Columbia Pictures | Release Date: July 3, 2012
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1651 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,153
Mixed:
334
Negative:
164
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
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
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
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
6
BoogeeFilmGuyJul 15, 2015
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'dThis 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ThatCooperGuyJun 25, 2015
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...
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
MovieManiac83Apr 22, 2015
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
homer4presidentMar 13, 2015
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 humorA 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
aaronbartuskaJan 12, 2015
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
supermann234Dec 7, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
WamblyHadesNov 12, 2014
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 alSoy 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TheApplegnomeAug 17, 2014
This reboot is less impressive than the original.

There are many silly and weird things that just don't make sense in this movie, and the actor Andrew Garfield as Spiderman is the most disappointed thing, he's so irresponsible. There are
This reboot is less impressive than the original.

There are many silly and weird things that just don't make sense in this movie, and the actor Andrew Garfield as Spiderman is the most disappointed thing, he's so irresponsible. There are some boring and silly scenes that just kept me bored while watching this new Spiderman movie, and there isn't that much positive aspects, (maybe the CGI).

The the less enjoyable action, and a less impressive soundtrack truly made this movie worse than the original movies.

The Amazing Spiderman get a 6.5
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Meth-dudeAug 16, 2014
The movie was ok for the visually stunning part but for the acting and the action scenes the movie just failed.There was not enough action and when there was some of it,it was filmed like ****
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
joao1198pedroMay 5, 2014
This film is the second worst spider man film, ok this is more kind to it source material but it is still a bad movie with a terrible vilain, but emma stone save a hole part from this film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
LokathorApr 6, 2014
I dunno what all the hate for this movie is about. It's not the best, it's not the worst. It's a fun Spiderman movie if you like Spiderman, but if you're not really a comic book person then you can safely skip this movie without having missed much.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
marcmyworksJan 13, 2014
An interesting beginning in the reboot franchise, but too tweeny for my liking. Andrew Garfield is the essence of Peter Parker but his acting gets lost in a cloud of CG.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Iky009Jan 6, 2014
Mudou um pouco a história e realmente ficou interessante.Mudou um pouco a história e realmente ficou interessante. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
SkyScreamer57Nov 29, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Amazing Spider-Man, unfortunately, wasn't the solid reboot that I was hoping for. Now don't get me wrong. It's not necessarily a bad movie. I still found it decent but it just felt like things were really missing in this movie. The CGI and visuals look great in the movie, the acting is pretty solid, and it started to go somewhere towards the end. However, the problems I have with the film is 1.) the pacing, 2.) the writing felt a little lazy, 3.) the first act felt just the same as the first act in the 2002 Spider-man film, 4.) the action scenes weren't that great and were far and few in between, and 5.) the romance between Peter and Gwen felt awkward and shallow.

So overall, not a very good reboot. However, I still do have high hopes for The Amazing Spider-man 2 coming next summer. If that movie can fix the problems I mention (has better pacing, writing and action) and has Spider-man being more and cracking more jokes(which is what I did like about the Spider-man in this movie expect he hardly cracked any jokes and they weren't very funny) then I guarantee it'll be a great movie. But as for the Amazing Spider-man. It's at best, ok/decent. Not bad, not good, just ok.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
garasaki619Nov 15, 2013
Don't like this one compared to the original. Peter Parker in this version is a lot more arrogant and rude. I know it's just a movie but Peter's arrogance indirectly got his uncle killed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
ns0lAug 21, 2013
Well, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only girls must love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is interesting and very good but only the first half. After that the movieWell, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only girls must love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is interesting and very good but only the first half. After that the movie went bad. It reminds me of the power rangers kids series. I think there's a lot to fix in the movie story, but it's too late now. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
mijxeroAug 11, 2013
Meh, this movie seemed to take the things I liked from the original and throw them away and take the parts I didn't like and magnify them. Its an average super hero movie with a drawn out beginning. Its not bad, but I wasn't reallyMeh, this movie seemed to take the things I liked from the original and throw them away and take the parts I didn't like and magnify them. Its an average super hero movie with a drawn out beginning. Its not bad, but I wasn't really impressed either. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
SeriosityJul 26, 2013
Watching it again I realized this filmed was completely flawed albeit mostly entertaining. Aside from Uncle Ben, everything in this rings completely false.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
JmsbppJul 15, 2013
No me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que noNo me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que no arranca muy bien. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews