User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1451 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 21, 2015
    7
    He restarted franqicia Spiderman but I 've never seen Andrew Garfield presented as this superhero but good performance , this is worth recognizing his talent. Congratulations , Andrew !
  2. Jul 18, 2015
    5
    The Amazing Spiderman is a mediocre film while it does have sweet visuals and a likable protagonist the main problems are that the film is tonally bipolar, the villain is weak the origin story is the exact same thing we have already seen.
  3. Jul 15, 2015
    6
    This film was not bad. However, it wasn't good either. I thought it was kind of boring in places, and the action scenes weren't the best. Although I did think Andrew Garfield did a decent job as Spider-Man and again, I didn't hate it. I'd give it a 6 out of 10, 5 out of 10 if you're not a die-hard Spidey fan.
  4. Jul 9, 2015
    8
    A mostly slick, entertaining and emotionally involving recombination of fresh and familiar elements. As a new chapter in the super powered arachnid saga, it stands on its own quite nicely, focusing more on human emotions than on a panoply of special effects. Where Tobey Maguire in the original Spider-Man trilogy was earnest, Garfield's Spider-Man is a whip-smart and cheeky tech-genius,A mostly slick, entertaining and emotionally involving recombination of fresh and familiar elements. As a new chapter in the super powered arachnid saga, it stands on its own quite nicely, focusing more on human emotions than on a panoply of special effects. Where Tobey Maguire in the original Spider-Man trilogy was earnest, Garfield's Spider-Man is a whip-smart and cheeky tech-genius, with an undercurrent of teenage angst. His combination of fresh-faced innocence, nervous agitation and wry humor is immediately appealing. His chemistry with his charming co-star Emma Stone is yet another breath of fresh air in this reboot. While Maguire and Dunst seemed to transcend a tragically pseudo romantic aspect in Raimi's franchise, Garfield and Stone who both are gifted with wonderful screen presence are so effortlessly likable you can't help but feel like a third wheel. While its villainous figure is unfortunatelly one-dimensional as a character and lacks intimidation and originality visually, this reboot ultimately succeeds as a much more intimate origin story than what Raimi could have ever achieved. Expand
  5. Jun 26, 2015
    8
    At first I was so against this reboot. But then I saw this and I am all for Garfield and Webb. This film may not have a strong antagonist, and an origin for Spidey was recently seen not too long ago, but you can't deny it's done well.
  6. Jun 25, 2015
    5
    The editing is horrible and it has a very dull tone. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is unlikable, but his Spider-Man is pretty decent. However the more I re-watch it, the lower it gets. I'd rather watch Spider-Man 3...
  7. May 25, 2015
    10
    An awesome reboot that has the potential of being better than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. Complete with a new cast such as: no more Toby Maguire but now Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker who looks more better looking than Toby Maguire. Sure Kirsten Dunst was hot as Mary Jane but Emma Stone is hotter with blond hair as Gwen Stacy. And a brand new villain most Spider-Man fans were excitedAn awesome reboot that has the potential of being better than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. Complete with a new cast such as: no more Toby Maguire but now Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker who looks more better looking than Toby Maguire. Sure Kirsten Dunst was hot as Mary Jane but Emma Stone is hotter with blond hair as Gwen Stacy. And a brand new villain most Spider-Man fans were excited to finally make a live-action appearance, The Lizard! Even though the Lizard didn't look like the comic book one, it still looked pretty good, except it needed a more believable lizard head and snout, and a ripped lab coat. So get ready for an action packed reimagining of one of Marvel's most iconic superheroes and his supporting characters. It's kind of a remake of Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man movie except without the Mary Jane, Peter never finds Ben's killer, and no Norman or harry Osborn as the Green Goblin, until the sequel. For all those fans who were let down by Spider-Man 3 here's a movie that'll make the Spider-Man universe cool again. Expand
  8. May 25, 2015
    7
    A reboot already? How rediculous! Well, aside from the fact that this reboot could have waited at least another three years (how can you reboot something after five years?), it's a pretty decent movie. I say decent, as I'd give it a 6.5/10. It's cool to see a new take on his origin, and with a villain not in any previous Spider Man movie (The Lizard). The action is good and so is the CGI.A reboot already? How rediculous! Well, aside from the fact that this reboot could have waited at least another three years (how can you reboot something after five years?), it's a pretty decent movie. I say decent, as I'd give it a 6.5/10. It's cool to see a new take on his origin, and with a villain not in any previous Spider Man movie (The Lizard). The action is good and so is the CGI. Still, the writing feels weaker than the last Spider Man origin story. I just didn't care for it as much. Expand
  9. May 17, 2015
    7
    Good movie has great special effects, the relationship between Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker is good the story so that is good, but does not show very well the Spider Man responsibilities.
  10. May 2, 2015
    8
    Very fun movie! the cast is phenominal! Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have fantastic chemistry, the best of any comic book movie. Andrew brings the spidey from the comics to the big screen
  11. Apr 22, 2015
    7
    not as good as spider man 1.2 and even 3 (I liked 3). its not very good but it still pretty good. the spider man charter was play down a little bit but that's it.
  12. Apr 22, 2015
    6
    Where to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam RaimiWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

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

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

    The second half replicates the rhythms of Spider-Man with a different villain. This time, it's The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) instead of The Green Goblin. They're largely interchangeable and the final battle is different primarily because the special effects are better. Really, though, after having watched Spider-Man fight The Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman, and Venom, what more can be done with these generic battles? As well executed as they are by director Marc Webb (making his tent-pole debut after previously helming 500 Days of Summer), there's a repetitive quality that is perhaps unavoidable. The Avengers changed the game when it comes to superhero smackdowns and, because The Amazing Spider-Man is unable to ascend to that level, the fight scenes seem a little quaint and one-dimensional. I wrote in my review of The Avengers that it "raised the bar to a level where the more 'traditional' approach of having a single superhero tangle with a supervillain or two may no longer be enough... When something has been dialed up to an '11,' isn't there an inherent letdown to turning it back to a '7'?" A '7' may be generous where The Amazing Spider-Man is concerned.

    For me, this is as deflating a movie as I have seen all year. Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary that it made me want to gnash my teeth in frustration. Rebooting Spider-Man, while a questionable endeavor in its own right, offered an opportunity to do something unique with the character. Take it to a place where it hasn't been.
    Expand
  13. Apr 17, 2015
    8
    Finally, a good super-heroes movie! I love spider-man and Andrew Garfield is much better than Tobey Maguire. I didn't like Tobey Maguire's Spider-man series, but this one is fantastic.
  14. Mar 13, 2015
    4
    A third of the movie is a mediocre remake of the 1st Spider-Man movie. Another third of the movie was a bad teenage soap opera. The few action scenes were cliche and predictable. The Lizardman looked cheesy as hell. I didn't see much humor and fun in the film like I did in Sam Rammi's Spider-Man movies. It was boring.
  15. Mar 12, 2015
    8
    The amazing spider-man was good but not as good as the spider-man movie in 2002. And iam a big spider-man fan i read comic books of spider-man i watch his movies and when i herd that there was going to be a spider-man reboot i was ok with it. And when i saw the trailers i though it was going to be better then spider-man trilogy. But when i saw the movie they took out cool lines that someThe amazing spider-man was good but not as good as the spider-man movie in 2002. And iam a big spider-man fan i read comic books of spider-man i watch his movies and when i herd that there was going to be a spider-man reboot i was ok with it. And when i saw the trailers i though it was going to be better then spider-man trilogy. But when i saw the movie they took out cool lines that some characters said but in the movie those lines or not in the movie at all and that all was bugs me. The good things in this movie is Gwen. stacy her and Peter where perfect togather i loved watching them on the screen and i liked how they added the parents story line like form the comics but then peter forgets about it after he gets his powers and that also bugs me as well. The action is awesome and great specail effects and you have a great solid cast of acters as well. i realy enjoyed this movie but the movie does have some bad things in it as well. The degin of the lizard looked like carp i did not like it at all. And points through out the movie he all was did some thing that no human can ever do and people at his school could tell that his spider-man and he is not keeping his secret identi save. And theres some parts of the plot the they just dont bring up again. But i really injoyed this movie and i would have to give a 8/10 and you ment me wondering why did you like the spider-man movie in 2002 better but you gave it the some rating well i will tell you i can give 2 diffrent movies the same rating and i can still pick on over the other. thanks you guys for reading my review for the amazing spider-man. Expand
  16. Feb 27, 2015
    9
    Un reboot excelente, muestra el origen y el desarrollo de Spiderman de una manera distinta, mas humana y dramática que la trilogía de Sam Raimi, es de las mejores películas de Spiderman que existen (pero no supera a Spiderman 2 de Sam Raimi)
  17. Feb 1, 2015
    8
    For a Spider-Man reboot, this is actually pretty good. The origin has some small flaws though, and some scenes are a little lame, but any way, this is quite a good movie. It stands out for its cast and innovative storytelling. It's just different, in a positive way most of the times. It's not better than the first 2 Spider-Man films, but it's far from being the worst.
  18. Jan 26, 2015
    9
    [Portuguese] O humor do novo Homem-Aranha é simplesmente incrível e a Gwen Stacy é completamente amável, personagens carismáticos como estes junto a um inimigo que faz jus a toda história dos quadrinhos deixaram esse filme quase perfeito.
  19. Jan 12, 2015
    6
    This unnecessary Spiderman reboot is saved from being a CGI-filled mess by the performances of Stone and Garfield. Their romantic chemistry is one of the only reasons to see this film.
  20. Jan 11, 2015
    7
    Definitely doesn't reach the height of the Sam Raimi films and while it may be too early for a Spider-Man reboot, it's worth seeing for any Marvel fan anxious to see another film involving your friendly neighborhood, Spider-Man.
  21. Jan 4, 2015
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a very enjoyable reboot with fun action and some likeable characters. However, the villain was very weak and there were some moments that were so implausible that they were stupid. Still, the movie is fun and definitely worth your time.
  22. Dec 23, 2014
    7
    .This Summer Witness yet Another Spider-Man movie so Sony Can Retain The Rights To It's Character.The Amazing Spider-Man is dark and more mature than the original but lacks story.It brings back the moments that we already saw in the original film and brings back Thing we like about the character Peter Parker/Spider-Man.Andrew Garfield is great being Peter/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen.This Summer Witness yet Another Spider-Man movie so Sony Can Retain The Rights To It's Character.The Amazing Spider-Man is dark and more mature than the original but lacks story.It brings back the moments that we already saw in the original film and brings back Thing we like about the character Peter Parker/Spider-Man.Andrew Garfield is great being Peter/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy.Spider-Man looks so good when he's fighting a villain and New York is Just so good too. Expand
  23. Dec 22, 2014
    10
    Great movie. Very underrated, not a 10, but 7.1 is too low so I'm trying to get the rating higher. I enjoyed the darker tone this movie took, and this was better that the 2002 Raimi movie, in my honest opinion. Many people forget that this was a solid movie because of how bad the sequel turned out. The whole Amazing Spider-Man franchise is not a failure, and if they return to the realisticGreat movie. Very underrated, not a 10, but 7.1 is too low so I'm trying to get the rating higher. I enjoyed the darker tone this movie took, and this was better that the 2002 Raimi movie, in my honest opinion. Many people forget that this was a solid movie because of how bad the sequel turned out. The whole Amazing Spider-Man franchise is not a failure, and if they return to the realistic and dark tone of this movie, the 3rd one could be amazing. Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield deliver fantastic performances, and their scenes together were very cute and heart warming. Expand
  24. Dec 8, 2014
    8
    Although the story sometimes succumbs to some of the 2002's Spider-Man plot points, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a satisfying installment in Marvel canon thanks to its fantastic cast, well-handed direction and an appealingly dark tone.
  25. Dec 7, 2014
    5
    This is an average movie.The music used was quite good and the special effects were quite good. This movie has an average storyline. Nonetheless, it has a good ending.
  26. Nov 24, 2014
    3
    Peter Parker isn't a nerd, but a handsome hipster only labeled a nerd so he can be the misunderstood boy in girls' middle school fantasies. Am I watching High School Marvelous or a comic book adaptation? The 2002 version is much better.
  27. Nov 22, 2014
    9
    I enjoyed the revived Spiderman even more than the any of the films from the original trilogy. This film focuses more on the Spiderman that we see in cartoons and comic books and Andrew Garfield just seems more suited for the role than Tobey McGuire did. He could never win the fans bad after the dance scene in Spiderman 3. I like the addition of Gwen Stacey as a main character as they areI enjoyed the revived Spiderman even more than the any of the films from the original trilogy. This film focuses more on the Spiderman that we see in cartoons and comic books and Andrew Garfield just seems more suited for the role than Tobey McGuire did. He could never win the fans bad after the dance scene in Spiderman 3. I like the addition of Gwen Stacey as a main character as they are following the storyline that should have been followed during the first 3 films. Expand
  28. Nov 12, 2014
    6
    Soy un gran gran de las películas de Raimi, y esta me pareció muy buena película. Buena historia (más apegada al cómic), buena acción y buena actuación por parte de Andrew Garfield y Emma Stone. Aún así, en mi opinión, no logró superar al Spider-Man de Sam Raimi, y varios factores como un Peter más rebelde y un traje con un diseño bastante distinto al original, además de la carencia de unaSoy un gran gran de las películas de Raimi, y esta me pareció muy buena película. Buena historia (más apegada al cómic), buena acción y buena actuación por parte de Andrew Garfield y Emma Stone. Aún así, en mi opinión, no logró superar al Spider-Man de Sam Raimi, y varios factores como un Peter más rebelde y un traje con un diseño bastante distinto al original, además de la carencia de una buena música (como la de Danny Elfman de la trilogía de Raimi), hizo de esta no se sintiese como una película de Spider-Man. Aún así, disfruté mucho viéndola. Saludos. Expand
  29. Nov 10, 2014
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a mostly successful reboot of Spiderman despite having an agonizingly weak antagonist and shared plots with first Spider-Man movie.
  30. Nov 9, 2014
    10
    After The Avengers and X-Men: Days of future past,The Amazing Spider-Man it's the best superhero movie of all time.A great movie and great actors.The best Spider-Man movie with the second movie of Sam Raimi's trilogy.
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.