The Amazing Spider-Man

User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1518 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Jul 9, 2012
    10
    I really enjoyed this movie. In fact I liked it much better than the Raimi trilogy, though I can't help but think that its just because of my age that I identify more with Andrew Garfield's character. Many people agree that the marketing for this movie impacted their enjoyment of the film. But I can tell that everyone involved really gave their all (Fantastic acting and directing), so thatI really enjoyed this movie. In fact I liked it much better than the Raimi trilogy, though I can't help but think that its just because of my age that I identify more with Andrew Garfield's character. Many people agree that the marketing for this movie impacted their enjoyment of the film. But I can tell that everyone involved really gave their all (Fantastic acting and directing), so that isn't the movies fault. Expand
  2. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    I enjoyed the first Raimi Spider-Man film (and hated the second one). At the time, with nothing to really compare them to, I thought Tobey and Dunst were solid enough, but after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I realize that there was real chemistry lacking between the original's leads. Garfield is much better than Tobey - Tobey's unaffected, bored look worked in The Cider House Rules,I enjoyed the first Raimi Spider-Man film (and hated the second one). At the time, with nothing to really compare them to, I thought Tobey and Dunst were solid enough, but after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I realize that there was real chemistry lacking between the original's leads. Garfield is much better than Tobey - Tobey's unaffected, bored look worked in The Cider House Rules, but not as Peter Parker. I buy Garfield much more as a high school kid, and Emma Stone is so much more dynamic than Dunst (who excels in such art house flicks as The Virgin Suicides and Melancholia - but not in the popcorn / comic flick realm). Even the antagonist is much more believable and even sympathetic in the right ways. All-around, I think this is the best big screen version of Spidey. No, it's nothing like the Batman Begins reinvention of that franchise, but it's still superior fare. Expand
  3. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Finally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of AndrewFinally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are correct. The effects are amazing. The problems are the next: The Lizard, looks some weird, some important characters (yes the aunt may) appear on a background. Is a good reboot, I think that is better than the Avengers. I wanna watch the second part. Expand
  4. Jul 9, 2012
    10
    After seeing this I wondered why Spiderman was NEVER this good! This movie is FANTASTIC!! It is the BEST Spiderman movie yet!! I love this new direction for Spiderman its more interesting...more captivating...so cinematic! This is one of my favorite movies for numerous reasons. This movie is most true to the comics. Spiderman is more flexible and agile than ever before. He has a real senseAfter seeing this I wondered why Spiderman was NEVER this good! This movie is FANTASTIC!! It is the BEST Spiderman movie yet!! I love this new direction for Spiderman its more interesting...more captivating...so cinematic! This is one of my favorite movies for numerous reasons. This movie is most true to the comics. Spiderman is more flexible and agile than ever before. He has a real sense of humor, and captures the hurt from loosing his Uncle and the nerdy teen that we associate with Spiderman perfectly. The special effects top notch and the fight scene are choreographed better than Spiderman 1,2,and 3. They showcase both Spiderman and The Lizzard's abilities perfectly! See this movie if you havent! If tickets werent so expensive now a days I would see this twice!!! Expand
  5. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    I was a little on edge about this Spider-Man reboot because I grew up watching Sam Raimi
  6. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    İf u ask me why 7 but not 10 i can state that main problem is Connors. He is good, i mean lizard is cool. but it is like a weaker copy of hulk. Even when it acts and fights. oh the other hand both avengers and reboot spider man's budget is 220 million. but look at the difference, Avengers action scene's are more incredible and lasts at least 30 minutes more than spider man. and castİf u ask me why 7 but not 10 i can state that main problem is Connors. He is good, i mean lizard is cool. but it is like a weaker copy of hulk. Even when it acts and fights. oh the other hand both avengers and reboot spider man's budget is 220 million. but look at the difference, Avengers action scene's are more incredible and lasts at least 30 minutes more than spider man. and cast is perfect, then for what producers spent 220 million. and where is the j,j? spider-man without his raging boss doesnt seem warm, as a movie it is good and watchable, some lacks of screenplay wounded and hardly walking spider at the end fight even doesnt feel his injuries. my points are 7-marc webb 9-andrew garfield 9 emma stone 6-screenplay 8-visual effects 10- stan lee's cameo:) Expand
  7. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    this one is much better than spiderman 3. some really god actions. the scope for 3D however seems restricted. Andrew Garfield looks good in the spider-man outfit. the "web spinner" machine in that watch thing was so cool. i would recommend every spidey lover to watch it.....
  8. Jul 9, 2012
    9
    Andrew Garfield is an emerging young actor that will be in the spotlight for years to come. He did great in this movie, and will do great in the following two as a part of this trilogy. In addition, we are privileged to see great performances by the other actors in this film. I personally enjoyed seeing Martin Sheen in this film, despite only being present for a portion of it. Emma StoneAndrew Garfield is an emerging young actor that will be in the spotlight for years to come. He did great in this movie, and will do great in the following two as a part of this trilogy. In addition, we are privileged to see great performances by the other actors in this film. I personally enjoyed seeing Martin Sheen in this film, despite only being present for a portion of it. Emma Stone is bold and straightforward in her technique of this movie. She is a great young woman that will go far as well. Compared to the, "Spider-Man," trilogy with Tobey Maguire a decade ago, this is so much better and will be rewarded for that distinction. As I said before, the acting, along with the script, cinematography, story line, and special effects are absolutely phenomenal. Even the little things that make a film good are noticeable, such as the colors, lighting, and set dimensions.

    "With great power comes great responsibility," as it is often said, and this new trilogy will be making the mold for how Spider-Man is seen. Hopefully the following films match this and are better. I believe this will end up happening.
    Expand
  9. 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
  10. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    I was very disappointed by this film. It seems like the writers took a copy of the Toby McGuire Spiderman script, broke it down scene-by-scene and said "We can top that." Each scene felt as though it was over the top--they made everything in the story personally connected to Parker/Spiderman. I felt as though I was watching a Spiderman film geared toward teenage girls (seriously? handsomeI was very disappointed by this film. It seems like the writers took a copy of the Toby McGuire Spiderman script, broke it down scene-by-scene and said "We can top that." Each scene felt as though it was over the top--they made everything in the story personally connected to Parker/Spiderman. I felt as though I was watching a Spiderman film geared toward teenage girls (seriously? handsome skateboarding rebel Peter Parker?). Add in awkward and abrupt cuts, and sarcasm in serious moments, viewers just don't know when it is appropriate to laugh or cry.

    Having said that, I enjoyed the villain Lizard much more than the Green Goblin, and the CGI throughout the movie was excellent. My favorite scene was the first person view during Spiderman's first web-slinging.

    If you have seen the original with McGuire and are looking for more than a cheesy romance and exciting web-slinging combat, I would recommend waiting for a less expensive view.
    Expand
  11. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    Lets give you the bad stuff first. I take away 1 point for the lack of Spider-man action. As you may already know from reviews... It takes a bit of time before you get proper costume.
    When Spidey action does kick in, you grab some popcorn and it's over before you even put it in your mouth. That's most of the action sequences obviously some are longer than others. 1 point deduction for
    Lets give you the bad stuff first. I take away 1 point for the lack of Spider-man action. As you may already know from reviews... It takes a bit of time before you get proper costume.
    When Spidey action does kick in, you grab some popcorn and it's over before you even put it in your mouth. That's most of the action sequences obviously some are longer than others. 1 point deduction for weak Spider-man character building.
    You know how in Sam Raimi's version you got or understood a healthy amount of time had passed from when Parker first becomes (the real) Spider-man to him getting famous from the media? Well that is non existent in this and it's taken for granted that you should know that has happened.
    Yeah it's not fair to force Mark Webb replicate what's been done before but it makes the new film seem rushed and haphazardly put together.

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

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

    Conclusion.
    As much as I hated the EMO "woe is me" overtones of Raimi's Spider-man. It's the superior film over Mark Webb's. Raimi being an actual lifetime fan of Spider-man knew how Spidey fought and moved. Though I guess we could defend the new version as more inexperienced Spider-man.
    It's not too inferior mind... It's just that nothing new has been put on table. You would have thought with The Avengers film coming to fruition at almost the same time they would have liaised and came to the same conclusion that a lot of costume time would have been better. If only you could splice Raimi's and Webb's films together then you'd get the perfect Spider-man.
    Expand
  12. 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
  13. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    wow amazing as we bring new characters and new story nothing to do with the previous spider man, the performances are good and convincing which makes it worthy of a superhero movie and a new generation of spider man
  14. 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
  15. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    It's been five years since audiences have seen a Peter Parker on the big screen. Five years without any blockbuster spider man movie. People around the world including myself have been waiting so long for a good spider man movie...and we got this. What should have been "Spider Man 4" is the slow paced, awfully acted, stupid joke movie known as "The Amazing Spider Man". I feel this movieIt's been five years since audiences have seen a Peter Parker on the big screen. Five years without any blockbuster spider man movie. People around the world including myself have been waiting so long for a good spider man movie...and we got this. What should have been "Spider Man 4" is the slow paced, awfully acted, stupid joke movie known as "The Amazing Spider Man". I feel this movie could have done a lot better if it was just called "The Spider Man". This movie was not amazing. It was very childish and insulted what Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire have done over the years. The only thing this movie has going for it is It's Visual Effects and the acting of Sally Field as Aunt May. Besides that, this movie is nothing special and should not be seen unless you are going to get the DVD. Expand
  16. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    Honestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold notHonestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold not just in this film but in the planned films to come" and it is possible that the sequels might be better than this film. On the acting part, Neither Andrew nor Emma acted good. All the people going crazy after Andrew Garfield should notice the fact that the film was about Spider-Man, not the former. BUT I really admire the visual effects the film utilized and the creativity in respect of the stunts and the action-sequences was better than the previous films. Expand
  17. 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.
  18. Jul 8, 2012
    10
    Brilliant movie Andrew Garfield did an excellent job.
    He added emotion and played Parker well.
    The movie gave me goose bumps in some scenes.
    i wouldn't compare the Sam Rami's spider man to this one
    they are both different in their own ways and story... i recommend you to see it now while its on the BIG SCREEN
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    I am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes thisI am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes this installment too repetitive in several spots. While I have high hopes for this production team, we have to wait for the inevitable AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to see this interpretation flourish. Expand
  23. 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
  24. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    This Movie was great, the new Spidey was awesome even with all the changes, Its a totally new FUNNY, POWERFULL,REALISTIC Spiderman, I was hoping to see an Avengers 2 clue but I thik we have to wait
    ooo and It has a secret scene after a Few credits
    It was trully AMAZING
  25. Jul 7, 2012
    7
    While I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with SpideyWhile I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with Spidey and Lizard are back and forth battles and great to watch. The one thing I was really worried about was the cast, luckily they proved me wrong. The comparisons are inevitable, people (including myself) will compare Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire unjustly. Maguire had 3 movies to cement his legacy, Garfield just this one. With all that said, I think Garfield does a better job of being Peter Parker than he does Spider-Man. He's a spot on Peter Parker in terms of size, mannerism, the way one would picture a "real life" Peter would act. As Spider-Man however, it's a bit raw. He brings the constant sarcasm and wit that the Maguire Spidey didn't do too much, but Garfield did go a bit over the top at times. Emma Stone, who plays more quirky characters in her career, ends up doing really well as the level headed Gwen Stacy. Rhys Ifans does a better Curt Connors/Lizard than expected, you could really feel for his character, also appearing pretty bad ass in the fight scenes as well. Very well done for Sony, hoping they take this trilogy in the right direction. Expand
  26. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    I don't know what people are talking about with saying the movie was a failure--sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but to say the acting was terrible and the story was old? The acting was believable and the story is what it is. It is following the comic books. The similarities there are between this installment and the others has to do with the fact that it is the same story! II don't know what people are talking about with saying the movie was a failure--sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but to say the acting was terrible and the story was old? The acting was believable and the story is what it is. It is following the comic books. The similarities there are between this installment and the others has to do with the fact that it is the same story! I felt they did a really great job at recreating the characters and taking a different route with Gwen Stacy, since the dynamic was more complex than it was with Mary Jane. Anyhow! I loved it! I'm pumped for the next movie. Guess what? I wasn't expecting the movie to make a story that veers from the original, but I was hoping to have a more believable character that wasn't a sap and a love interest that was actually palpable. It delivered those things. That's all it needed for me. I didn't expect a Gotham City retelling of Spider-man, because in Spider-man there isn't political corruption that's ever addressed. In its own rite it fulfilled something that most superhero movies have been missing: substance over action. Expand
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    For those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken someFor those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken some liberties in the origin story for the sake of a better movie, Marc Webb's version appears to be more loyal to the overall fantasy portrayed in the comics. Expand
  30. Jul 7, 2012
    4
    I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse,I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse, the action is scarce and not especially entertaining. What I did like were those short 1st-person view moments, which were quite breathtaking. All in all, it's a mediocre superhero movie, which I wouldn't be afraid to miss. Expand
  31. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    When I first heard that they were rebooting Spiderman with stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and that it would be directed by Marc Webb, I was pretty excited. Once I stepped into the theatre, I was ringing with anticipation. And when the movie ended, I was speechless. Yes, this may sound dramatic, but to me, "The Amazing Spider-Man" exceeded my expectations in every single way andWhen I first heard that they were rebooting Spiderman with stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and that it would be directed by Marc Webb, I was pretty excited. Once I stepped into the theatre, I was ringing with anticipation. And when the movie ended, I was speechless. Yes, this may sound dramatic, but to me, "The Amazing Spider-Man" exceeded my expectations in every single way and completely blew me away. It easily and instantly became one of my favorite movies, and I can't wait to see it again. Here's why: first, I loved the mysterious back story involving peter and his father, which drew you in from the minute the movie began and left you wondering as the movie ended. I was also a huge fan of the Lizard, a slithering, misunderstood villain whose action-packed battles with Spidey were thrilling to watch. Thirdly, and most importantly, the two main characters (Garfield and Stone) stole the show, in my opinion. Not only were their acting and character portrayals superb, but the chemistry between the two actors was so undeniably genuine that I felt as though I was experiencing every emotion along with them. Director Marc Webb, who made another favorite film of mine, (500) Days of Summer, proves that although he may not have the most extensive background in film making, he most definitely has the talent to make heartfelt, interesting and fun films, to say the least. I am absolutely obsessed with "The Amazing Spider-Man" and eagerly anticipate its sequels. Expand
  32. SFN
    Jul 7, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. best spider-man movie ever, period, Andrew plays a absolute perfect spider-man/ Peter Parker, the beautiful Emma stone is perfect for Gwen Stacy, people complain about how the movie takes awhile to get started and it does but only because their telling every detail that the others didn't mostly about Peter's parents, the acting is really good and the i was also impressed with the CG also, me being a spider-man fan and knowing everything there is to know about him this is a perfect film, all these people who say its no good are not real fans, this is a movie for actual spider-man fans not for everyone that goes and see's it, if your a fan you can't go wrong with this movie Expand
  33. Jul 7, 2012
    8
    Anyone who actually knows anything about Spider-Man would understand this is better than the original. Andrew Garfield's wry sense of humor and character out of costume is more on par with the likes of Spider-Man in every sense. Emma Stone is immediately likable and her chemistry with Garfield is great. We were practically forced to like Kirsten Dunst and most of the scenes between her andAnyone who actually knows anything about Spider-Man would understand this is better than the original. Andrew Garfield's wry sense of humor and character out of costume is more on par with the likes of Spider-Man in every sense. Emma Stone is immediately likable and her chemistry with Garfield is great. We were practically forced to like Kirsten Dunst and most of the scenes between her and Maguire were more painfully awkward than enjoyable. Expand
  34. RPD
    Jul 7, 2012
    9
    Andrew Garfield delivers. He's the Peter Parker we should have had in the first place. Better than Spider-Man 1, 2, and 3 combined. Went to see this with my son and a friend of ours and we left talking about how awesome it was. "Better than The Avengers?", I asked. They said yes. Me, I'm not sure if I'd go that far...
  35. 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
  36. Jul 7, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really enjoyed myself with this one. The story is the old Spider-man story we all know, but it's been changed so that this movie can shine on its own, and it does. It may be predictable, but it works and you really want to see what happens next, even though you already know what does. The movie also does a good job at building up the sequel, by keeping it subtle. There are a few things that haven't been resolved yet, one I'll get into right now. The romance between Peter and Gwen doesn't wait. After you get to know Peter, you get to know Gwen through her interactions with Peter. It's predictable and cliched as well, but it just works and sometimes you really feel for them, especially towards the end. You also get to know Dr. Curt Connors (Lizard) and how he wants to change the world to make the dominant species perfect. He seems sane at first, but then he goes insane through an addiction that I won't get into. The action is phenomenal; it gets the job done with flare. There's never a point where the acting is questionable. There's only a few negatives to this film. The first is with Peter's personality. He really has no defined trait except for his relationship with Gwen and that he used to be a Punk until his uncle died and he became Spider-man. I feel that the movie missed an opportunity where they could have used his photography to transmit his emotions. The other negative is the patriotic moment. In this, all the construction workers line up heavy-duty cranes so that Spider-man has an easier time getting to the final battle after a motivating speech by the boss and a cut to the American Flag. It's not needed, not that its a bad scene and it does make you feel proud. The one in the other Spider-man movie was appropriate because it was just after 9/11 and we all needed that moment for hope. It's not need in this film and it's the one cliche that drags the film down a little. Overall, I enjoyed myself with this movie and I hope you will too. Expand
  37. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    This movie was amazing, the characters are very well played and you really feel for them, the action scenes are awesome and really make you excited and think 'wow', it's not perfect, they spend a lot of time building the story and characters and then just kinda stop and it gets on with the Spider-Man/Lizard story, which isn't bad because the action scenes more than make up for it, anyoneThis movie was amazing, the characters are very well played and you really feel for them, the action scenes are awesome and really make you excited and think 'wow', it's not perfect, they spend a lot of time building the story and characters and then just kinda stop and it gets on with the Spider-Man/Lizard story, which isn't bad because the action scenes more than make up for it, anyone who's seen it may know what I mean, but a very good, enjoyable film, looking forward to the next one! Expand
  38. 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.
  39. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Peter Parker more Peter Parker than ever, and Spider-man more Spider-man than ever.
  40. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Great movie! 9/10. I was also a Spider Man Tobey Maguire fan, but then I really got disappointed in Spider Man 3 because I was expecting a DARKER side of VENOM. Well, this reboot is way too promising, especially when you think "what if Venom/Carnage/Sandman/Jackal/Rhino/Electro/Vulture (name it all with your favorite villains) appears in a SOLO (I didn't like those ANNOYING TAG TEAM FESTSGreat movie! 9/10. I was also a Spider Man Tobey Maguire fan, but then I really got disappointed in Spider Man 3 because I was expecting a DARKER side of VENOM. Well, this reboot is way too promising, especially when you think "what if Venom/Carnage/Sandman/Jackal/Rhino/Electro/Vulture (name it all with your favorite villains) appears in a SOLO (I didn't like those ANNOYING TAG TEAM FESTS in SPIDER MAN 3) story sequel?, then you'd definitely be excited in awe. This is DARKER, no more exaggerated childish like Spider sense slo-mo's, more realistic, and I believe this could appeal comic fans. I wrote this review, also to show the producers that I want a VENOM/CARNAGE sequel, saving it for the last movie in the franchise (SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST). And if anyone agrees, please help me raise this to the producers!..................AMAZING MOVIE! Expand
  41. 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.
  42. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Very good movie, it works almost flawlessly in transition between emotional and action scenes, both Garfield and Stone perform well and they have chemistry, add a great supporting cast and you got yourself a strong film. The action scenes and CGI work is outstanding as well, Spider-Man really shines and there's an obvious strong choreography work behind the scenes, simply fantastic.Very good movie, it works almost flawlessly in transition between emotional and action scenes, both Garfield and Stone perform well and they have chemistry, add a great supporting cast and you got yourself a strong film. The action scenes and CGI work is outstanding as well, Spider-Man really shines and there's an obvious strong choreography work behind the scenes, simply fantastic. Couldn't have asked for a better reboot for the franchise. Expand
  43. Jul 6, 2012
    7
    Yeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-ManYeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-Man shots while jumping from building to building. Garfield's acting while Peter Parker saved this movie, and lucky for us, that pretty much dominated this movie. Expand
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Beautifully acted,great visuals,with a great addition of humor.In my opinion,it surpasses the original Spider-man,but it will take time for most people to realize it.
  47. Jul 6, 2012
    10
    I found better this Spider-man than that of Sam Raimi. Meanwhile, I liked how they dealt with the psychology of Peter Parker, I liked the atmosphere are very dark and I loved the mystery that lies in the disappearance of Peter's parents (I also found the best costume that looks more amateur). Now could start a new trilogy and I'm happier this way because they are facing in the world of Spider-man.
  48. 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
  49. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Right off the bat, The Amazing Spider-Man is the best out of all four Spider-Man movies released so far. The key positive aspect of Mark Webb's reboot and what Sam Raimi failed to achieve with his franchise is remain faithful to the comic books. All of Peter Parker's iconic moments is still intact, the inevitable spider bite, uncle Ben's death, the first time he dons the realistic-lookingRight off the bat, The Amazing Spider-Man is the best out of all four Spider-Man movies released so far. The key positive aspect of Mark Webb's reboot and what Sam Raimi failed to achieve with his franchise is remain faithful to the comic books. All of Peter Parker's iconic moments is still intact, the inevitable spider bite, uncle Ben's death, the first time he dons the realistic-looking suit, it's covered in greater detail and you don't feel the Expand
  50. 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
  51. Jul 6, 2012
    5
    I loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in aI loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in a new universe, that's just fine, but 75% of this movie was just his origin story that we just saw in 2002 Spider-Man. I was just sitting there thinking "yeah, I know, move on already" for 90 minutes. Yeah, a few details were different...I think they could have changed more. I could also tell that this movie was very geared towards teenagers and the MTV crowd, and that made it seem stupid to me. The Twilight preview before the movie didn't help. Neither did the girls screaming "woo" in the theatre when Peter and Gwen kissed. Please. I also HATE cheesy 3D tricks, and this movie ended with the stupidest "this would look cool in 3D!" trick ever. It it so stupid and cheesy and not quality cinema. I don't give a crap about 3D! I just want to see a movie with real characters and a story, not watch Spider-Man shoot a web right at my face just because it would look cool in 3D. So enough venting, there were things I liked. One thing I did like was that they did a more humorous take on Spider-Man. This one definitely was funnier that the previous series. They also were obviously going for a more realistic character, as even as Spider-Man he was still clumsy, and his climbing and jumping was more human and less overdone with CGI. They also allowed the suit to look like real clothing, and not digitally enhanced. You could see wrinkles and I think even a zipper. How "perfect" the spidey suit always looked in the previous movies always bugged me. So, I kind of liked the new one, even though it seemed unpolished, since that's what they were going for. Overall it was entertaining and worth seeing, but most of the movie was unnecessary and redundant. Expand
  52. 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
  53. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    As far as genesis movies go, this one is fantastic. Furthermore, it completely trumps Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. I'll admit I was skeptical of Andrew Garfield's ability to carry an iconic role like this one, but he did so beautifully. He was the right amount of dorky, funny, and serious, while giving a new feel to the Peter Parker character. I also loved the fact that Emma Stone was inAs far as genesis movies go, this one is fantastic. Furthermore, it completely trumps Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. I'll admit I was skeptical of Andrew Garfield's ability to carry an iconic role like this one, but he did so beautifully. He was the right amount of dorky, funny, and serious, while giving a new feel to the Peter Parker character. I also loved the fact that Emma Stone was in this movie, and as Gwen Stacy at that. She always provides solid acting and natural charm.

    The writers and directors did a good job of providing a lot of true-to-the-story components in the film. It is tough to do a revamp of a film within a decade and have the guts to actually retell the story from scratch, but this movie did just that. Overall, there was an appropriate balance of plot, romance, and action, as well as a seamless flow from beginning to end. Lastly, I was thoroughly entertained with Spider-Man's new fighting style. His movements were much sharper and present than in the past, but graceful and fluid when they needed to be. As a serious movie-goer and longtime comic book fanatic, this movie got it right.
    Expand
  54. Jul 5, 2012
    8
    This fresh reboot takes the original film to all new levels with a slightly more fleshed out stores and three-dimensional characters (figuratively and literally). The lizard may not make quite as good of a villain as the Green Goblin, but Garfield's Spiderman dominates. Tobey Macguire who? Emma Stone provides a relatable love interest and truly allows you to feel for her character. TheThis fresh reboot takes the original film to all new levels with a slightly more fleshed out stores and three-dimensional characters (figuratively and literally). The lizard may not make quite as good of a villain as the Green Goblin, but Garfield's Spiderman dominates. Tobey Macguire who? Emma Stone provides a relatable love interest and truly allows you to feel for her character. The cinematography and visual effects are top notch and help to provide a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Expand
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    For those of us that grew up with the comics and eventually the cartoon series, you can imagine how disappointed we were when we saw all the things spiderman screwed up, the Green Goblin being enhanced like he was a main bad guy and venom getting a solid kill count of 1 before spiderman defeats him. On top of all that Sam Raimi mixed some of his own personal struggles as a youth with TobiFor those of us that grew up with the comics and eventually the cartoon series, you can imagine how disappointed we were when we saw all the things spiderman screwed up, the Green Goblin being enhanced like he was a main bad guy and venom getting a solid kill count of 1 before spiderman defeats him. On top of all that Sam Raimi mixed some of his own personal struggles as a youth with Tobi Mcguire. It was as if he was doing to spiderman what George Lucas was doing to Darth Vader.
    Webb comes along and completely brings truth to the series, captures the Lizard perfectly and defines a spiderman who is bright like his father and shows that he's actually quite vulnerable a hero. He doesn't shoot webbing out of his hands all weird. He actually builds the devices to launch webbing that was developed by his fathers corporation (why spiderman is often considered batmanesque, he's actually quite smart and designs things). I still tip my hat to Raimi, as he brought the series to the silverscreen for the first time & such a movie wouldn't have been done so well if it wasn't for him. Hopefully like Batman we'll get to see the series expand just don't bring in the green goblin, the hobgoblin is much more powerful and actually remains the same person throughout the series.
    Expand
  59. 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
  60. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    The film is amazing, is not better than spider man 2 more equals the first film in terms of quality and is much better than Spiderman 3.
    The script is not very competent, however the actors as well as special effects and plot development are very good. In terms of adapting, the amazing spider man shows his strongest point, he takes seriously the fans showing several references to old
    The film is amazing, is not better than spider man 2 more equals the first film in terms of quality and is much better than Spiderman 3.
    The script is not very competent, however the actors as well as special effects and plot development are very good. In terms of adapting, the amazing spider man shows his strongest point, he takes seriously the fans showing several references to old comics. All this plus a great 3-D forms a very good film that deserves to be watched.
    Expand
  61. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    Gone is the de facto essence of the original Sam Raimi series that captivated crowds with its webby charm. In fact, some may say that the story of Peter Parker's meteoric rise to superhero status has already been beaten to death and the Spider-Man name is better off succumbed to cobwebs; but, lo and behold, something amazing has emerged in its wake since we last caught up with our friendlyGone is the de facto essence of the original Sam Raimi series that captivated crowds with its webby charm. In fact, some may say that the story of Peter Parker's meteoric rise to superhero status has already been beaten to death and the Spider-Man name is better off succumbed to cobwebs; but, lo and behold, something amazing has emerged in its wake since we last caught up with our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Yes, arachnophobes rejoice, because there's nothing more to be afraid of. The Amazing Spider-Man may initially come across a sort of tumorous growth next to the already existing Spidey movie franchise, but what it does do, it does web-free. Swipe the whole 'radioactive spider' thing away and proceed to stomp all over it with relent as you may, what you'll discover is a movie that's not been built around the device of a magical creepy crawler that goes and turns the world upside down with an infectuous little bite, but a movie that plays off of this ludricous idea of eight-legged heroic origin beautifully. With that in mind, go see The Amazing Spider-Man. You won't be disappointed. Oh, and let me add that the little romance which goes on between Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) is not annoying, but stirring...not to mention that the director's last name is Webb. Expand
  62. Jul 5, 2012
    8
    Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone bound is undeniably charming. With sure-handed direction from Marc Webb, pull the memories of Raimi's trilogy. Spider-Man is only human being with spider bite, it's the most realistic but really close to its source. People complain about the 3D, so am I. But it's the agenda from the start, looks deeper.
  63. 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.
  64. BKM
    Jul 5, 2012
    5
    Reboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it really necessary to start from scratch so soon? While that can be debated, the film itself is a letdown thanks in large part to its attempts to present a darkerReboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it really necessary to start from scratch so soon? While that can be debated, the film itself is a letdown thanks in large part to its attempts to present a darker and hipper Spidey than we are accustomed to. Peter Parker rides a skateboard? He barely even has to try to win the affections of Gwen Stacey? None of this feels true to the web slinger's roots. But the biggest problem is that Marc Webb and his creative team haven't made the franchise their own. Ultimately The Amazing Spider-Man feels too carefully plotted out and safe when it needs to take risks and find its own identity. Expand
  65. Jul 5, 2012
    8
    I didn't have high expectations for this moving coming in considering the other Spider-Man series starring Tobey Maguire finished not all too long ago. However, this movie exceeded my expectations. The movie had good emotional depth to it, and Andrew Garfield's performance was both superb and awkward (in a good way - Peter Parker is quite nerdy). I was surprised that he was capable of thisI didn't have high expectations for this moving coming in considering the other Spider-Man series starring Tobey Maguire finished not all too long ago. However, this movie exceeded my expectations. The movie had good emotional depth to it, and Andrew Garfield's performance was both superb and awkward (in a good way - Peter Parker is quite nerdy). I was surprised that he was capable of this sort of role, because he doesn't look like a Peter Parker type, but it worked quite well and added a good amount of humor to the movie. I would have rated this movie higher had it been the original Spider-Man rather than a reboot (some things felt repeated from Spider-Man 1). Expand
  66. 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
  67. Jul 5, 2012
    6
    This film is ok and quite enjoyable, Garfield is a good spiderman and peter parker and the on screen chemistry between him and stone is good. The CGI is good and for once in an action film you can actually see what is going on rather than the usual blurry sequences we get these days. its about time film makers slowed things down just a touch so we can see the action and enjoy it. This filmThis film is ok and quite enjoyable, Garfield is a good spiderman and peter parker and the on screen chemistry between him and stone is good. The CGI is good and for once in an action film you can actually see what is going on rather than the usual blurry sequences we get these days. its about time film makers slowed things down just a touch so we can see the action and enjoy it. This film manages it. When the film was over some guy next to me was clapping, for my money this film in no way deserves this show of appreciation but it is a good effort. One of the better comic book films and i preferred it over raimis efforts. Expand
  68. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    defiantly worth t least a seven out of ten. I thought that no super hero movie I saw would seem any good after watching the avengers, but this while not as god as the avengers, is still a decent movie, and in my opinion better than the original. It is a worthy contender for the dark knight rise, but I don't expect it will be as good as that will. I can't really be bothered to go into detail
  69. 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
  70. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    This movie is hard to talk about. The fact that it is really different from the Sam Raimi franchise was a plus for me because I personally didn't care about the previous franchise. So I gave this film chance because I knew that it would play off the original comics and I must say the "Amazing Spider-Man" amazed me. From the action sequences to the humor to the chemistry between GarfieldThis movie is hard to talk about. The fact that it is really different from the Sam Raimi franchise was a plus for me because I personally didn't care about the previous franchise. So I gave this film chance because I knew that it would play off the original comics and I must say the "Amazing Spider-Man" amazed me. From the action sequences to the humor to the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was also pretty good. So see this movie in theaters and you shouldn't be disappointed. Expand
  71. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I honestly think this is the best Spider-Man movie made yet. I really liked how they focused on developing characters more and the emotions even though it dragged on the first hour and a half introducing everyone. Andrew Garfield played the part way better than Tobey Maguire ever did. He really was Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I also liked how they used Gwen Stacy as the love interest instead of Mary Jane Watson. It was really nice not to see her as the typical damsel distress that the hero always has to saves. Expand
  72. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    This film is Great. The character of Peter is less annoying and more realistic this time around thanks to the great acting of Andrew Garfield. The origin story is better and weighs down the movie less than the original outing. Although i loved the Green Goblin from the original film, the Lizard is by far a better antagonist, this is probably due to the performance given by Rhys Ifans. AllThis film is Great. The character of Peter is less annoying and more realistic this time around thanks to the great acting of Andrew Garfield. The origin story is better and weighs down the movie less than the original outing. Although i loved the Green Goblin from the original film, the Lizard is by far a better antagonist, this is probably due to the performance given by Rhys Ifans. All in all this is a great superhero film, you couldn't ask for much more (apart for some more time before a reboot.) Brilliant Action, Brilliant character development/design and brilliant casting. Expand
  73. 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!
  74. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    Way better than the previous Spider-man films. Much improved screenplay, beyond blockbuster-quality-acting. Visual effects were clean. Cinematography was commendable.
  75. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    Awesome movie! This was a great addition to the grand collection of Marvel movies. Great action, great background on Parkers story and even a great Stan Lee scene!
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    I liked Tobey's version when it came out, but now that I've seen Andrew's version, I think they raised the bar. Raimi's trilogy (at least at first) seemed to stick to the well-known origin story. This one modernizes it a bit and, understandably, they tried to stay away from comparisons to the original film as much as possible. I'm not crazy about all the changes, but I think they workedI liked Tobey's version when it came out, but now that I've seen Andrew's version, I think they raised the bar. Raimi's trilogy (at least at first) seemed to stick to the well-known origin story. This one modernizes it a bit and, understandably, they tried to stay away from comparisons to the original film as much as possible. I'm not crazy about all the changes, but I think they worked well. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy sells her role much better than Kirsten Dunst sold Mary Jane Watson. And I have to agree with reviewers who said the chemistry between the leads was much better in this version. I saw no problems with the CGI or effects. I think they were faithful to the characters of Uncle Ben, Curt Connors, and even Captain Stacy. There's an obvious back story they left unfinished so looking forward to more. Expand
  79. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: 9.5 This film is a terrific "reboot" of the spider-man franchise. While we did have some retread of familiar ground, the necessary story elements that were repeated were done in a slightly fresher approach. From the spider bite origin of our hero to the inevitable death of Uncle Ben each classic moment was given a fresh coat of paint and melded into the modern storyAMAZING SPIDER-MAN: 9.5 This film is a terrific "reboot" of the spider-man franchise. While we did have some retread of familiar ground, the necessary story elements that were repeated were done in a slightly fresher approach. From the spider bite origin of our hero to the inevitable death of Uncle Ben each classic moment was given a fresh coat of paint and melded into the modern story nicely. Even though I did enjoy Toby's portrait of the web head, Andrew Garfield fits the bill as BOTH high-schooler Peter Parker and Spidey himself. Garfield able to maintain every bit of the character in and out of the blue and red costume that made his portrayal feel more like the comic book character than ever before. The changes in the costume were not distracting in the least, the main villain was well thought out and acted plus all of the supporting characters built the frame work for what could be a terrific series of Spider-man Movies for today's audience. It may not be the big "explosive" blockbuster that was Avengers, but it is full of fun,heart and excitement all the same. Go see it and finally see why SPIDER-MAN has been such an enduring comic book character all these years. I look forward to more films in this newly minted franchise. Expand
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    By properly placing Gwen Stacy into the story, this version of Spider-Man stays closer to the original Stan Lee stories and has the potential, over two or three films, to deliver the real goods on this character, unlike the Raimi films. It is the Gwen story that makes Spider-Man Spider-Man and by leaving that out, Raimi bypassed something fundamental.

    Whereas Rami was fun but light and
    By properly placing Gwen Stacy into the story, this version of Spider-Man stays closer to the original Stan Lee stories and has the potential, over two or three films, to deliver the real goods on this character, unlike the Raimi films. It is the Gwen story that makes Spider-Man Spider-Man and by leaving that out, Raimi bypassed something fundamental.

    Whereas Rami was fun but light and simplistic, this version takes a grittier more realistic approach. The web slinging is filmed more frequently with stunt men and less frequently with CGI, and includes some first person camera scenes of those acrobatics, and so feels much more visceral and real. At one point you can even see as Spider-Man rises to the apex of his swing and before he descends again, the webbing go loose and then pull taught. It's that sort of realistic granular detail that gives this version more credibility than the others, which in turn makes every dramatic event hit with greater emotional punch. It's not just the web slinging; the fights, the characterizations, the relationships between characters, all are handled in a more nuanced realistic way. So when bad things happen to characters, it hits you harder emotionally.

    Even the pre-credits ending (there is a scene post credits), which seems light-hearted, has dark overtones for those who know what waits down the road. And that's another thing. Raimi's Spider-Man's tone is so different from the comics that you could not even tell the proper story in Raimi's version. It wouldn't fit. It would seem completely out of place. This version, by sticking closer to the comics realistic (and I know it sounds odd but the comic is more realistic than the Raimi films), is setting things up and establishing a tone that will allow the actual story, as originally written in the comics, to be delivered in a sequel.

    I admit that Spider-Man 2 was a great romp, but it wasn't really Spider-Man. This is the first true Spider-Man movie. At last, after 50 years, it appears we are finally witnessing - starting with this film and following with a sequel or two - the core narrative of Spider-Man dramatized on screen.
    Expand
  83. 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
  84. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A huge step forward for Spiderman as an integral character in the Marvel movie universe. Only two things I didn't like were 1.) Parker's nonchalant attitude when receiving new powers. Dare I say good ole droopy-face Tobey had better writing on suddenly receiving crazy, life-changing powers.The new movie simply glazes over this part with a series of "teenager growing up" hijinx. 2. The cranes. I know there had to be some way to make more drama as Spidey swings to the Oscorp tower, but this is really an unfortunate way to include normal everyday people in the mix with Spidey. The beauty of Spiderman in NY is that most of the people he saves never have any other impact on his life. So this random dude, who had his kid rescued, just happens to have the connections at that one moment to get everyone on a crane in (no time)? Sorry, but even a heightened sense of disbelief won't save that scene. Defintely not the best superhero movie of the summer (Avengers...so far) but a solid movie. Expand
  85. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    Let me start with a little background before I get stuck into The Amazing Spider-Man. Now, I was a massive fan of Sam Raimi
  86. 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.
  87. 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
  88. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    Is it amazing? In terms of grasp on character, yes it sure is, from peter parker or his alter ego all the way to a small part like flash thompson, every character gets a little defining character moment to show their a real human being not a dumb stereotype. Is the action amazing? Very nearly its strong but needs a little work though one scene in slow mo in a library is both greatlyIs it amazing? In terms of grasp on character, yes it sure is, from peter parker or his alter ego all the way to a small part like flash thompson, every character gets a little defining character moment to show their a real human being not a dumb stereotype. Is the action amazing? Very nearly its strong but needs a little work though one scene in slow mo in a library is both greatly choreographed and hilarious. Special effects are mainly very good, the lizard for the most part becomes a very believable creation you believe he's dr connors and the most amazing thing is that even when he's talking It dosent seem weird it makes more sense to the character. Their are flaws but mainly their nit picks. He way this film makes you believe and want to cheer for the love, the relationships, the action is just fantastic, this is a foundation which an amazing sequel could be built upon. Expand
  89. 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.
  90. 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
  91. 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.
  92. Jul 4, 2012
    10
    The movie was very good overall, I enjoyed the movie a lot. The movie had elements based on the original Amazing Spider-Man comics (i.e. mechanical web-shooters), and had some elements from other comics such as Ultimate Spider-Man (Richard Parker and Dr. Connors). The story was great in my opinion and I think the cast was better too. Emma Stone fit the role of Gwen Stacy more than BryceThe movie was very good overall, I enjoyed the movie a lot. The movie had elements based on the original Amazing Spider-Man comics (i.e. mechanical web-shooters), and had some elements from other comics such as Ultimate Spider-Man (Richard Parker and Dr. Connors). The story was great in my opinion and I think the cast was better too. Emma Stone fit the role of Gwen Stacy more than Bryce Dallas Howard or Kirsten Dunst, and Andrew Garfield played a perfect role of Peter Parker. Expand
  93. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    It's a good movie, not perfect, but entertaining as hell. The Amazing Spider-Man is as good as Raimi's "Spider Man" (Not as good as "Spider Man 2"), but it is certainly more angsty and smaller in scope.

    If you're ok with that, then prepare for a Marc Webb experience :)
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is, as I said in the title, an excellent restart to the story. The acting, visuals, and story were all well-done and VERY enjoyable to watch. Speaking of the acting, Stone and Garfield were both a great joy to watch on film, mostly because they have this great screen chemistry and I can't wait to see them at it again in the next one (If there is one). This movie isThe Amazing Spider-Man is, as I said in the title, an excellent restart to the story. The acting, visuals, and story were all well-done and VERY enjoyable to watch. Speaking of the acting, Stone and Garfield were both a great joy to watch on film, mostly because they have this great screen chemistry and I can't wait to see them at it again in the next one (If there is one). This movie is very enjoyable and fun to watch, and I recommend any one of any age to go see this! I saw it in IMAX 3D, and not that I think it is the best way to see it or anything, but I thought it looked amazing on the IMAX screen so I recommend checking that out if you have the means to as well. Expand
  97. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    This film was excellent. Superb acting, on par with the comics, very emotional, and 'amazing' action. Garfield puts Tobey to shame. The film was tainted by over-marketing though, a mistake I pray Sony does not commit again.
  98. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    Please don't listen to reviewers bashing this because it's a reboot. It's leaps and bounds above Raimi's films. Trust me....this is the real deal. It's a wonderful adaptation, and one of the best superhero films ever made. Better than The Avengers.
  99. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Last year X-Men (First Class)reboot was very fantastic, and The Rise of the Planet Apes was also very good! This year, Marc Webb dared to begin another Spider-Man Franchise, and to my surprise; was amazingly done.Not as good as Batman Begins but is as good as last year X-Men: First Class.

    Fresh and old plot-lines were mixed up to gave the audience an exquisite story of old-brand new spidey hero. Again, heroism brand of spider-man focus on his relationship to his family, friends and peers, and of course our superhero is one-hell of a lover-boy; new love interest which an ingredient of fresh story and is a sample exploits an untold story which I think the major flaw of the movie because it doesn't elaborates the secret behind his parents death which I hope can be lighten to us the next spidey-movie.

    Overall, Andrew was great to replicate what Tobey done and Emma and other cast were good. The story maybe a shadow of the Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Franchise but is still effective enough to let you bite. Action and web-slinging choreography and other visual effects were great even the background music, especially Coldplay's "Till Kingdom Come" track.
    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.