very well done. The acting is great, the effects are great, the characters development is very well done. The audience is presented with a more human superhero, flawed in numerous ways but struggling to overcome them while at the same time adapting to his new-found strength. Really, judging it from the comic-lover's point of view, its flawless. And that's all that matters, isn't it? Expand
  27. Jul 9, 2012
    Finally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are correct. The effects are amazing. The problems are the next: The Lizard, looks some weird, some important characters (yes the aunt may) appear on a background. Is a good reboot, I think that is better than the Avengers. I wanna watch the second part. Expand
  28. Jul 20, 2012
    Thing that i like in this movie is those new stuff like the spider web!
    And those dodging skill ! this movie is 90% according to the Comic book!
    And a some moral value for a teenager who use his power randomly.
    Like those scene in school , maybe in the future he will learn 'great power comes with great responsibility'
    Well , A good movie for COMIC BOOK fans!
  29. Jul 7, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really enjoyed myself with this one. The story is the old Spider-man story we all know, but it's been changed so that this movie can shine on its own, and it does. It may be predictable, but it works and you really want to see what happens next, even though you already know what does. The movie also does a good job at building up the sequel, by keeping it subtle. There are a few things that haven't been resolved yet, one I'll get into right now. The romance between Peter and Gwen doesn't wait. After you get to know Peter, you get to know Gwen through her interactions with Peter. It's predictable and cliched as well, but it just works and sometimes you really feel for them, especially towards the end. You also get to know Dr. Curt Connors (Lizard) and how he wants to change the world to make the dominant species perfect. He seems sane at first, but then he goes insane through an addiction that I won't get into. The action is phenomenal; it gets the job done with flare. There's never a point where the acting is questionable. There's only a few negatives to this film. The first is with Peter's personality. He really has no defined trait except for his relationship with Gwen and that he used to be a Punk until his uncle died and he became Spider-man. I feel that the movie missed an opportunity where they could have used his photography to transmit his emotions. The other negative is the patriotic moment. In this, all the construction workers line up heavy-duty cranes so that Spider-man has an easier time getting to the final battle after a motivating speech by the boss and a cut to the American Flag. It's not needed, not that its a bad scene and it does make you feel proud. The one in the other Spider-man movie was appropriate because it was just after 9/11 and we all needed that moment for hope. It's not need in this film and it's the one cliche that drags the film down a little. Overall, I enjoyed myself with this movie and I hope you will too. Expand
  30. Jul 23, 2012
    Fun but not perfect. Did the movie need to be made? No but I do not care because no movie needs to get made. This is entertainment and has the best Stan Lee cameo ever
  31. Jul 6, 2012
    While the special effects are impressive, the story line is not as well thought out as the 2002 movie. Also Andrew Garfield acting is not as good as that of Tobey Maguire. However the special effects are better than the 2002 movie and the stunts are amazing. Also the suit is really cool. The Lizard is also very cool and his human form as Rhys Ifan is amazing.
  32. Jul 8, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Perhaps it's because it was only 5 years ago that the last Spiderman film was released but this movie just felt... unnecessary. i didn't feel that there was anything that stood out from Spiderman (2002.) Sure, we had cosmetic differences, but the biggest difference, the mysterious circumstances surrounding Peter's parents' deaths, just felt dull. I couldn't connect with Peter Parker - he was just an arrogant, spoilt ass and I had a hard time feeling sorry for him. The villain was just plain BORING ; an evil lizard bent on infecting a city - really? No thank you. Writing this review just made me further depressed so I just warn you that this Spiderman film really adds little to the original film produced in 2002. Expand
  33. Jul 13, 2012
    All I could think of while watching
  34. Jul 8, 2012
    I hate to admit it, but I walked into this movie cursing myself. "Here we go again. Another rehash of a super hero that has been done a million times." The funny think is walked out of the theater saying, "about time someone did justice to Peter Parker." Don't you just love it when a movie both proves you wrong and awakens you to bigger and better possibilities?
    I'm not saying this is
    anywhere near Christopher Nollan's universe. But, what a cool movie this was. Awesome script, phenomenal direction work, and enough effects to support the story without turning it into another amusement park ride.
    The only scene that I had hoped not to find in the movie is the one when they line up the construction cranes. A touch of Hollywoodese. We'll look the other way on that one. It is a studio picture after all.
    In general, I very much believed the story and the characters. Everyone was riding a good balance between what life deals them and the sacrifices behind changing our own fate. What a script. You even feel bad for the bad guys in this.
    Andrew Garfield was a great voice for modern teenage angst, and Emma Stone was equally significant. Great pair to front this. Everyone else felt like the perfect piece of the puzzle. Although I have a feeling the majority of the kudos on this one should go to a flawless script and surgical camera work. This is what happens when talented filmmakers get together and decide to turn the camp in comic books into a real life drama. Congratulations. I'm sold!
  35. Jul 17, 2012
    if you never saw the original movies then it might be worth seeing for some mild entertainment but in general it is a very dumb, unbelievable and badly written movie. there was no reason that i can see for this remake. the first movies were superior in every way.
  36. Jul 6, 2012
    Peter Parker more Peter Parker than ever, and Spider-man more Spider-man than ever.
  37. Jul 8, 2012
    Ok... THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: Yes my first impresion was... hey!? what happened with Sam Raimi(director of the first 3 movies) and with Tobie McGuire!!! But today i saw this movie... and it was pretty COOL! Yes Andrew is a good spider-man and Emma is a good Gwen. The story is good and interesting. BUT... Where are Harry and MJ?? Where the hell is J.J. Jameson??? ANd the Daily Bugle??? Some of those ditails make the movie... a little bit confusing for thos who saw the oder 3 movies and the comics.... Yes.. if you´re a Spidy's fan (like me) you don't want to miss this movie.. but there are some things that are very important that weren't in this movie... and is a bit dissapointing Expand
  38. Jul 23, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I found this movie not to me my cup of tea. A few cheese parts in the movie along with a few missing features really dropped this movie down a bit in my eyes. Making a quick comparson to the other 3 spider-man movies. I think this movie rates lower then the first 2 movies and higher then the 3rd. Third movie had way to many story lines going on for me. Harry (As the Green Goblin), Sandman and on top of all of that the Venom story line with Eric from that 70's show. So back to this review.
    What were the cheese things that just didn't sit right with me. I found this skateboarding hipster peter parker with spiked (Not how I would invision him). A few scenes left me thinking why put that in there? From throwing a football at a goal post and bending it. Then breaking and crushing or sticking to everything he touchs (The scenes felt a bit over board / childish). Spider-man playing with a robber sticks him to a wall then fires webs at him for fun. The scene where Peter is at Gwen's House and jumps over the side of a 100feet condo,Her Parents thought "I didn't see Peter leave out the front door" (Hard to explain). Thats just a few examples. A few features that would have connected me to the story or peaked my interest a bit more. Has to do with the Villian "The Lizard" I like the Lizard as a Villian he out matches Spider-man's strenght and speed. The one thing I didn't like was the look of the Lizard "No Snout" I was a fan of the comic's and tv series and the Lizards look just didn't cut it for me. ( I thought he looked like I-Robot with scales super fail with conneting me with the Villian) Sense I was a Fan of the comic's I loved the fact that the Lizard communiated with other repititles, I would have liked to have seen a few aligators to spice up a few action scenes. This isn't a make or break it for me in this new series of spider-man movies, but I think there is definitly room for improvement. I still will be checking out the next spider-man movie its just I'm not so pumped up from this one that I'll be seeing that next one on opening night.
  39. Jul 13, 2012
    This was a good super hero movie. It was basically the same movie as the Spider Man with Toby MacGuire in that it had the same plot, same type of characters, and settings/scenes. They did change the details of course providing interesting twists to the essential plot points. The action scenes were better than the Toby MacGuire movie and overall, it had a grittier feel than the original. This spider man was never really a true geek/wus as Toby and when he changes into a tough guy it's more convincing. The main problem with this movie is that the acting isn't nearly as good as the Toby Spider Man. Toby, let's face it, is a far superior actor to this guy. They also made the villain's primary goal very lame. They could have done a lot more with the lizard and some diabolical plans. But, the Lizard was a pretty cool villain overall. The movie is more of a 5 compared to the Toby Spider man but I have to give it an 7 compared to the balance of super hero movies out there which are usually quite good. Cheers! Expand
  40. Jul 13, 2012
    First of all, I believe this film should not have been made at all, at least until a much later date. I believe that the reboot of the series came much too early. However, I did still enjoy this movie to some extent. Being a huge fan of Spider-Man and having read the original comics, they spent far too long on the story as to how Peter managed to obtain his powers. However, the fight scenes easily make up for this, which are just exhilarating. I also believe that they managed to portray the Lizard very well. Andrew Garfield also manages to create a very like-able character. However, I couldn't help but notice was an absence of some key characters, including Harry Osborn. So, overall, action scenes are great, CGI brilliant, but the first half will likely bore those who have already seen the previous films. Expand
  41. Jul 17, 2012
    My reasoning for giving this movie a 10 is not because I thought THIS movie was great(although I enjoyed this one more then the others) I thought that this spiderman series could be great, this is a different spin on the spiderman character that I think is good. His inability to shoot webs out of his wrists which many of my friend,s and I'm sure other people, disliked actually gave a sense of realism to me, but to some I guess that they don't care if its realistic or not, all they want isa superhero. But all in all this movie kept my attention and maybe me interested in superhero movies again(p.s. I thought Andrew Garfield did a much better job of being spiderman than toby macguire did) Expand
  42. Jul 3, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Does The Amazing Spider-Man usher in an exciting new chapter in the franchise or signal yet another reboot?

    I have joined millions of moviegoers in condemning the horrid Spider-Man 3, a film that put the once-proud franchise into a coma with a single dance scene. But there were more issues to that film than just the sidestepping: the product felt tired and bereft of imagination, as if our hero needed a partner or a major shakeup. Throwing too many substandard enemies at one hero never solved anything, but that's exactly what we got. Something needed to change, but was a reboot really necessary? That was Sony's call; and so five years after Tobey Maguire and company were shown the door, the lights dim for The Amazing Spider-Man.

    Sadly, The Amazing Spider-Man is too drawn out, uninspiring, and downright boring. Its disappointment is so profound that it's a far cry from Spider-Man 1 & 2 and the worst superhero movie since Green Lantern. You all know the story: Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically-enhanced spider and wakes up with enhanced abilities. Yet, this is where the similarities between Sam Raimi's films and the current one end: webbing emanates from a man-made source, Mary Jane has been replaced by Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and even Parker's biological parents are Oscorp doctors who pass off young Peter to Aunt May (Sally Field, Norma Rae) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) before meeting an untimely end. Fast forward several years, and both Parker and Stacy are high school classmates, not twenty-somethings as were portrayed in the Raimi films. Stacy has inexplicably landed a cushy internship with Oscorp and its chief researcher Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who is seeking to reconstruct severed human limbs (including his own) in an effort to prolong human life. Connors worked with Parker's father (Campbell Scott) on the same recipe, only to see his work stifled with a missing formula that Peter discovers in dad's old briefcase. And just like the comics, Connors tests the newly-completed serum on himself, turning into the superhuman monster The Lizard. Rattled by the death of Uncle Ben and the news of Connor's transformation, Peter must balance his new powers with the realization that everyone close to him is at risk of the same violent ends if he remains Spider-Man. On the surface, it seems many of these resets would signal a new-found respect by Sony to remain faithful to the Marvel universe. But, consider this blasphemous alteration: almost everyone in the city knows Spider-Man's true identity, from a young boy stuck in a burning van to the police captain running the manhunt for the webslinger (Dennis Leary). There's even a suggestion that Aunt May herself has put two and two together after seeing Peter return home bruised and battered near the movie's ending. Why screenwriter James Vanderbilt would at first show such respect for canon then throw grenades like this into the middle of his script is beyond me. Either he assumes we're not fully vested with the character to begin with, or we're just ignorant moviegoers who consume and forget when the lights kick on. Either way, this insult doesn't help indie Director Marc Webb, who tries his best to paint pretty action scenes (such as several first-person views of Spider-Man slinging his way through the city) but fails to achieve anything new or exciting. And while our promising cast does its best with Vanderbilt's sub-par script, bad screenplays always trump good acting, a fact which is demonstrated in some of the cheesiest dialogue I've heard from the franchise ("I've been bitten - so have I," says our leads as Parker shares all). While capable actors, Garfield and Stone have little chemistry together and seem like an odd pairing from the start. Moreover, the story takes too long to develop, forcing audiences to wait 45 minutes before seeing any real action, none of which is satisfying or even inventive even in 3D. In fact, many of them feel like retreads of Raimi's efforts, demonstrating the incredible command he had of the character.

    Anyone who tells you this film is exciting or even a well-drawn character-driven story has obviously not seen The Avengers. Had The Amazing Spider-Man debuted sometime in the spring, perhaps my reaction would have been different. Once again that was Sony's call to make, and their product is so much the worse for it. Why they decided it was time to reboot, rather than reload, will confound moviegoers until one considers the contract, which requires the studio to produce a film every so many years, or lose the rights to Marvel. Therefore, The Amazing Spider-man is essentially a contract extension, doomed by a boring and plodding script and a post-credits scene that felt incomplete and largely ineffective. Let's hope Marvel can someday wrestle Spider-Man away from Sony, because very little about this version is inspiring or even worth the time.
  43. Jul 8, 2012
    The new Spider-man played by Andrew Garlfield is a-lot more down to earth and cool as a actor, overall boosting the films rating because he's a more relate-able character. This makes the film a-lot better to view because the actor isn't forced to cry all the time. A.k.a He makes the Tobey Maguire Spider-man look like a complete **** The villain is most likely the best in the series because he is the most **** up one and this also makes the fights more tense. It is a damn good film, so yeah, go see it. Expand
  44. Jul 10, 2012
    I think this version far, far surpasses the last Spider-Man trilogy in basically every way possible. Overall, as a movie, I think this version works far better, it´s more interesting, faster & better paced, has better action scenes, shows us more of Peter Parker and his family & friends than what the last trilogy did, and just overall has a better feel to it.
  45. Jul 3, 2012
    This movie was surprisingly great, as I did have my doubts about it. Great new cast, Peter Parker and Gwen have great on-screen chemistry (although I will always be a fan of MJ). Also, the beginning was great, as it more properly explained the origin of Spider-Man (although the amount of time before he gets his powers it a bit stretched out). I love how he uses artificial webs instead of the previous trilogy where the webs magically came out of Parker's wrist. The Lizard was also a much better villain than I had expected, as he is physically more than Parker could ever handle, leading the scenes with him to be a thrill ride of wondering what would come next. Overall, a great movie. Any fan of Spider-Man, heck, any fan of action or comic books in general should see this movie. Even if you don't know about the masked web slinger, this movie will explain it all to you. Expand
  46. Jul 4, 2012
    Stayed much truer to the original comics than its predecessor. Garfield plays a much more believable Peter Parker, and his chemistry with Stone is spot on. The dialog is cute and amusing, but at times Twilight-esk. The action sequences are "meh". It's Peter and Gwen's relationship that make this movie good.
  47. Jul 4, 2012
    It was good, but not great. I am a Spidey-fan, and I loved seeing him again on the big screen. The cast is great. Garfields Peter Parker AND Spider-man is the best I have seen. Stone is great as Gwen, showing the best girlfriend in a Spider-Man movie, plus Ifans as Connors/Lizard. The cast is brilliant, love it very much.

    The story, not so much. Sure I loved how Peter got his powers,
    and how he experience it. But the rest is just, not that interesting. The one thing I am must irritaited of, is that many thing that you saw and heard from the trailers, are not in the movie. For example: It was all planned that Peter got the powers. So story isn´t that great. But what I thought was the good parts i this movie was; The cast, fantastic! The story has been modern more alike. Bringing the origin of Spidey and the Lizard very good.

    So here are the plus and minuses about the movie:

    The cast
    Bringing the Origin of Spidey and The Lizard good

    Story, could have been so much more. Expected alot from the trailers.
  48. Jul 7, 2012
    Well, its far from the best spider-man movie made. However, I still found this movie a half descent flick. I also (And i know everyone is going to disagree with me, but..) thought this movie was better than the Avengers. So, yeah, it was pretty cheesy at some parts, and Spidey was a bit too self centred (My uncle got murdered, Im gonna go kick the crap out of everyone), but it was still a descent flick. Character development was satisfactory, and I somehow liked the transition from webs loaded into wrists to technologically invented webs. It just fit the story better. Expand
  49. Jul 5, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The main problem with this film is that it is to the Spiderman legacy what Superman Returns was to the Superman legacy: Pleasantly executed but completely pointless. The trailers would have you believe this film focuses on the 'untold story' of Peter Parker's background, but aside from the fact the Parker's dad was a scientist and they died in a suspicious car crash, this aspect of the film is completely wasted because it's never explored fully. You're left with the impression Parker's untold story was just a rouse to get people to come and see the film, and you can almost feel Webb's eagerness to get this out of the way so he can concentrate on the business at hand: remaking Rami's first film. So Uncle Ben gets bumped off by some unknown petty criminal again, this gives rise to Peter's sense of responsibility again (though the emotional transition is not as believable as in the Rami's movie), Peter gets his powers from a genetically modified spider again (this time just in a different location) and Peter decides he can't fulfill his love interest because of his new gig as Spiderman...again. Yes, there's mechanical web-shooters instead of biological ones, and this Peter is slightly more cool than Toby Maguire's, and we have Gwen Stacy instead of MJ. But that's about it, those are the differences you're paying your money for!

    The relationship between Garfield and Stone however does work very well; the pair have a more natural chemistry than Maguire and Dunst and that translates effortlessly, though both are far too wise and articulate to be believable as high school students.

    I know some fans like the predictability element of superhero films, but I just wish that this film would have been braver. Nolan's Batman Begins, for example, was a true origin story, offering the audience something new. This film takes no risks and as such do not be under the impression this is an origin story - it's the same film as the 2002 original but with a much less engrossing villain (even the split personality/voices in the head is copied from Rami's Goblin here) If you care about Spidey, you'll end up feeling slightly ripped off by the whole thing.
  50. Jul 5, 2012
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a great take on Spider-Man. The movie did a few things wrong, but it got it right where it counts.

    My first impression when I saw the movie is that they did a good job making Spider-Man seem amazing. From the way he moved to the way the people reacted to him just made him seem amazing. The story was very good, but be warned: If you are walking into the movie
    expecting a fantastic hero vs villain story, you will be a little disappointed. While the Lizard vs Spidey fights are good, that is not what the majority of the film is about. The majority of the film is spent establishing Spider-Man's origin. That is what the film is about. It's about Peter Parker's rise from High School nerd to the amazing Spider-Man, and the film does a spectacular job at that.

    The characters are done very well. I would say Peter Parker's characterization and his interactions with Gwen Stacy was the highlight of the film. In short, this is a film in which the plot serves the characters rather than the characters serve the plot. All in all, this is a very good movie, and a great Spider-Man movie. Whether you've been a long time Spider-man fan or just looking for some good superhero action, this film is a must see.
  51. Jul 5, 2012
    This film is okay. Everything you expect, nothing you don't. List all of the superhero clichés and you'll find them. It isn't a smart movie in any aspect. Bad dialogue, questionable cutting. What frustrates me the most is all of the missed opportunities to take this rich universe and say something meaningful with it. Where it has the opportunity to soar, it strolls and plays it safe.
  52. Jul 5, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Dear Mark Webb. Is your name Christopher Nolan? No? THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE?!?! Full disclosure here I actually review movies and videogames professionally this is not a professional review this is a fan's livid rant about how my fellow peers can rate an average movie so highly. I have to give Mr Webb credit for being bold. He tries a lot of new ideas some work but most don't. The plot changes itself in the middle of the movie not once but twice. I don't know who to blame here. i never expected much from this movie since hearing about it two years ago, but after seeing some of the previews I thought maybe just maybe it might not be half bad. Unfortunately I was horribly horribly wrong. What is it everyone loves about this movie? The story of the movie is just as lost and confused as the rest of us. I thought Emma Stone looked quite a bit like Gwen Stacy I think she did a decent job. I think Garfield did as best as he could with the script given to him he certainly moved like Spider-Man did, but why was his character portrayed so far from what makes Peter Parker? I really don't know who is at fault here I think enough went wrong that it isn't possible for one person to take the blame for all of it. I would recommend seeing it so you can understand just how horribly things went wrong. I would like to ask my fellow peers just how many of you sucked Stan Lee's dick to give this average movie such a high rating. Very little is ever resolved. The whole movie feels like they filmed about 6 hours worth of footage, and a few months before the movie was set to release they realized they were out of time, and said ok just watch the footage and give me 2 and a half hours worth of decent material. Then we all give it to the editors and work or magic. Audiences are so gullible and trusting now so they will just take whatever we give them as long as we throw some cool special effects in there to whet their appetite. Why am I so angry you ask? This movie was meant to "correct" whatever Canon issues the Sam Raimi films had. It does the exact opposite. They change the personality of Peter Parker ENTIRELY from "canon" He is a somewhat loner skater kid? I was waiting for Avril Lavigne sk8er boi to kick in in the background. Peter was bullied he doesn't save others from bullies he was NEVER a popular kid. Furthermore what happens to the vengeance? Ya we know he won't go through with it but the entire thing is dropped. They spend 20 minutes of the movie setting it up just to drop it entirely? Oh and what happened to the dialogue in EVERY trailer of Kurt Konners telling Peter "You think this was a coincidence?" I think we all know where the story would have gone, problem is it didn't exist in the movie. Whatever plot used to be in the movie, and isn't is advertised heavily in the trailer. This movie pissed me off but it pisses me off more that so many of my peers are freaking sell outs. It isn't horrible but it is far from Amazing. Who do we blame editing department? Director? Writer? Pushy Producers? They changed just about everything about Spider-man yet they claimed this would be more "true" to the original. And most importantly. WHY THE HELL DID HALF THE FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE KNOW WHO HE WAS? Expand
  53. Jul 6, 2012
    Let me start by saying I am a HUGE Spider-man fan. I have been reading the comics since I was a child and I have always been very critical of how he is portrayed.

    As excited as I was about the Toby Maguire films, they were very flawed. If you are going to make a movie from characters that already exist, you have to stay as true as possible to those characters. They are popular for a
    reason and the people going to see them have expectations. The story may have been pretty accurate, but for the most part, the casting, acting, and CGI was horrible (Alfred Molina and Thomas Haden Church excluded, they were fantastic).

    That being said, Spider-man had to be remade, and "The Amazing Spider-Man", in my opinion, delivers.

    The cast looks as though they were pulled right from the books (minus Sally Field, so NOT Aunt May). Garfield as Parker is brilliant. From his tall, lanky, awkward, yet strong and agile frame to his sarcastic and adolescent comments, he is what I would have imagined and wanted him to be on the big screen.

    The Lizard was also very well portrayed. His size, strength, and intelligence came through clearly. No matter how much they showed him I still wanted more.

    The CGI was excellent, the changes between real actors and animation were nearly seamless. Spidey's agility was very apparent as some of his poses were recognizable from a few McFarlane issues.

    It was also the finer details hat made it great, like Spidey's web shooters and The Lizards lab coat (I would sigh when he took it off).

    The story line may not have been as accurate as it should, but his story is always told a little differently each time. I think this version was entertaining and interesting, it gave Spidey some greater depth and made it easier to get behind him.

    Now I didn't see this movie for the love story, or the specific actor, or to be on the edge of my seat every second. I went to see Spider-Man be Spider-Man, the fact that everything else about this movie was still fun to watch was a bonus.

    Any movie can be picked apart, but If you are a fan like me, you will love this film.
  54. Jul 8, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Just because it is a super-hero movie does not mean it cannot be smart and this movie is not smart. I can buy that someone can get bit by a radioactive spider and get super powers because, hey, that's the suspension of belief needed for the genre. If you are not going to go along with that then best to ignore fantasy type movies all together. What I can't by is a high security building with equipment dangerous enough to gas an entire city, can allow someone in just because they have a name tag (and throw someone out because they do not). I also cannot buy that you could just wander around as you please in such a place. And most of all, I do not buy that a teenage intern can access this place whenever they please and create an antidote for a mutant virus that only just appeared, in a matter of 8 minutes. I guess she stayed at a Holiday Inn. Dumb! Expand
  55. Jul 9, 2012
    I was a little on edge about this Spider-Man reboot because I grew up watching Sam Raimi
  56. Jul 10, 2012
    This movie compared to the first Spider-man is **** you don't even have to see it, its a waste of money, Toby Maguir made a better Spider-man, The Amazing Spider-man is in my opinion the worst marvel movie yet
  57. Jul 11, 2012
    As a summer movie, the Amazing Spider-man is great. As a movie though, wow is it bad. The editing for the film is just awful. It is incredibly apparent early in the movie that huge, huge chunks of the story have been edited out at the last second and only a scant few of the glaring holes are covered by re-shoots. Firstly, it is very noticeable that everything promised by every single trailer, even those in the month up to the film, was removed. There is no untold story, there is no resolution to the Oscorp storyline involving the serum, etc. Every single bit of that was removed. They completely failed to remove the dozens of references to it in the movie though. Peter gets angry numerous times about his parents leaving and disappearing on him. They attempt to cover that, sloppily, with a brief glimpse of him finding an article about their plane crash, yet he continues to get mad as if they abandoned him, not that they died tragically after only leaving him for a short time. There is no resolution to the Oscorp stooge guy taking the serum to that VA hospital. He gets attacked on the bridge by Lizard, but isn't killed or even hurt, and then he disappears from the film. In the trailers it is evident that he plays a big role further in the movie in revealing the "untold story" to Parker as he is dying. Every drop of that is removed and it just leaves this massive empty space about what the heck happened there. There is no motivation for the Lizard's actions. He simply starts to go nuts, hear voices, and decides to kill people/transform them into Lizards. Essentially it is the same story of the Green Goblin from Spiderman but done worse. Speaking of Lizard people, he magics up these gas grenades from nowhere, apparently having transformed his injected serum into an aerosol dispersant while living in the sewers, using them to make a bunch of cops into Lizards. They then disappear off screen until the antidote is launched out of the conveniently 2-minute countdown timed mortar. There was supposed to be much more involving them which was also cut from the film.

    In the end, it is an entertaining movie, but once you start to think about it you realize you saw about half what the movie promised in the trailers and only about 3/4ths of an actual movie thanks to all the horrible edited plot lines. You end up with a Spiderman movie that is better looking than the previous incarnations, has some very good pieces, but in the end feels like an incomplete movie and a total cash grab before Sony lost the rights. Hopefully the sequel is a much better put together movie which in part could have been caused by the completely inexperienced director they handed the franchise to.
  58. Jul 11, 2012
    While certainly better than the third spiderman movie, this reboot suffers from a sense of over familiarity. So much of the origin story is known through the other version that its hard not to feel bored as the first half of the movie sets things up. Thankfully, Andrew Garfield is pretty good as Peter Parker and he carries things along. The action scenes are also an improvement on the original trilogy. The plot with the Lizard suffers from having to run alongside the origin stuff. I have no doubt that the sequel will benefit from being able to run with its own ideas from the get-go. Its not a bad start but its not brilliant. Sandwiched in between the popcorn fun of the Avengers movie and the (as yet unseen as I write this) epic conclusion to Nolans Batman movie trilogy was never going to be easy but Amazing Spiderman is worth a look regardless and the inevitable follow up may be more an indication of whether Garfield and Co. rise above Tobey Maguires run. Expand
  59. Jul 11, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw this movie it was amazing. I was exited since this movie was announced after 5 years.A great combination for Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield.This is the best spider-man movie I have ever seen.This is some of best action,humor and romance movies. Expand
  60. Jul 15, 2012
    I loved this film. Some people said that it was too soon for a reboot, but really it offered a brand new look on the hero. The cast was brilliant, particularly Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone in the lead roles. It had some awesome action scenes and the Lizard was well done. Awesome film! Definetely brushes off the cobwebs from Spider-Man 3.
  61. Jul 12, 2012
    The Amazing Spider-Man is one of the best movies this summer. Many reviewers are giving it a low score just because it is Spider- Man's origin story and similar to the 2002 Spider Man. I don't think you should review it like that, considering Tobey Macguire is a crappy Spider Man and this one is a much better version. Andrew Garfield is the perfect Spider Man in my mind. He was great in this movie. Not only that, most of the actors did extremely well, and the story was compelling. I loved it, and you will too! Expand
  62. b3_
    Jul 14, 2012
    7/10 an average to decent movie experience. Those going into the movie roughly know what to expect from a superhero themed film. A reasonable mix of action, comedy and thrills which works well. The movie is definitely suited to a teen audience as they can relate to the main character to an extent and enjoy the action scenes in particular. The story is simple to follow, but stays entertaining due to the aura of mystery and suspense. For me the bad thing about this movie is that it is predictable and uses a very familiar formula that some of us know too well. However the target audience will not really be affected by this. Expand
  63. Jul 15, 2012
    The key to watching this movie is not comparing it to the 2002 Spider-Man and taking it in as an entirely new reboot. I found it very entertaining and enjoyable to watch and is a good stand-alone spiderman origin story. Its still not as good as the first.
  64. Jul 17, 2012
    To be honest I went to this film not expecting much and I came out in eager anticipation for the next. It was much better than the first of the old series with this new film going back to the comics to tell the truth about Spiderman
  65. Jul 18, 2012
    Loved this movie! The new spider man was very good. I prefer it over any spider man yet! I wasn't totally thrilled w the villain but the creation of it was interesting. I liked having all new actors. I just fell in love w this Peter Parker and he was a great actor. I would've never thought I'd like it more than the others. Gotta see it!!!!
  66. Jul 21, 2012
    Amazing. The best of the Spider Man's movies. But I wanna see Mary Jane and Gwen in a fight for Peter in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I'd appreciate that :)
  67. Jul 22, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie sucked. This Peter isn't geek, let me say again...PETER PARKER ISN'T GEEK! His hair, is NOT a Peter Parker's hair, he loves to spread he is the "amazing" spiderman, I tought he would even tell J Jonah Jameson(I bet he would if he was in this movie)...this Parker loves to show off, he is no better than Flash Thompson!! Gwen Stacy is intelligent, the lizard is ridiculous, it just don't look like a lizard, but like a halloween costume. In short it's a "twilighted" spider-man. Sam Reimi Spider-man is way better than this one, and Tobey Maguire is the real Peter Parker!! Expand
  68. Jul 23, 2012
    This movie had little bit of everything. I found Garfield's Peter Parker very relatable. The chemistry between him and Stone's Gwen Stacy was much better than McGuire's Peter and Durst's MJ in Raimi's trilogy.
  69. Jul 23, 2012
    No script? No ideas? No creativity? Let's make Twilight in spandex and ram it down their throats! Peter Parker is an awkward science geek? Screw it, let's make him a sullen, brooding emo dick, take his shirt off, and rope in the broads. As much of a train wreck as John Carter is, at least it's not a cynical train wreck. This is: a disgusting, factory-assembled, boardroom-arbitrated, hopelessly written **** It's so cynical and calculating in the way it machinates every scene for maximum profit that it makes you physically sick. Marc Webb, Vanderbilt, Sargent, Kloves, all the hacks involved, and everyone at Sony should go straight to movie jail for this abomination. I still can't figure out what the Lizard was trying to accomplish. He's so badly written and unthreatening, you half expect him to yell "Switch to Geico or die, Spiderman!" Expand
  70. Aug 10, 2012
    Quality direction and cast counterbalance a lackluster script and a lack of differentiation from the 2002 film. While it's slightly better than its predecessor, the film isn't good enough to justify its own existence.
  71. Aug 25, 2012
    This is not spiderman..... a very bad and boring movie
    The previous was not good but far away better than this one. Hopefully it will end here and no trilogy come out
  72. Sep 3, 2012
    I want my money back. The only thing impressive about this movie was indeed the special effects. Awesome! But that certainly doesn't make up for some of the worst acting, the lamest story and the most annoying actors ever. I hated this movie. It was not the best Spiderman ever. It wasn't the best anything. It was horrible and unoriginal in every way. And I'm shocked that Sally Field would have anything to do with this trash. Expand
  73. Oct 28, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. what a waste of movie? Tobie still the greatest Actor who ever played both spider man and peter parker role.Who open door in a restricted lab ,so any one can go there and be a spider man how lame is that ? Expand
  74. Dec 27, 2012
    One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. My brothers saw this in the theatre and were singing praises about it so of course one of them got it for Christmas. Every once in a while my brothers will recommend a good movie to see (The Avengers, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, etc.) and then they'll recommend crap like this and it just cements my theory that they'll watch anything that shows up on the TV screen. This movie has no redeeming values and is a complete retread of a superior movie that is only TEN years old. The directing is awful, pushing a dazed spiderman who can't act through scenes & events that feel like they are being checked off of a list. The camera work is boring, feeling like it was shot from all tripods & steadycams. The acting is non-existent except for Martin Sheen (who I feel bad for being stuck in this poor excuse for a movie) and most of the characters come off as jerks. If there are any non-stunt SFX, I didn't notice them... I guess the $230m budget went into filming in LA & NYC because for a superhero movie this is really bland. Everything about this predictable, copycat of a movie is a direct downgrade from the 2002 version and has no merits of it's own. Do not waste your time with this and do not support Hollywood's obsession with "remakes". Expand
  75. Mar 2, 2013
    Amazing Spider Man? I agree!!!!! This was way better than the Dancing spider man on the other version! I loved it! It felt much more realistic, it`s more like the new batman series! The story, the action, everything was good. I usually hate the romance scenes since every movie feels they need one, but I can in this movie it blended in with no problem. This is the best super hero movie that I can think of after "Batman" of course. Expand
  76. Nov 28, 2012
    A great cast, and solid directing headline the many merits of this exceptionally entertaining, but slightly extraneous reboot.
  77. Dec 1, 2012
    I didn't see this movie in theaters because I thought it wouldn't be that good, but boy was I wrong! The only part I didn't like was when Dr.Connors peeled away the casing on his new arm. That literally scarred me for life...but that's just me!
  78. Jan 31, 2013
    It was far better than I expected it to be. But was it really necessary to have yet another Spider-Man origin story so soon? Andrew Garfield is far more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was but I still feel he doesn't look the part. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker & Sally Field as Aunt May were a pleasant surprise, but I feel their faces are far too familiar to be playing such iconic characters. Emma Stone is a pretty good Gwen Stacy. But as someone else here said both Stone & Garfield are perhaps a bit to old for the roles they've been cast in, and they look it. The movie could have been better as it did take a bit too long to build up to Spider-Man's first appearance (about an hour if I remember correctly.) However the Spider-Man of this movie is just perfect. Far more true to the character from the comics. The Lizard was also pretty well portrayed and I'm one of the few who actually liked the new design, it felt more believable. Classic Lizard does look cooler but might have come off too cartooney in live action. Also, it really was a shame that Ben Parker never said his famous "with great power ...." line. I found it really curious as to why they left it out? Overall: A slight improvement on the 2002's Spider-man, but just barely. Hopefully the pacing in the next film will be a bit better without needlessly drawn out expositional scenes. Expand
  79. Feb 15, 2013
    Totally enjoyable. Funny and warm. Best thing is the new actor playing Spider-man/Peter Parker: Andrew Garfield is sensational. It feels more real than Tobey McGuire playing the part. Rest of the cast is really good too. Overall the acting is better than in the previous trilogy. Another good point is the soundtrack, really nice. Some of the special effects are amazing, others not that much. Probably the weakest point is the plot once the lizard starts his plan. It´s obvious they eliminated too many scenes and some things didn´t make sense. I suppose they didn´t want to make the movie longer than what it is (2 hours). People interested can see the deleted scenes in the dvd release. It really helps. The movie has a little touch of realism compared to the previous trilogy and it´s certainly appreciated. The upcoming second part is really promising with this director and actors. Expand
  80. Feb 6, 2013
    andrew garfield does not play garfield the THIS
    0/10000000000000000000000 DONT BOTHER WATCHING
  81. Mar 15, 2013
    I liked the Raimi Spider Man movies (even the third one was ok), but unlike those movies I really liked how Marc Webb handles the relationship between Peter and Gwen.
  82. Mar 24, 2013
    I was hesitant to see this movie, as the ones done in the early 2000's were exceptional. This version did not disappointing me, showing the early life of Peter Parker that was based more closely on the comics than the original that starred Tobey McGuire.
  83. Aug 12, 2013
    One of the most over rated movie ever this had me sleeping
    this earns a highest of 2/10
    A very bad movie
  84. Aug 18, 2013
    Ok, I will say that the Amazing Spider-Man had some decent visuals, and a really great performance from Andrew Garfield. He was absolutely hilarious as Spider Man. Emma Stone was decent enough as Gwen Stacy. My biggest problem with the film is that just 10 years after the first Spider Man film was released, this is just a rehash of everything that happened. Not only that, but it was done worse than the original Spider Man. It felt rushed, like they were trying to cram a lot of stuff into a short window of time. It felt like they were competing with the first Spider Man, and they lost on almost every front. I didn't feel much of a connection to the villain, either. He was simply there, and for what reason? A good hero makes half of a good story, a good villain completes it. We are left with half of a good story, which isn't enough to keep this movie above water. It kept me entertained enough for the time I watched it, but afterwards, it simply left me disappointed and frustrated. One of the worst movies of 2012. Expand
  85. Aug 25, 2013
    It's interesting that The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-man is different. They have very different characters, but really there are not really a different. Which is boring. Almost all story, scenes, actions were the same. Boring. I thought Tobey Maguire should be only be the spider-man, and The Amazing Spider-Man. But really tired of same movies, same sequels. same characters. Movies that are brought from comics. I want to see completely new ideas that made by director or writer. Expand
  86. Apr 21, 2014
    This movie is a pathetic reboot of the original, tottaly destroyed everyhting the original stood for. Peter Parker is no longer a HUMBLE KID with HIGHSCHOOL PROBLEMS, and in the brink of POBRETY alone with his aunt, he is instead an Aristocratic Duoche bag, with Perfect looks, ALL the **** a Perfectly normal Highschool Life and With a GENERIC PERSONALITY.

    Well actualy...Everything About
    this movie Is FU***NG GENERIC,

    Even the tittle "The Amazing Spiderman" lmao!

    wich is Why I found it disapointing and BORING. Tottal spit to the face of the original and completly unnecessary.
  87. Feb 11, 2014
    I enjoyed the hell out of this movie! It has a darker tone and takes itself more seriously than the previous trilogy. Garfield is great as both Peter and Spiderman, and the rest of the cast was great as well. To my surprise this film had some good emotion, especially with Peter/Gwen and Peter/Uncle Ben. My only issue is that both the ending and the Lizard felt a bit rushed towards the end of the film. Pacing aside this is a must see for any Spidy fan. Expand
  88. Jul 22, 2012
    Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had a lot of convincing to do, and after the end of The Amazing Spider-Man I was convinced. I feel like the Spider-Man universe is now a far more realistic one. This movie has all the great action you would expect with an interesting storyline and villain. If you've been waiting for a cooler Spider-Man, this is your move. Let's just hope the special effects and production values are a little more stellar for the next film. Expand
  89. Aug 2, 2012
    A good reboot of the Spider-Man franchise, but I think all of this should have happened in 2003. The boring drama scenes are still the same old thing from the original.
  90. Jul 26, 2012
    FIrst ask yourself if you were satisfied with Sam Raimi\'s Spiderman Trilogy. If the answer is yes, more than likely you will find this remake completely unnecssesary. If it\'s no, you might be in luck but keep in mind this Spiderman makes little to no attempt to introduce anything new or original in terms of plot. This movie is also loaded with plotholes and multiple events that stretch whatever sense of realism this spiderman brought to the table. Good news is Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are great! Bad news is pretty much everything else, in that this spiderman offers absolutely nothing new or interesting to the superhero. Expand
  91. Jul 27, 2012
    The idea of a reboot seemed dumb to me, it was too soon, but I decided to ignore that and hope for the best and see this. The problem is that, it doesn't change that much the original story, I was expecting a very different perspective of Peter's story, instead we get basically the same things repeated all over again but with a quicker pace, and like a fan made version of its origins. After it finishes introducing Spider-Man the movie starts to get better, but it doesn't leave a mark on you. Also, the Lizard's face felt it needed much more. Oh and what also annoyed me the most, was the tacked on jokes, the jokes felt very scripted, they didn't come out naturally. Is not bad to remake a movie, but please do a change to it, if you are doing it so soon! Batman Begins was a reboot and a very different one at that. Expand
  92. May 12, 2014
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a mixed bag getting a lot of stuff right and some stuff eh. The film smartly chooses to really develop Peter Parker making him a full fleshed out character, which is why I love Spider-Man. The film also smartly goes for a more realistic story as opposed to the cartoony/light-hearted feel of the Raimi films giving the movie an identity of its own. The film suffers though from a not so impressive supporting cast, a second half that lacks the depth/substance that made the first half mostly engaging, and rehashing some stuff from the original film. At the end of the day though I liked it. In all honest there are two big reasons why this film didn’t leave that big of an impact on me. For starters, I have immense love of the original films (especially the first two), which will be hard to shake and the fact that this film is coming out ten years after the original Spider-Man movie and five years after the last Spider-Man film so that one is still stuck in my mind. Maybe if the film had come out later or been the original Spider-Man movie I would be more in love with it as opposed to comparing it to the original because it works as its own thing. The second reason why I feel like this movie didn’t make that big of an impression on me was because it came out the same year as The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises two big superhero movies that had a lot of people talking and I guess this one just got lost in the shuffle. So if you are one of the people who missed this film when it came out check this film out as it is entertaining. I’d especially recommend it to people who didn’t think much of the original film as people who didn’t care much for it (ex. Doug Walker, Confused Matthew, and Roger Ebert) seem to prefer this one. If I could shake my nostalgia for the original I’d probably really enjoy it to. If you are a die hard fan of the original like me then try to go in with an open mind or you will be disappointed like I was upon my first viewing. The second time around I was able to accept the film for what it was and appreciate it for what it was trying to do. This is a good start to this new Spider-Man franchise and I hope that Sony keeps it going and doesn’t botch up the second one along with the other planned sequels or they’ll have to try again in another 10 years (which they will probably do anyway) and I don’t know how it will be reviewing the reboot of the reboot. Expand
  93. Jul 12, 2012
    Wow!!! This movie so captures the essence of Spider Man! The cast is soo amazing, you care about what happens the entire movie. Do yourself a favor and throw the 3 Sam Raimi Spidermans in the garbage.
  94. Jul 10, 2012
    This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn. He brings a personality to the part that makes him constantly charming, even though his emotional side just keeps turning on the water works. The story starts with promise and the early discovery scenes are entertaining, but as the film develops, it falls apart. The action scenes are often muddled and over-edited. The lizard villain looks fake. The pacing lags more than once. Other than Garfield, there's not much here's to recommend. NOTE: Stay thru the first part of the credits for a sequel teaser. Expand
  95. Nov 23, 2012
    A bit on the weak side I'm afraid. The movie doesn't seem to rise up from being a silly teenager flick, nerdy boy meets hot girl and then proceeds to tell her he's Spiderman. That's about it.
  96. Nov 21, 2012
    I don't know what it is, I've scene this 3 times and the first I thought it was a great superhero movie, the second I thought it was something more. Something that mixes music and visuals to create a very meaning full experience. And the third I found it truly and full-blown emotional experience. Again, the music and important moments as well as the ending created the most meaningfull superhero movie yet. It was awesome. Expand
  97. Jul 19, 2012
    I was disappointed with this film because it does not do anything meaningful that the previous Spider-Man trilogy already accomplished. There was no need for another movie that does nothing to distinguish itself.
  98. Jul 29, 2012
    I wasn't really interested to see this movie, even though the trailer looked pretty cool. My friends tell me that this wasn't so good, so I never bothered. Until my dad wanted to see it with me, so I broke down and watched. Its actually better than I thought, but its not as great as I hoped it will be. After the disappointment of Spiderman 3, I was hoping the re-boot's will make a dark and serious Spiderman movie, but this one was lil too silly. I will give credit, the fight scenes, special effects, and the beginning of the story took it slow and explained more than the original. I also like that they used Gwen Stacy instead of Mary-Jane Watson, this follows more to the comics. However, the problem starts when Peter Parker becomes Spiderman. I don't understand why he has to use a device to shoot webs, I wish they use the same idea from the original when the webs come out of his wrist. Another it me, or is Spiderman more goofier in this one? He chuckles and acts like a child the whole time while wearing the suit, kinda like how Dark Suit Spiderman did in Spiderman 3. As for the new actor of Peter Parker / Spiderman, he was okay. He's likable and funny, but for some reason I just think Tobey Macguire was mostly memorable and more mature. I kinda think new Spiderman is too exposing, he reveals his true identity 4 times....not that much of a private superhero. The Lizard, he was pretty good. I like the character and the CG of the mutated monster looked pretty good. So my thoughts in this movie are kinda mixed, I like the movie but I don't find it as great as I wish it can be. I'm still glad I finally got to see it, and maybe change my mind if I see it again and like it. Expand
  99. Nov 10, 2012
    When I first heard about this reboot I wasn't looking forward to it at all. I expected it to suck, after I saw that they changed Spidey's suit I was sure they were going to ruin Spider-Man, but after seeing the movie I'm proud to say that it's fantastic. Yeah they changed the suit, and while I'm still not cool with it I have to admit it's not a bad looking suit. They did add a few more elements from the comics this time around. Peter is a high-schooler, has web-shooters this time around, and Gwen Stacy is the love interest this time around, and they all make the movie feel fresh. It's the same origin story we saw in the first Spider-Man movie back in 2002, but they manage to make their own changes to these familiar scenes to make them different rather than a complete retread. A big addition to the series is the mystery behind Peter's parents, which is something I can't wait to see where they take it. The movie is fantastic and Spidey fans will not be disappointed, however it does have some flaws, they left out Spider-Man's spider sense, and didn't include the classic "With great power comes great responsibility". While leaving out Spidey's spider sense isn't really a big deal at all, just noticeable (and to be honest I really didn't miss it), the fact that they left out those powerful words from Peter's Uncle Ben (at least in my opinion) is horrible and never should have happened. Even with it's flaws I loved every second of this movie, and can't wait to see where they take it from here. Expand
  100. Nov 26, 2012
    The Amazing Spider-Man is probably the best in the franchise yet. The movie is particularly fun when dealing with the discovery of powers. It doesn't hurt that Emma Stone is hot, either. This Spider-Man is at it's worst during the action scenes but still does more than enough to entertain. Basically speaking, The Amazing Spider-Man is a promising reboot.

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 42
  2. Negative: 2 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Jul 5, 2012
    This might be a fun summer blockbuster if only it even remotely needed to exist.
  2. Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Jul 3, 2012
    In short, the character is a lot like the way Stan Lee first envisioned him, but the trilogy's screenwriter Steve Ditko would probably loathe this new, unsatisfying, and hollow-feeling entry into the new cinematic Marvel Universe.
  3. Reviewed by: Joshua Rothkopf
    Jul 3, 2012
    On the whole, it's passable stuff, a surprise, given how mechanical the masked character seemed.