Columbia Pictures | Release Date: July 3, 2012
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1597 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,113
Mixed:
323
Negative:
161
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
ourtimehascomeMar 3, 2017
Bloated in its misunderstanding of the source material. Garfield and Stone are enjoyable as Parker and Stacy, which makes the rest of the film somewhat bearable. Overwrought with nonsensical expository information, and the characterization ofBloated in its misunderstanding of the source material. Garfield and Stone are enjoyable as Parker and Stacy, which makes the rest of the film somewhat bearable. Overwrought with nonsensical expository information, and the characterization of Peter Parker is ridiculous. He's a bookworm and outcast, yet he dresses like a skater from the 90's. Though the romance is believable, the bullying is not. Characters are one-dimensional. The sound design is outright laughable and I expected more from Webb's directorial debut. It's difficult to imagine a world in which the lizard's CGI is considered acceptable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
BroyaxJan 8, 2017
J'ai l'impression que c'est le problème des films de super-héros issus des "comics" écrits par des simples d'esprit pour un jeune public simplet : il n'y a tout simplement pas assez de matière pour en tirer des films qui dépassent les deuxJ'ai l'impression que c'est le problème des films de super-héros issus des "comics" écrits par des simples d'esprit pour un jeune public simplet : il n'y a tout simplement pas assez de matière pour en tirer des films qui dépassent les deux putains de plombes.

Les effets spéciaux sont là, le pognon est là mais l'histoire ? ou plutôt une tentative d'ébauche de début d'histoire ? nan, y a que dalle. Dans ce cas, il aurait fallu se limiter à l'heure et demi syndicale voire 1h25, générique de 10 mn inclus. De quoi privilégier l'action spectaculaire comme ils savent (au moins) le faire... la plupart du temps.

Encore faudrait-il que ce soit filmé agréablement... à l'instar d'un Sucker Punch, trop long, trop con lui aussi mais au bon filmage (au moins !). Ce qui n'est pas le cas ici avec cette réalisation un peu trop cut et zoomée pour être honnête.

Pour le reste, les acteurs sont aussi nuls que le pseudo-scénario, aussi bêtes et crétins qu'il est possible de l'être. Amazing ? oui, de ce point de vue, c'est amazingment con, super-con même !
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DavidTejadaDec 28, 2016
It might be funnier than the original but definitely not better. That doesn't mean the movie was bad, at the contrary it's a very well recreation of the remarkable and unique 2000's Spider-Man with Tobey Maguire. What shines here, besides theIt might be funnier than the original but definitely not better. That doesn't mean the movie was bad, at the contrary it's a very well recreation of the remarkable and unique 2000's Spider-Man with Tobey Maguire. What shines here, besides the chemistry between these teenagers in love, is the style and the fresh faces of the new characters reviving the old ones. Good job Columbia! (70%) Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Jack97Dec 24, 2016
Spider-Man has the quips and sarcastic sense of humor that was missing from the Sam Raimi films, making him a more likable hero here. Add in the excitement and great visuals you expect from a comic-book movie and you got a solid, entertainingSpider-Man has the quips and sarcastic sense of humor that was missing from the Sam Raimi films, making him a more likable hero here. Add in the excitement and great visuals you expect from a comic-book movie and you got a solid, entertaining experience. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
FreedomFightersDec 21, 2016
I still remember the reaction when "Spider-Man 4" was cancelled in 2010 and we learned that the series was being rebooted. While the middle-schooler in me was like "ooh, another Spider-Man movie! Awesome!" and all that, the general reactionI still remember the reaction when "Spider-Man 4" was cancelled in 2010 and we learned that the series was being rebooted. While the middle-schooler in me was like "ooh, another Spider-Man movie! Awesome!" and all that, the general reaction seemed to be a resounding, "huh?" And I see now why people thought that: rebooting a film so soon after the original series ended? I know, it was weird, to say the least. And yet, "The Amazing Spider-Man" worked! It was fantastically acted, stylishly-directed, visually stunning, solidly-written, action-packed, exciting, and often very witty and funny, basically everything you could want out of a superhero film. Sure, it does feel like a little bit of a retread of the original film, but all things considered, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is still a great film that superhero fans should come to enjoy. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CinemaphileJul 29, 2016
Serial Comic Book Cinema, the genre de jour, is entering its fourth decade of popularity. Much like the Westerns of the 50's, present day studios greenlight any superhero project that aims at the Summer demographic sweet spot and that canSerial Comic Book Cinema, the genre de jour, is entering its fourth decade of popularity. Much like the Westerns of the 50's, present day studios greenlight any superhero project that aims at the Summer demographic sweet spot and that can also be linked to toy and fast food merchandising. Unlike its muddled plot, the raison d'être for The Amazing Spiderman is crystal clear, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios wanted to return to the Spiderman revenue well.

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

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

Mildly entertaining as it is, I cannot recommend that you spend good money to see this film. Wait for cable or broadcast television.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MasterRileyJul 23, 2016
The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't quite live up to Sam Raimi's original but it still manages to be a good origin story for a new Spider-Man. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is great, it allows for their relationship toThe Amazing Spider-Man doesn't quite live up to Sam Raimi's original but it still manages to be a good origin story for a new Spider-Man. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is great, it allows for their relationship to really work on screen. The writing is also really good, as well as the music, the special effects, and the comedy. Definitely would recommend watching it for any web heads out there. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
gdiego135Jul 7, 2016
Just to let you know this game only has boss battles, you start with a boss battle and then it's just boss after boss after boss, until the end. But the fights are EPIC, I played on Promenade (Easy) because it's fairly difficult, but I willJust to let you know this game only has boss battles, you start with a boss battle and then it's just boss after boss after boss, until the end. But the fights are EPIC, I played on Promenade (Easy) because it's fairly difficult, but I will now go back and play on Furi (Normal) so I can get trophies. Anyway you have to really time all your moves perfectly, dodging and blocking, it gets really intense, and at times theirs plasma flying everywhere. but once you master the gameplay you'll feel like a true bad ass taking down a boss on harder difficulty. Also the graphics look really nice, it's a very unique art style, and the music is quite amazing as well, also the voice acting is great, although you play as a silent protagonist, the other characters have top notch voices. My flaws with this game is that it's just boss fights, like why can't their be weaker enemies you fight to make your way up to a boss, like God of war or other great games. Also their is really no story, your just in a high security prison and now you need to break out. THATS IT. But yeah the gameplay is **** awesome I do reccomend just wish it was longer, and had a story. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Aaron_WassermanJun 1, 2016
As good as Raimi's Spider-Man 2. However to me Andrew is the better Spider-Man. But the lame part to this movie is the lizard. Waste of a villain. However, the good far outweigh the bad.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
bfoore90May 10, 2016
I've gotten the chance to watch The Amazing Spider-Man a few times and with each time I realize that it is a truly fantastic movie. Andrew Garfield pulls off Peter Parker/Spider-Man with a lot more believably than Tobey Maguire could everI've gotten the chance to watch The Amazing Spider-Man a few times and with each time I realize that it is a truly fantastic movie. Andrew Garfield pulls off Peter Parker/Spider-Man with a lot more believably than Tobey Maguire could ever dream of. If theres anything this movie has, its heart. If you choose to look beyond the realms of Peter and the other main characters acting in Amazing Spider Man you're left with a far grittier and more human take on the webslinger's story. And while I loved Spider-Man and Spider-man 2, gone are the elements of campiness and cheesiness that held down the Raimi/Macguire rendition, here you have a very different version of Peter dealing with something much bigger than himself. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
Shadow1May 3, 2016
I love this film . In this film good scenes and awesome action moments and about this film there is game The Amazing Spider-Man . The Amazing Spider-Man better than Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 . I love it . I doesnt watched The AmazingI love this film . In this film good scenes and awesome action moments and about this film there is game The Amazing Spider-Man . The Amazing Spider-Man better than Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 . I love it . I doesnt watched The Amazing Spider-Man 2 , but I think The Amazing Spider-Man better than The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
aadityamudharApr 18, 2016
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 theI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
UrbanlistenerApr 17, 2016
Pretty good movie, it is not original nor exceptional in any way, but its still enjoyable. Andrew Garfield does a great job as Spiderman, the rest of the cast is also very good, the special effects are top-notch and there is some interestingPretty good movie, it is not original nor exceptional in any way, but its still enjoyable. Andrew Garfield does a great job as Spiderman, the rest of the cast is also very good, the special effects are top-notch and there is some interesting aspects that were not seen as much in the Raimi trilogy. The villain is... not that great. Very undeveloped, cliché and incoherent in his quite ridiculous criminal ambitions. There is some writing problems with the script, the movie sometimes feel discombobulated and lazy in the way the story is told. But overall, mostly because of the spiderman aspect and the fun it provides with its action scenes, the movie is watchable and a cool reboot of the franchise. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
AaronWasserman1Mar 26, 2016
As good as Raimi's Spider-Man 2. However to me Andrew is the better Spider-Man. But the lame part to this movie is the lizard. Waste of a villain. However, the good far outweigh the bad.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ReelViews94Mar 23, 2016
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 engineWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

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

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

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

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

For me, this is as deflating a movie as I have seen all year. Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary that it made me want to gnash my teeth in frustration.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
RufjakMar 21, 2016
Amazing movie! I like Andrew Garfield more as Spiderman than Toby. Perfect sarcastic superhero as Spiderman should be. Great action scenes and wonderful Emma make this movie even better.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Cinemassacre94Mar 20, 2016
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 engineWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

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

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

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

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

Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FuturedirectorMar 18, 2016
The amazing Spiderman doesn't work with the other Spider-Man's. But the story-telling is interesting, with a great plot and unforgettable characters, with a new Peter Parker and a new villain..., this is an AMAZING Spiderman
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
gameguardian21Mar 14, 2016
I was pretty disappointed in this reboot. All this is was to make a excuse to retell the story. While some parts I liked, the dialogue was awkward, and it didn't feel like spider man to me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
JarodyJan 30, 2016
Before we start I have to say that this was my hardest movie to rate so before people think I'm one of those amazing Spiderman film haters, I'm not. I enjoyed many parts of this film, including the action scenes, and you got to love thatBefore we start I have to say that this was my hardest movie to rate so before people think I'm one of those amazing Spiderman film haters, I'm not. I enjoyed many parts of this film, including the action scenes, and you got to love that scene with the cranes. That was amazing. I also felt Spiderman was much better represented than the original films. However there are some problems with the film that I have to point out. At the start when peter first becomes Spiderman, he comes across as mean since he keeps coming home late and worrying uncle ben and aunt may. Not only that but you seem to not like him even more when he is responsible for uncle bens death. Luckily though further into the movie he becomes a lot more likeable as well as funny. As for the lizard I felt he was a cool character but he seemed unrealistic in a realistic Spiderman world. Altogether I enjoyed this movie but its problems just bring it down to a 6/10 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
EpicLadySpongeJan 22, 2016
This isn't Spider-Man anymore, this is.... the Amazing Spider-Man! I wouldn't call this amazing, but it's still decent anyways from Spider-Man fans and moviegoers.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
BarneyOnMTJan 5, 2016
WHAT I LIKED: The ironically named 'Marc-Webb's' Spider-Man may not be as true to the source material as Raimi's trilogy, but it's more refined because of it. Here we get a more delicately told origin story, love story, and characterWHAT I LIKED: The ironically named 'Marc-Webb's' Spider-Man may not be as true to the source material as Raimi's trilogy, but it's more refined because of it. Here we get a more delicately told origin story, love story, and character development that everyone can get into. 'The Amazing Spider-Man' is full of excitement and genuinely emotional moments - largely thanks to Andrew Garfield's fresh and modernised portrayal of a conflicted Peter Parker.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: As ever with Spider-Man, it can't quite entirely shake the odd silly elements that plagued the first ones also. For example, the odd villains, and the 'schoolboy hero' who wont ever do the thing the audience wants - which almost passed more in previous versions that took themselves less seriously.
VERDICT: A more serious Spider-Man thanks to Andrew Garfield. Whether you like that or not is the question, but it's arguably a more interesting film because of it.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ZebunkerDec 20, 2015
Comic books fans unite! Another repeat or re-do of an origin story. I bet you don’t know what will happen. Ah, crap! You already know this story. And who says there is no originality left in Hollywood?

What the web-head brings to this one
Comic books fans unite! Another repeat or re-do of an origin story. I bet you don’t know what will happen. Ah, crap! You already know this story. And who says there is no originality left in Hollywood?

What the web-head brings to this one is a rather generic action-fair with tired worn-out heroes, villains and plot devices. The supporting cast is nice but the whole experience leaves you wanting more and a day later you’ve forgotten most of it. The stingy exciting sensation of watching a new Spiderman movie goes away quicker than a dose of Bengay. Comic fans can only hope that with the great power of being able to make any comic book story you want that the next creation has more responsibility to the wonder and amazement of comic stories not just microwaving leftovers for a nice, safe bank return.

Spoilers below.

Best Actor

Andrew Garfield’s first time out as Spiderman is marred with inconsistent acting between scenes and different locations. Buying that he is a highschool aged kid is hard to swallow at times. He does best in the scenes with his not Mary Jane, Jane by the name of Gwen Stacy. While she does have two first names, like any reputable country singer would she’s a good match for Andrew Garfield on screen.

Worst Actor

The ying to Peter’s yang is Emma Stone. Movie goers might be awed by her pretty eyes but wonder why a highschooler has so many wrinkles. That’s because she was 24 when she played this role. She’s even harder to buy being a teenager than the older Andrew Garfield was. Even more so thanks to her tight fitting outfits and sleazy overdone office secretary makeup and hooker boots. She acts in a decent manner, it’s just her character is pointless other than being a love interest for Peter and a symbol of what great power can get you. Free sex. Take that Flash Thompson.

An honorable mention is casting Rhys Ifans as a one-armed scientist. He does a decent job playing the villain but it’s just that decent. He turns much too quickly to the dark side. O, wrong movie. But having the character fight with his possible bad past and the effects of being a big alligator now could’ve been played out more. It’s done much nicer in cartoon versions of this story. Also, why not cast an actor that really only has one arm? It would be a great opportunity for somebody to play a unique role. It’s a missed opportunity. Somebody’s gotta raise a hand for disfigured people. Right?

Best Scene

When the credits show up? The action is so-so. It’s nothing to call home about. Not that Peter Parker would bother calling. The way he treats his aunt, I tell ya! Kids these days! The scope feels rather pulled back from the more epic battles in the Tobey Spiderman films. It’s what you might expect. Spiderman gets beat up a lot and instantly seems to heal. He feels bad for Ben for like 5 minutes then bad guy shows up. The best parts were actually with the love story of Peter and Emma. They had really good chemistry together on screen and it was more fun to watch than most of the movie sadly. That’s not something you want to say about an action movie.

And Dennis Leary getting killed is a highlight. Who did not stand up and cheer in the theater for that moment! Would’ve been nice if he got ran over by a Ford truck though.

Worst Scene

The end sequence where Spiderman must race as fast as he can to save Gotham before Joker can release the toxic gas into the city. O, wrong movie again!

Spiderman has to go down to the big OsCorp building that is a discount Empire State building to stop the alligator man from turning everybody into ….alligators? Guess so. But, Spidey can’t get there fast because he just got shot by a trigger happy cop. That’s right after the police captain tells everybody not to shoot. A shaking your head moment for sure.

Well Spiderman has to go down this super long road but can’t web sling off the super tall buildings for convenient plot reasons. So, in an audience grumbling move a construction foreman that Spiderman interacted with earlier, when Spiderman said his kid from a car, calls all his other buddies to move cranes so Spiderman can web sling to the danger makes you want to hit your face with a dirty needle.

What are the chances that there are dozens of cranes all down the road, at the same time? With people around to drive them. Plus, people that all can be reached by walkie-talkie at night after work is over and who must be all somehow work for the same company so they can communicate. It’s like a tutorial mission out of a video game. It’s that bad.

Hits
- Not too many 360 spinning shots.
- Dennis Leary gets killed! Not by a Ford truck though 
- The suit does not suck.

Misses
- Too long. Bad CGI.
- Stop with Stan Lee cameos.
- Kinda “b-word” boring.

Grade C
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
YellowKirbyNov 26, 2015
I liked this movie when I first saw it, but It's quite forgettable, really. Andrew Garfield really isn't as good a Spider-Man as Tobey Maguire, and Rhys Ifans' Lizard isn't as interesting as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. All in all, it's anI liked this movie when I first saw it, but It's quite forgettable, really. Andrew Garfield really isn't as good a Spider-Man as Tobey Maguire, and Rhys Ifans' Lizard isn't as interesting as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. All in all, it's an alright movie, but it's no match for the original trilogy. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
Jefferygamer200Oct 13, 2015
This movie was decent not as good as Spider-Man 2 but decent. The jokes were sorta good. Really could've used more fighting. And the music is disappointing. Quite a weird ending as well.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
nascentSep 29, 2015
Surprising good film. Despite re-covering stuff that was already handled well in Rami's Spiderman, this has good actors, decent action, especially for the heavily cgi stuff, and an interesting plot. I'm glad it had a different villain to theSurprising good film. Despite re-covering stuff that was already handled well in Rami's Spiderman, this has good actors, decent action, especially for the heavily cgi stuff, and an interesting plot. I'm glad it had a different villain to the previous trilogy, and that it was handled well.

The most notable difference from this film and the Rami films, is that there is a strong emphasis on Peter Parker as a brilliant scientist, and also his web shooter devices. While it's strange that we must accept he can walk on walls and stick to anything, but has to bio-engineer an impossibly fantastic weapon that does the web shooting for him, I understand this is more in line with the comics, and so thus needs to be appreciated, even if suspension of disbelief takes one too many hits.

I think the biggest flaw of this film is it's release so close the the Rami films, which really made superhero films what they are today. As everyone knows this was mostly a film to retain the Spidermany Rights, and thus had to be made when it was, but in an ideal world this would've been made at a much later date, to better distance itself from Rami's trilogy.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
grandpajoe6191Aug 27, 2015
"The Amazing Spider-Man" is an excellent reboot to the long-standing Sam Raimi series, as Marc Webb directs a well-crafted, easily understood movie for all ages with an enjoyable chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone to watch.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
NatT96Aug 19, 2015
It was not bat at all! I enjoyed this to an extent. The action scenes and drama actually worked compared to the second. I was immediately not a fan of the character, but hell he at least did some really cool stunts that was damn nice. As forIt was not bat at all! I enjoyed this to an extent. The action scenes and drama actually worked compared to the second. I was immediately not a fan of the character, but hell he at least did some really cool stunts that was damn nice. As for the plot however It was forgettable r, literally I had to re-watch it because I could only remember the ending. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CineAutoctonoJul 21, 2015
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 !
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TheDude-Jul 18, 2015
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews