The Amazing Spider-Man

User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1555 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

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

User Reviews

  1. Mar 14, 2016
    6
    I was pretty disappointed in this reboot. All this is was to make a excuse to retell the story. While some parts I liked, the dialogue was awkward, and it didn't feel like spider man to me.
  2. Jan 30, 2016
    6
    Before we start I have to say that this was my hardest movie to rate so before people think I'm one of those amazing Spiderman film haters, I'm not. I enjoyed many parts of this film, including the action scenes, and you got to love that scene with the cranes. That was amazing. I also felt Spiderman was much better represented than the original films. However there are some problems withBefore we start I have to say that this was my hardest movie to rate so before people think I'm one of those amazing Spiderman film haters, I'm not. I enjoyed many parts of this film, including the action scenes, and you got to love that scene with the cranes. That was amazing. I also felt Spiderman was much better represented than the original films. However there are some problems with the film that I have to point out. At the start when peter first becomes Spiderman, he comes across as mean since he keeps coming home late and worrying uncle ben and aunt may. Not only that but you seem to not like him even more when he is responsible for uncle bens death. Luckily though further into the movie he becomes a lot more likeable as well as funny. As for the lizard I felt he was a cool character but he seemed unrealistic in a realistic Spiderman world. Altogether I enjoyed this movie but its problems just bring it down to a 6/10 Expand
  3. Mar 20, 2016
    6
    Where to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam RaimiWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

    The Amazing Spider-Man provides a regurgitation of the title character's origin story, as if we couldn't remember it from ten years ago. There was a simple elegance and charming naiveté to the way Raimi presented the story. Yes, the suspension of disbelief curve was high but that's a given with a superhero movie. Here, the matter is complicated by sloppy screenwriting. In addition to swallowing the fact that a spider bite from a "super spider" can imbue Peter Parker with powers, you have to accept that the guy is a master thief. After all, he breaks into the inner sanctum of a top secret genetic research think tank with only a fake I.D. badge. It's random, repeated acts of stupidity like this that damage the movie's ability to establish its own fragile pseudo-reality. The viewer accepts a lot of impossibilities in a superhero movie, but there are limits.

    Tobey Maguire has been replaced by Andrew Garfield. No big deal. With the mask on, you don't notice the difference and Garfield is more convincing than Maguire as Peter. Okay, Garfield is too old for the part (a 28-year old playing someone in high school), bringing up thoughts of Grease, but Maguire was 26 when he put on the costume. Uncle Ben is now Martin Sheen instead of Cliff Robertson, and that's an improvement. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a worse casting gaffe than Sally Field as Aunt May. She may be Mrs. Gump but she's not Peter's guardian. Sorry, but it's hard to beat Rosemary Harris (although I suppose she's too old by now). Mary Jane has been ditched as the love interest, replaced by original comic book girlfriend Gwen Stacy. Hair color is the differentiating characteristic. Emma Stone, like Garfield, is too old for a high school kid, but at least 23 is closer to believable. Stone and Garfield are supposedly an off-screen item, which makes it odd that Maguire and Kirsten Dunst displayed better on-screen chemistry.

    The first half of The Amazing Spider-Man is almost a point-by-point remake of Spider-Man. Let's go through the checklist. Peter is shown to be a nerd in school. Check. Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider. Check. Peter feels sick then wakes up with new powers. Check. Peter explores his new powers in selfish ways. Check. Uncle Ben gives Peter a lecture about how "with great power comes great responsibility" (although he doesn't use those exact words this time around). Check. Uncle Ben is murdered as a result of Peter's inaction. Check. And so forth... It's a little like hearing an inelegant cover of a familiar song.

    The second half replicates the rhythms of Spider-Man with a different villain. This time, it's The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) instead of The Green Goblin. They're largely interchangeable and the final battle is different primarily because the special effects are better. Really, though, after having watched Spider-Man fight The Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman, and Venom, what more can be done with these generic battles? As well executed as they are by director Marc Webb (making his tent-pole debut after previously helming 500 Days of Summer), there's a repetitive quality that is perhaps unavoidable.

    Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary.
    Expand
  4. Mar 23, 2016
    5
    Where to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam RaimiWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

    The Amazing Spider-Man provides a regurgitation of the title character's origin story, as if we couldn't remember it from ten years ago. There was a simple elegance and charming naiveté to the way Raimi presented the story. Yes, the suspension of disbelief curve was high but that's a given with a superhero movie. Here, the matter is complicated by sloppy screenwriting. In addition to swallowing the fact that a spider bite from a "super spider" can imbue Peter Parker with powers, you have to accept that the guy is a master thief. After all, he breaks into the inner sanctum of a top secret genetic research think tank with only a fake I.D. badge. It's random, repeated acts of stupidity like this that damage the movie's ability to establish its own fragile pseudo-reality. The viewer accepts a lot of impossibilities in a superhero movie, but there are limits.

    The first half of The Amazing Spider-Man is almost a point-by-point remake of Spider-Man. Let's go through the checklist. Peter is shown to be a nerd in school. Check. Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider. Check. Peter feels sick then wakes up with new powers. Check. Peter explores his new powers in selfish ways. Check. Uncle Ben gives Peter a lecture about how "with great power comes great responsibility" (although he doesn't use those exact words this time around). Check. Uncle Ben is murdered as a result of Peter's inaction. Check. And so forth... It's a little like hearing an inelegant cover of a familiar song.

    The second half replicates the rhythms of Spider-Man with a different villain. This time, it's The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) instead of The Green Goblin. They're largely interchangeable and the final battle is different primarily because the special effects are better. Really, though, after having watched Spider-Man fight The Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman, and Venom, what more can be done with these generic battles? As well executed as they are by director Marc Webb (making his tent-pole debut after previously helming 500 Days of Summer), there's a repetitive quality that is perhaps unavoidable. The Avengers changed the game when it comes to superhero smackdowns and, because The Amazing Spider-Man is unable to ascend to that level, the fight scenes seem a little quaint and one-dimensional.

    In all fairness to Webb, most of The Amazing Spider-Man's flaws are not his doing - they come from the screenplay. His direction is assured and his handling of the special effects is smooth. The romance has its share of cute moments and there are some effective dramatic exchanges. Another point worth mentioning relates to James Horner's bombastic score, which includes yet another instance of self-cannibalization.

    For me, this is as deflating a movie as I have seen all year. Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary that it made me want to gnash my teeth in frustration.
    Expand
  5. Jul 29, 2016
    5
    Serial Comic Book Cinema, the genre de jour, is entering its fourth decade of popularity. Much like the Westerns of the 50's, present day studios greenlight any superhero project that aims at the Summer demographic sweet spot and that can also be linked to toy and fast food merchandising. Unlike its muddled plot, the raison d'être for The Amazing Spiderman is crystal clear, ColumbiaSerial Comic Book Cinema, the genre de jour, is entering its fourth decade of popularity. Much like the Westerns of the 50's, present day studios greenlight any superhero project that aims at the Summer demographic sweet spot and that can also be linked to toy and fast food merchandising. Unlike its muddled plot, the raison d'être for The Amazing Spiderman is crystal clear, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios wanted to return to the Spiderman revenue well.

    While Warner Bros and Christopher Nolan successfully reinvented the Dark Knight, sophomore director Marc Webb fails to accomplish the same with the Web Slinger. Webb's not so amazing Spiderman does capture the frenetic angst of adolescence, but like some teens, this film doesn't know who it is or what it wants to be. Webb's incarnation of Spidey succeeds best as a teen romance; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's chemistry are The Amazing Spiderman's only redeeming quality. However, spot-on casting and clever banter cannot save this film from itself.

    In contrast to Sam Raimi's Spiderman, Webb's is darker, gorier and more violent, i.e. more Nolanesque. Webb's biggest mistake is that he doesn't fully commit to the newest incarnation, retaining Peter Parker's smart-alec quippage and furnishing the obligatory hyperbolically mad pseudo-scientist bent on molding New York in his own image. Yes, we get to see Curt "The Lizard" Connors on the silver screen for the first time, but we've seen this formula dozens of times. To add insult to injury, it's hardly been 10 years since the first Spider-flick, yet we're subjected to the retelling of Spiderman's origin for no apparent reason other than to give Peter Parker parents and link Peter's transformation to that of Connors'. Derivation from the source material in any media is acceptable, but with one caveat - it should be original and insightful. Again, this is where the solid performances of Martin Sheen and Sally Field must bail out this foundering enterprise. Despite the rehash of Peter Parker having to learn responsibility the hard way, Garfield, Sheen and Field are compelling enough to make the retelling barely palatable.

    Mildly entertaining as it is, I cannot recommend that you spend good money to see this film. Wait for cable or broadcast television.
    Expand
Metascore
66

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
    70
    This might be a fun summer blockbuster if only it even remotely needed to exist.
  2. Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Jul 3, 2012
    30
    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
    60
    On the whole, it's passable stuff, a surprise, given how mechanical the masked character seemed.