User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1427 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch 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
  1. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    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.
  2. Jul 8, 2012
    8
    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
    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!
    Expand
  3. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Peter Parker more Peter Parker than ever, and Spider-man more Spider-man than ever.
  4. Jul 23, 2012
    6
    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.
    Expand
  5. Jul 13, 2012
    7
    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 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
  6. Jul 13, 2012
    7
    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 fightFirst 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
  7. Jul 17, 2012
    10
    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 senseMy 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
  8. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    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 becauseThe 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
  9. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    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.
  10. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    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,
    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:

    Plus
    The cast
    Modern-era
    Bringing the Origin of Spidey and The Lizard good

    Minuses
    Story, could have been so much more. Expected alot from the trailers.
    Expand
  11. Jul 7, 2012
    6
    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 aWell, 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
  12. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    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
    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.
    Expand
  13. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    I was a little on edge about this Spider-Man reboot because I grew up watching Sam Raimi
  14. Jul 11, 2012
    7
    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 theWhile 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. Collapse
  15. Jul 17, 2012
    8
    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
  16. Jul 23, 2012
    10
    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.
  17. Oct 28, 2012
    0
    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
  18. Mar 2, 2013
    10
    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 thatAmazing 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
  19. Mar 15, 2013
    7
    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.
  20. Mar 24, 2013
    10
    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.
  21. Aug 25, 2013
    0
    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 thatIt'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
  22. Jul 7, 2012
    5
    Overly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaserOverly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaser in the end credits.

    Not necessarily bad, just completely forgettable.
    Expand
  23. Sep 23, 2012
    3
    The worst movie and marvel that ever seen! This film does nothing more than fill scenes without inportancia (leftover). The biggest star of the movie is boredom.
  24. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    Different twist in building an origin of the superhero, some emotional scenes and new swinging action of the skinny Spiderman is not enough to wipe out Tobby Maguire Spiderman image from your head. Though exciting fun is there to make people come to cinema and I watched in a full packed Hall. Complete review @ http://bit.ly/KK1QuK
  25. Jul 10, 2012
    1
    I hate Marc Webb for this movie. Sure, the acting was great, but directing and script are a failure. This isnt the true Spider-man. Spider-man is about power and responsibility, and this one is only about revenge.
    How come he be a true hero if hes not interested in saving inocent civilians. And ooh, how he loves to reveal his identity to everyone. Hes so weak he can't even dodge a BULLET.
    I hate Marc Webb for this movie. Sure, the acting was great, but directing and script are a failure. This isnt the true Spider-man. Spider-man is about power and responsibility, and this one is only about revenge.
    How come he be a true hero if hes not interested in saving inocent civilians. And ooh, how he loves to reveal his identity to everyone. Hes so weak he can't even dodge a BULLET. He has no Spider-Sense.
    And Webb's words that the movie is by the comics is a huge lie.
    Expand
  26. Jul 12, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Although making a reboot of a movie that was released 10 years before is absurd, I'm not going to complain about it because you knew that long before going to the movie and I believe it's not fair. However, because it was directed by Marc Webb and featured great stars (Emma Stone, Andrew Garfield, Sally Field) I must say I expected the movie to be more emotional and more character-developed than the old Spider Man movie. I must say I was wrong. Other than Peter Parker (which had a coming-of-age period that was interesting) the characters seem one-note. And it is such a shame because we all know that both Emma and Sally Field has great acting skills. Another problem in the movie was it's villain. The whole lizard thing was weird (him wanting the whole human population to be a lizard). Also, Andrew Garfield's spider man ego didn't match with Peter Parker, and while Spider man was fighting I completely felt that I was watching someone else. The length of the movie also made me killed myself and even Emma Stone with the umbrella couldn't save the extremely unnecessary love scenes. We know that there is going to be a sequel to The Amazing Spider Man. And I know that the only thing that will save that movie is Marc Webb's creativity that we didn't see in this movie. I except something like Expectations-Reality scene from 500 Days of summer in the next movie. Expand
  27. Jul 7, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a comic book geek for the past 3 decades, I'm a little more critical than most. However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" gets some things right, comic book-wise, but gets a lot wrong. And from a movie perspective, it's really quite weak. Overall, it's an amazing, albeit expected, disappointment.
    First, let's talk about what The Amazing Spider-Man did right. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man and Peter Parker were very good. He was skinny, gawky, **** and funny. He WAS Ditko's Spidey. I loved him as much as I loved Tobey. And that is saying a LOT. They included his love and aptitude for science. His dialogue while dealing with common criminals was very accurate with a teenager given a little bit of power, yet not realizing the responsibility that comes with it. Painful lessons then ensued to bring said **** teenager back down to Earth. This interpretation of the teenage mind was actually better than the original trilogy. In addition, the creation of his web shooters being a product of Oscorp that he essentially weaponizes was a perfect modern take on them, and another improvement on the original trilogy. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was absolutely adorable. Her strength, personality and sheer cuteness (even though I prefer the red hair...I have such a thing for red hair) complemented Andrew's portrayal well, especially as they interacted more and the story progressed.
    While I was hesitant about the Lizard as a primary villain, they wove him into the story so well that I was pleasantly surprised to find him so interesting. While Rhys Ifans did a great job as Dr. Connors was a much better selection for portraying the raging Lizard, I always liked Dylan Baker's Dr. Connors. The key to making the Lizard a suitable primary villain, though, was weaving him into a story with some depth, which they did. He was centralized very well with not only a reason to become the Lizard, but also a reason to tie him into Peter/Spidey. Also, fixing the problem they had with the portrayal of Venom, the Lizard was larger than life, ominous and a physically superior being to Spider-Man. Finally, while it took until end to finally see it, the last scene with Peter and Aunt May established a very good chemistry and character element to the overall story. I look forward to seeing this blossom in the future movies as it greatly exceeds the original casting by Raimi. At first I was concerned about May not being portrayed as old enough, but in the end, it worked.
    All of the good things above transpired in the second half of the film, which made me actually stay because, while I've only walked out of two movies in my life (Dune and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), this was very close to being my third. The first hour of The Amazing Spider-Man was mind-numblingly boring. I was not aware they were seriously going to redo and/or retell his entire origin. The "untold story" required it, apparently. For those who love the ACTUAL origin story and loved the way Raimi told it, this was a kick to the crotch. It was insulting. It was unnecessary. It was so very badly done. It, frankly, ruined the movie for me. I think there was a way to weave the actual origin into this without redoing it all. Next, the script. While the second half of the movie added meat to this new origin, which made the rest of the film tolerable, the dialogue was complete crap. As much as Andrew and Emma seemed good together, the dialogue between them tried repeatedly to screw it up. It was weak, fake and hard to watch. Completely unnatural for two people who appeared to have chemistry.
    Next, the directing. Direction in this film is clumsy, spotty and elementary. Some action scenes are good, some are choreographed and/or edited very poorly. The camerawork during the Emma/Andrew scenes meant to bring them together and have the viewer care about the relationship developing, misses the mark completely. Editing may be more at fault here, especially during action sequences, but the qualitative variance from scene to scene smack of a poorly directed film.
    In the end, while I am always a sucker for comic book movies, especially beloved ones like Spider-Man, nothing happened in The Amazing Spider-Man to warrant dumping Raimi and the original cast. As bad as some may have thought Spider-Man 3 was, this movie did absolutely nothing to prove this was the right direction in which to go. Yet, based on audience and critical reaction, as well as the press around the mid-credit surprise ending piece, two more movies have been announced to tell yet another trilogy. Hopefully this movie will improve over time as the story unfolds, but with Christopher Nolan's Batman/Dark Knight masterpieces and Raimi's original bar set, there is no reason this movie shouldn't have been able to stand on its own, independent of supporting story lines in later films.
    Expand
  28. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    I thought the movie was...amazing (excuse the pun) unlike its predecessors it stayed true to the original storyline. Andrew Garfield did a good job and portrayed Peter Parker well enough. In 3D the experience was fantastic and i would certainly recommend it. The only negative i can say is that other characters seem to lack depth (perhaps there wasn't enough time). The best thing about thisI thought the movie was...amazing (excuse the pun) unlike its predecessors it stayed true to the original storyline. Andrew Garfield did a good job and portrayed Peter Parker well enough. In 3D the experience was fantastic and i would certainly recommend it. The only negative i can say is that other characters seem to lack depth (perhaps there wasn't enough time). The best thing about this movie is the potential, there are several enemies that did not feature (Green Goblin, Venom) and there's enough in this series for at least 2 more films providing they're equally (or better) than the first film.
    As always it's a Marvel film DO NOT LEAVE IMMEDIATELY AT THE END.
    9/10
    Expand
  29. Jul 8, 2012
    4
    this movie was really slow for the first hour and then it got better andrew garfield has to be the worst actor i have ever seen play spider man he acts like he is on drugs half the time
  30. Jul 4, 2012
    10
    I had my doubts when I first heard that they were rebooting Sam Raimi's beloved Spider-Man and opting for a "younger" cast but, after seeing what this new cast and crew are capable of I am glad they did. The Amazing Spider-Man delivers in every category. Raimi's Spider-Man was great but, it time to put that behind use. Go see The Amazing Spider-Man, it's awesome.
  31. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    I don't understand all of the hate for this movie it really is the oddest thing its almost as if we watched a completely different movie. I loved this movie and almost everything about it and before I start I am a very huge fan of the Raimi spider-man trilogy and always have been. I thought this just completely blew the first Spider-Man movie out of the water. Better everything, BetterI don't understand all of the hate for this movie it really is the oddest thing its almost as if we watched a completely different movie. I loved this movie and almost everything about it and before I start I am a very huge fan of the Raimi spider-man trilogy and always have been. I thought this just completely blew the first Spider-Man movie out of the water. Better everything, Better acting, Better direction, an overall better movie. I'm already super excited for the sequel. Expand
  32. Jul 6, 2012
    4
    What a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dying had no effect on him what so ever. He was very **** and went right into attacks. He was not tactical at all. It felt so incredibly rushed. The storyWhat a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dying had no effect on him what so ever. He was very **** and went right into attacks. He was not tactical at all. It felt so incredibly rushed. The story moves so quickly. He just gets the suit. It's like he pulled it out of his ass or something. This was a complete let down. The story is so generic and one-dimensional. I don't even know why they had him like cameras. They tried to make him some cool kid. He used the camera like one time and didn't use it any other time. The comedy was the only thing appealing. The fight scenes were very generic and predictable. He's a lazy, disrespectful, over-confident, teenager who happens to get abilities to climb on walls. It is also stupid how he has those little machines pushing out webs. It makes him so much more vulnerable. All you have to do is aim for those and he's as good as dead. Would not watch again. Expand
  33. Jul 15, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw a lot terrible mistakes in the film esp in the last part when lizard placed his hand that was holding spider man leg on his face,terrible mistakes and acting was extremely poor.... Fun to watch but terrible things and a spider that can't cast webs on his own is just bad.. really really bad...spider is stronger than lizard and he can't beat it...just bad Expand
  34. Jul 14, 2012
    0
    This movie was clearly written for a tween audience, to whom the characters and their motivations may pass as those of regular 17-year-olds, however to anyone with an iota of taste or sensibility this movie is shown for what it truly is - a soap opera with badly tacked-on action scenes. As a long-time reader of the spider-man comics and literature (including the Ultimate series, on whichThis movie was clearly written for a tween audience, to whom the characters and their motivations may pass as those of regular 17-year-olds, however to anyone with an iota of taste or sensibility this movie is shown for what it truly is - a soap opera with badly tacked-on action scenes. As a long-time reader of the spider-man comics and literature (including the Ultimate series, on which this movie is clearly based), it was almost as painful to watch Garfield's over-the-top and egotistical approach to Spider-man as it was to watch his laughable attempt to stir up emotions in the viewers (whether it be laughter or empathy). Although I do appreciate and commend the director for attempting to add Spidey's wit and humour in his action scenes (as is common in the books and an element the previous movies lacked), they unfortunately seemed to be more mean-spirited than the lighthearted, witty attitude Spidey exhibits in the books. Over all the character was badly interpreted, the surrounding characters were one-dimensional and the story was a mind-numbing bore. Throughout the movie, I found myself hoping the action segments would help resuscitate my interest - however even they were illogical and badly designed to the point where I could not bother paying attention any more. In conclusion, a disappointing installment in the series which takes the character in an unfortunate direction - perhaps in an attempt to recreate the success of the darker Batman movies - which leaves old-time Spider-man fans wondering if this is still the character they've always known. Expand
  35. Jul 4, 2012
    4
    I don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into the ridiculous, the characters other than Peter Parker are written so lifeless and one-note. I thought there was plenty enough to distinguish this from theI don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into the ridiculous, the characters other than Peter Parker are written so lifeless and one-note. I thought there was plenty enough to distinguish this from the last franchise, but I think it's very fair to compare them if you give this one a fair shake standing on its own. This movie, however, does not stand well on its own, Ironically, this one apparently stayed more true to several of the details of the comics but lacks any of the energy and wonder of a comic book. The first movie of the last series had this is spades. Just a really disappointing effort, and the first recent Marvel movie I disliked more than I liked. Expand
  36. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    For a reboot, it was okay. The Lizard was okay, but I'm wondering if the producers knew that the Lizard was not that interesting in the comic version prior. The actor (Andrew Garfield) did alright while Spiderman, but while Peter Parker, makes me sad for the actor and I guess for young Peter. Aunt May is supposed to be about as innocent as a senior citizen in the big city can be; SallyFor a reboot, it was okay. The Lizard was okay, but I'm wondering if the producers knew that the Lizard was not that interesting in the comic version prior. The actor (Andrew Garfield) did alright while Spiderman, but while Peter Parker, makes me sad for the actor and I guess for young Peter. Aunt May is supposed to be about as innocent as a senior citizen in the big city can be; Sally Field honestly didn't fill the shoes as well as her predecessor Rosemary Harris (btw, I like Sally Field, this just wasn't her part). Emma Stone and her character were actually the bright lights of the casting. Even Martin Sheen (whom I love as an actor) didn't really add to or improve on the prior Ben Parker. Last note: The standard Marvel teaser at the end of the credits - total flop - did nothing to make me want to see any upcoming Marvel movies, did not whet my appetite for more ... nothing. Best thing about it was that it lasted perhaps a minute.
    If I knew then what I know now, I'd have saved the money and waited for DVD.
    Expand
  37. Jul 7, 2012
    0
    Watched it, and it is in my opinion the worst Spider-Man movie there is. The movie is more focused on the emotional relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, there is not enough action it's all boring conversations and feelings. The actors looks way to old to be in high school. They also got Dr. Connors character all wrong, Connors wanted to maintain his human nature in the comicWatched it, and it is in my opinion the worst Spider-Man movie there is. The movie is more focused on the emotional relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, there is not enough action it's all boring conversations and feelings. The actors looks way to old to be in high school. They also got Dr. Connors character all wrong, Connors wanted to maintain his human nature in the comic books, he didn't want to play a god. This Connors was very gloomy. Personally I think Andrew Garfield is a bad choice for Spider-Man, he looks like something that escaped Twilight, he doesn't look anything like a nerdy outcast. In the movie nothing about Peter's parents is really unveiled. I was looking forward to see the movie, I thought it was an interesting reboot, I liked the new costume and that they have gone back to the web shooters. But it was a great disappointment, I was hoping the Lizard could safe this movie but the villain was poorly made and nothing like I had expected.

    To me the best Spider-Man is and always will be Tobey Maguire.
    Expand
  38. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    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 AndrewThis 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. Expand
  39. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    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.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
  40. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    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.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.
    Expand
  41. Jul 16, 2012
    7
    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 thatThe 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
  42. Jul 8, 2012
    2
    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
  43. Jul 17, 2012
    3
    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.
  44. Jul 8, 2012
    9
    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??? SomeOk... 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
  45. Jul 10, 2012
    8
    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.
  46. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    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 ofThis 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
  47. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    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
    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.
    Expand
  48. Jul 5, 2012
    5
    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.
  49. Jul 8, 2012
    3
    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
  50. Jul 10, 2012
    3
    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
  51. Jul 11, 2012
    5
    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 singleAs 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.
    Expand
  52. Jul 11, 2012
    10
    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
  53. Jul 15, 2012
    9
    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.
  54. Jul 12, 2012
    9
    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 inThe 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
  55. b3_
    Jul 14, 2012
    7
    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 stays7/10 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
  56. Jul 15, 2012
    8
    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.
  57. Jul 22, 2012
    1
    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
  58. Aug 25, 2012
    2
    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
  59. Sep 3, 2012
    0
    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 wouldI 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
  60. Dec 27, 2012
    1
    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 thatOne 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
  61. Jul 3, 2012
    5
    A less involving remake of a movie that should have been left alone. While I think The Amazing Spider-Man did a fantastic job of representing Peter Parker, the rest of the movie just sort of flopped about, switching between humor and drama so abruptly and randomly, you are left wondering if you should be feeling sad or amused during scenes. The movie never really got going or got me as theA less involving remake of a movie that should have been left alone. While I think The Amazing Spider-Man did a fantastic job of representing Peter Parker, the rest of the movie just sort of flopped about, switching between humor and drama so abruptly and randomly, you are left wondering if you should be feeling sad or amused during scenes. The movie never really got going or got me as the viewer involved, so most attempts at drama failed. Additionally, the movie is incredibly long and drawn out, and I found myself wishing it would end.

    Don't get me wrong, the movie is not terrible. It is well made and well written. There's just... something about it that makes it very distant from the viewer. It took too long to get going and even then never really established itself.
    Expand
  62. Jul 5, 2012
    3
    I watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back. The actors and actresses used didn't always fit the parts, just didn't feel smooth enough. The movie never sucked me into it as most shows and moviesI watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back. The actors and actresses used didn't always fit the parts, just didn't feel smooth enough. The movie never sucked me into it as most shows and movies are suppose to do and most good ones do do to me. I am glad I got to see this movie at no cost. Expand
  63. Jul 13, 2012
    1
    Just bloody awful. Horrible, in fact. And I usually can some redeeming qualities in superhero movies. Supergirl anyone? Emma Stone was blank and vacant. In fact I've seen wallpaper that was more interesting and talented. She's the next go to girl? Really? Poor Sally Field. After this I don't think she'll be shouting, "you like me, you really like me". She's so talented and soJust bloody awful. Horrible, in fact. And I usually can some redeeming qualities in superhero movies. Supergirl anyone? Emma Stone was blank and vacant. In fact I've seen wallpaper that was more interesting and talented. She's the next go to girl? Really? Poor Sally Field. After this I don't think she'll be shouting, "you like me, you really like me". She's so talented and so wasted in this. It wasn't the actors fault. There was no character development. No caring about our protagonist. In fact, I was hoping at one point Christian Bale's Batman would come in, growling and cape and cowl flowing, and shoot Garfield in the head. Again, not the actor's fault. Just horrible. Awful and a waste of time. McGuire's Peter Parker was much, MUCH, better. Expand
  64. Fin
    Jul 13, 2012
    3
    You want to waste 2 hours of your life, then watch this movie.This movie is so boring, there is almost no action into it. The development of Parker is damn weak. You should watch this movie only if you're a teen, because there's no essence in it. This movie is way worse than the Spider-Man movie of 2002, not saying that one was a good one but it was watchable.

    Simply put, don't watch it
    You want to waste 2 hours of your life, then watch this movie.This movie is so boring, there is almost no action into it. The development of Parker is damn weak. You should watch this movie only if you're a teen, because there's no essence in it. This movie is way worse than the Spider-Man movie of 2002, not saying that one was a good one but it was watchable.

    Simply put, don't watch it and you'll do something more constructing with your time
    Expand
  65. Jul 17, 2012
    0
    This movie is a **** I don't think that this is better than the Sam Raimi's trilogy, which has better enemies and better actors. I don't like the villain of this movie, and Garfield is not a good spiderman.
  66. Jul 8, 2012
    0
    I found it to be incredibly boring. Could not wait until it was over. There was just nothing I liked about this movie. I found the original spiderman movie to be a really good film so I hoped that this movie would be good as well, but I think that the latest movie is more hype than substance.
  67. Jul 4, 2012
    1
    This film was boring, drab and there was no real adventure. The first half sucked. Nothing to write abt villain. A superhero movie needs an equally strong and emphatic villain. This movie lacked that.
  68. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    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
    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!!!!
    Expand
  69. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    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 outA 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.

    7/10
    Expand
  70. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    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
  71. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    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 (exceptThis 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
  72. Jul 14, 2012
    7
    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 justThis 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
  73. Jul 13, 2012
    5
    All I could think of while watching
  74. Jul 23, 2012
    0
    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,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
  75. Jul 4, 2012
    0
    I dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, anyI dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, any way..............The actors look like they are reading off of Q cards. You dont get the sense of feeling towards themselves that people get when they are in love with there partner. Advice: wait till it comes out on tv or a Premium movie Chanel you may have. Don't waste you money.There are so many things wrong with this movie im just going to stop Expand
  76. Aug 1, 2012
    1
    I was skeptical as much as many people when I heard that Colombia Pictures was rebooting a franchise that was no more than a decade old. Nonetheless, I went in with an open-mind and judged this film from the perspective as both a reboot and on it's own merits. All I can say is this movie is amazing...amazingly underwhelming. That is not to say this movie is not without it's positives. TheI was skeptical as much as many people when I heard that Colombia Pictures was rebooting a franchise that was no more than a decade old. Nonetheless, I went in with an open-mind and judged this film from the perspective as both a reboot and on it's own merits. All I can say is this movie is amazing...amazingly underwhelming. That is not to say this movie is not without it's positives. The cast is generally well-rounded (Andrew Garfield really pours his soul into the role), the chemistry between the two romantic leads is very solid, and the action is well-choreographed, with tight cinematography to boost. The core issue with this movie is lies within the script and execution. One opportunity that this reboot sorely missed is the movie doesn't take the chance to stick closer to the comic book source material. Not only does it deviate more from the source material than the Raimi trilogy but the filmmakers go for a Nolan-Batman-esque dark tone by making Peter Parker an emotionally damaged teenager. This feels completely out of place since Spider-Man is supposed to be comical and wisecracking. Parker sometimes does wisecracks but it is so sporadic that it only ends up making his character confusing. Spider-Man is not Batman, the writers tried to put elements into a character that simply don't fit. Another huge misstep was in the villain plot, which features The Lizard. Not only is the motivations of the character confusing and seem to change on the fly, but he also looks like a combination between Killer Croc and a Goomba. Halfway through it becomes obvious that The Lizard is simply another Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin villain except not nearly done as well. Plus the script is so full of plot conveniences and half-baked elements that it truly feels like this script was subjected to many rewrites. Seeing this film, it seemed obvious that the filmmakers were trying to combine the dark brooding tone of the Nolan Batman franchise along with the high-concept sci-fi elements of the Avengers franchise and none of them seem to mesh nor are they executed with the same quality as those film's. I predict that this film is going to be the 'Superman Returns' of the Spider-Man series, a complete misfire of a reboot that fails to bring any fresh momentum to the franchise. This is definitely the weakest Spider-Man movie, even weaker than 'Spider-Man 3' (I never thought that could be possible). Expand
  77. Jul 4, 2012
    4
    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 wasTone 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
  78. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    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.
    Expand
  79. Jul 5, 2012
    6
    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
  80. Feb 6, 2013
    0
    andrew garfield does not play garfield the THIS
    0/10000000000000000000000 DONT BOTHER WATCHING
  81. Apr 21, 2014
    0
    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 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.
    Expand
  82. Jul 4, 2012
    1
    The Amazing Spider-Man is Sony pictures second trap to draw you back into theaters at top dollar to watch a freak show of them butchering this classic story into small disgusting chunks of it's former self. While I can not give away the context of the story it's straight forward that what Sony told originally in the first spider man trilogy of films that was true to the spider man saga,The Amazing Spider-Man is Sony pictures second trap to draw you back into theaters at top dollar to watch a freak show of them butchering this classic story into small disgusting chunks of it's former self. While I can not give away the context of the story it's straight forward that what Sony told originally in the first spider man trilogy of films that was true to the spider man saga, they have instead replaced with garbage bits of story twists simply for the sake of saying "oh this is something different. trust us it's not the same movie you paid for a few years ago." And to that respect it isn't the same movie as the Sam Remi films, it's something more disheartening and sad. Since i can't go into detail i will simply say if you are familiar with the spider-man canon and enjoy the story telling associated with the original work, do not see this film. It has nothing to do with the original spider-man comics we all know and love. it's a chopped up remix of non canon waste produced to sell tickets.The only enjoyable aspects of this film revolve around the action which not even Michael Bay could destroy, and Garfield as Peter Parker looks more familiar to the original Peter Parker that Steve Ditko illustrated.Those are weak points of enjoyment i was able to squeeze from this film. Sadly, This disastrous method of film production will continue as long as you purchase tickets to Sony licensed marvel films. Once the license is returned to marvel studios can we hope this fantastic timeless and beloved story can be told right. Go see something else it's not that hard. Or hell buy marvel comics. Expand
  83. Jul 3, 2012
    3
    Wow. It's pretty bad. It barley held my interest. I found myself at times wishing it was over. The kid that plays spiderman has one of those faces you just want to punch...like Jamie Oliver. The tree points I gave it went to the cgi which was really good. The subplot about his parents it totally unnecessary, but maybe they have something big planned. Reminded me of a direct to dvd spiderman movie.
  84. Jul 4, 2012
    0
    Simply put, it was boring - all of it. The acting, the special effects, the same old storyline. Save your money folks. Go see the vampire killer Abe Lincoln. At least it was fun!
  85. Jul 3, 2012
    2
    I dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, anyI dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, any way..............The actors look like they are reading off of Q cards. You dont get the sense of feeling towards themselves that people get when they are in love with there partner. Advice: wait till it comes out on tv or a Premium movie Chanel you may have. Don't waste you money.There are so many things wrong with this movie im just going to stop. Expand
  86. Jul 12, 2012
    0
    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,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
  87. Jul 5, 2012
    3
    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.
    Expand
  88. Jul 12, 2012
    10
    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.
  89. Jul 10, 2012
    6
    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. TheThis 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
  90. Nov 21, 2012
    10
    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 meaningfullI 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
  91. Jul 29, 2012
    5
    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 andI 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 thing...is 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
  92. MB_
    Jul 21, 2012
    1
    Whatever you do do not take your kids to watch this film. They will resent you for weeks to come, it's just so damned boring. They will scream at you and moan at you as they watch it and hate you when you come out. Now if you're a grown up don't bother either, shallow, predictable and just plain boring. You have been warned.
  93. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    I have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 iI have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 i didn't think Andrew Garfield was a great choice at first because i've only seen him in "The Social Network" which he was great in but i couldn't picture him as an action star, but i was wrong. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field and Martin Sheen all made up a perfectly blended together cast. I must also say that Rhys Ifans did more than an amazing job as the villain (The Lizard). The Lizard was pretty terrifying at times which is very hard to do in superhero films, and the tone of the movie was great, you actually feel for the characters and what they're going through which certainly is not easy to accomplish in a film, especially one like Spiderman. Everything overall was very well done in this film. My only flaws were the 3d is totally not worth it, there was little to no 3d at all, and in the trailers they showed Spidermans perspective on him swinging from building to building like first person but there wasn't any of that in the actual movie. It also got a bit corny at times when Peter (Spiderman) first got his powers, but thats to be expected to some extent. Overall this was a great film, a definite must-see of the summer, just not in 3d. 9/10 Expand
  94. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    Brought to you from Stan Lee's Marvel comic: The Amazing Spider-man, this film production re-imagines all three previous movies into one master piece, in which incredible direction and presentation flows freely. Andrew Garfield makes debut as he takes the costume of his childhood hero, with extremely amazing performance.
  95. Jul 23, 2012
    1
    If you like the marvel universe and the comics, you will really loose faith in humanity.
    This is more a teenager movie than a spiderman movie. Spidey looks like an unsure crying teenager who may have look too many twiligh movies. In fact it could have been any "superhero" in this movie. The actor role is not good at all except for peter's girl friend. The Artistic direction seems to have
    If you like the marvel universe and the comics, you will really loose faith in humanity.
    This is more a teenager movie than a spiderman movie. Spidey looks like an unsure crying teenager who may have look too many twiligh movies. In fact it could have been any "superhero" in this movie. The actor role is not good at all except for peter's girl friend. The Artistic direction seems to have gone out of budget and imagination and 3D effect are very unequal. The filming technics are poor, it's a pain to wash like some over used and missplaced focus effect. Even Spiderman 3 that was really bad, was above this in term of realisation. The final cut could have been amputed of 30 minutes to add some dynamic to the movie, some scenes are really long for nothing.
    By reference to the comics, the main character should be quick and intelligent, and this spidey is nothing of that, somtimes his reactions are so ridculous, you just want to slap him, put him in his costume and tell "so now what ? amaze me ... amazing spiderman" ... and certainly he would just cry.
    So in fact it's more a love/teen movie than a super hero movie, they could have replaced spidey be any hero/emo guy it whould have been the same. In term of character respect it's one of the worst marvel movie.
    Expand
  96. Jul 14, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is considerably more fun than the other three movie of Spider-Man because the actor who do Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) are better than the other and this movie tell the real part of spider-man and show how his turn his super hero and Emma Stone is perfectly in this movie, ok she is a excelent actress and she do Gwen Stacy, even she never listen about thisThe Amazing Spider-Man is considerably more fun than the other three movie of Spider-Man because the actor who do Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) are better than the other and this movie tell the real part of spider-man and show how his turn his super hero and Emma Stone is perfectly in this movie, ok she is a excelent actress and she do Gwen Stacy, even she never listen about this character. the filme is fantastic Expand
  97. Jul 18, 2012
    5
    Alright, so if compared to the other Spiderman movies, this one is definitely better, it is a step in the right direction with its accuracy to Spiderman, it really did feel like Peter Parker and Spiderman, so I appreciate that a lot, but the film is written quite poorly with a pretty lame ending. There are many scenes I felt added nothing to the plot or characters, and KILLED the risingAlright, so if compared to the other Spiderman movies, this one is definitely better, it is a step in the right direction with its accuracy to Spiderman, it really did feel like Peter Parker and Spiderman, so I appreciate that a lot, but the film is written quite poorly with a pretty lame ending. There are many scenes I felt added nothing to the plot or characters, and KILLED the rising action, as well as the music was completely off putting in most scenes. I really liked the actors picked for this film, and hope that the next one is written better. Expand
  98. Jul 14, 2012
    6
    Despite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to drag and fill in gaps in the middle with pointless stuff. It wasn't really what I would call a fresh start; if it would bother people like writers andDespite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to drag and fill in gaps in the middle with pointless stuff. It wasn't really what I would call a fresh start; if it would bother people like writers and directors to take this material and put something new into it, it would be helpful to make us aware of what the film was supposed to be about. We get it, Peter gets bitten by a spider and gains superpowers, but what it was mainly setting up was for us to find out about a guy trying to achieve perfection who ends up turning into a giant lizard and terrorising the city. As well as revisiting familiar plot points, it gave us something fairly useless to go on - we could have known more about Peter's parents. Besides that, the characters themselves provided better entertainment, which is for the fact that good humour is something I like in films, but, ironically, Peter Parker had little depth despite being the main character. I would have given a higher score, but it pains me to say that you cannot make a good film if you cover familiar ground, add new ideas and claim it as your own. Expand
  99. Oct 25, 2012
    5
    In an industry full of unnecessary actions, the decision to revamp "Spider-man" not a decade since the redeux was first redone reeks of greed to the point of making this unenjoyable. Yes, it'd be better than "Spider-man" if only it were made before it, but it wasn't. This is more realistic, less involved in the comic-book character, and more in our world. Yes still, after a new Batman,In an industry full of unnecessary actions, the decision to revamp "Spider-man" not a decade since the redeux was first redone reeks of greed to the point of making this unenjoyable. Yes, it'd be better than "Spider-man" if only it were made before it, but it wasn't. This is more realistic, less involved in the comic-book character, and more in our world. Yes still, after a new Batman, "Spider-man" feels irrelevant. Expand
  100. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    All I have to say is this is by far the best Marvel movie I have seen since Iron Man. I cant believe how well written this movie is. I wasn't bored, I cared about the characters and what they were going through. Every actor played there parts perfectly. It wasn't like avengers which was a 2 hour and 30 minute toy commercial and completely forgot about what the story was about andAll I have to say is this is by far the best Marvel movie I have seen since Iron Man. I cant believe how well written this movie is. I wasn't bored, I cared about the characters and what they were going through. Every actor played there parts perfectly. It wasn't like avengers which was a 2 hour and 30 minute toy commercial and completely forgot about what the story was about and character growth. I can also say like others have already that its also better than the first 3 spiderman movies combined. Comic book movie directors, writers and producers should see this movie as the perfect example on how to do a well balanced Superhero movie. 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.