User Score
7.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1252 Ratings

User score distribution:

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 14, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is considerably more fun than the other three movie of Spider-Man because the actor who do Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) are better than the other and this movie tell the real part of spider-man and show how his turn his super hero and Emma Stone is perfectly in this movie, ok she is a excelent actress and she do Gwen Stacy, even she never listen about this character. the filme is fantastic Expand
  2. Jul 14, 2012
    6
    Despite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to drag and fill in gaps in the middle with pointless stuff. It wasn't really what I would call a fresh start; if it would bother people like writers and directors to take this material and put something new into it, it would be helpful to make us aware of what the film was supposed to be about. We get it, Peter gets bitten by a spider and gains superpowers, but what it was mainly setting up was for us to find out about a guy trying to achieve perfection who ends up turning into a giant lizard and terrorising the city. As well as revisiting familiar plot points, it gave us something fairly useless to go on - we could have known more about Peter's parents. Besides that, the characters themselves provided better entertainment, which is for the fact that good humour is something I like in films, but, ironically, Peter Parker had little depth despite being the main character. I would have given a higher score, but it pains me to say that you cannot make a good film if you cover familiar ground, add new ideas and claim it as your own. Expand
  3. Jul 14, 2012
    10
    This movie was(for the most part)a fantastic movie.I did not like the 2 last Spiderman movies and because of that i was really looking forward to this movie.Some people say that the reboot was not necessary but in my opinion it was.Tobey Maguire's acting got extremely boring after the second movie and was just unsavory.Also,Kirsten Dust could not save the previous films and in the 3rd SPM movie the only good thing was Jameson.The villan was closer to the comics as was the rest of the movie which is something i found positive.This movie is trying to reveal a darker side of Spiderman with bigger succession than the SPM 3 attempt at this.Also,the scenes with the First Person look where also a nice addition to the movie.The cast and the overall acting was better than the acting of the first Spiderman movies and the fact that this movies remains true to the origins of Spiderman make this movie better than the rest.The one thing that could have been improved is the final battle which did not really make an impact on me.This movie is definitely recommended for everyone and is a nice and mostly truthful Spiderman movie that all the comic fans will most likely enjoy. Expand
  4. Jul 14, 2012
    0
    This movie was clearly written for a tween audience, to whom the characters and their motivations may pass as those of regular 17-year-olds, however to anyone with an iota of taste or sensibility this movie is shown for what it truly is - a soap opera with badly tacked-on action scenes. As a long-time reader of the spider-man comics and literature (including the Ultimate series, on which this movie is clearly based), it was almost as painful to watch Garfield's over-the-top and egotistical approach to Spider-man as it was to watch his laughable attempt to stir up emotions in the viewers (whether it be laughter or empathy). Although I do appreciate and commend the director for attempting to add Spidey's wit and humour in his action scenes (as is common in the books and an element the previous movies lacked), they unfortunately seemed to be more mean-spirited than the lighthearted, witty attitude Spidey exhibits in the books. Over all the character was badly interpreted, the surrounding characters were one-dimensional and the story was a mind-numbing bore. Throughout the movie, I found myself hoping the action segments would help resuscitate my interest - however even they were illogical and badly designed to the point where I could not bother paying attention any more. In conclusion, a disappointing installment in the series which takes the character in an unfortunate direction - perhaps in an attempt to recreate the success of the darker Batman movies - which leaves old-time Spider-man fans wondering if this is still the character they've always known. Expand
  5. Fin
    Jul 13, 2012
    3
    You want to waste 2 hours of your life, then watch this movie.This movie is so boring, there is almost no action into it. The development of Parker is damn weak. You should watch this movie only if you're a teen, because there's no essence in it. This movie is way worse than the Spider-Man movie of 2002, not saying that one was a good one but it was watchable.

    Simply put, don't watch it
    and you'll do something more constructing with your time Expand
  6. Jul 13, 2012
    1
    Just bloody awful. Horrible, in fact. And I usually can some redeeming qualities in superhero movies. Supergirl anyone? Emma Stone was blank and vacant. In fact I've seen wallpaper that was more interesting and talented. She's the next go to girl? Really? Poor Sally Field. After this I don't think she'll be shouting, "you like me, you really like me". She's so talented and so wasted in this. It wasn't the actors fault. There was no character development. No caring about our protagonist. In fact, I was hoping at one point Christian Bale's Batman would come in, growling and cape and cowl flowing, and shoot Garfield in the head. Again, not the actor's fault. Just horrible. Awful and a waste of time. McGuire's Peter Parker was much, MUCH, better. Expand
  7. Jul 13, 2012
    7
    This was a good super hero movie. It was basically the same movie as the Spider Man with Toby MacGuire in that it had the same plot, same type of characters, and settings/scenes. They did change the details of course providing interesting twists to the essential plot points. The action scenes were better than the Toby MacGuire movie and overall, it had a grittier feel than the original. This spider man was never really a true geek/wus as Toby and when he changes into a tough guy it's more convincing. The main problem with this movie is that the acting isn't nearly as good as the Toby Spider Man. Toby, let's face it, is a far superior actor to this guy. They also made the villain's primary goal very lame. They could have done a lot more with the lizard and some diabolical plans. But, the Lizard was a pretty cool villain overall. The movie is more of a 5 compared to the Toby Spider man but I have to give it an 7 compared to the balance of super hero movies out there which are usually quite good. Cheers! Expand
  8. Jul 13, 2012
    5
    All I could think of while watching
  9. Jul 13, 2012
    9
    A great movie and much better than any of the previous films. Andrew Garfield seemed to fit into the role much better than Tobey Maguire ever did. A must see for summer 2012!
  10. Jul 13, 2012
    7
    First of all, I believe this film should not have been made at all, at least until a much later date. I believe that the reboot of the series came much too early. However, I did still enjoy this movie to some extent. Being a huge fan of Spider-Man and having read the original comics, they spent far too long on the story as to how Peter managed to obtain his powers. However, the fight scenes easily make up for this, which are just exhilarating. I also believe that they managed to portray the Lizard very well. Andrew Garfield also manages to create a very like-able character. However, I couldn't help but notice was an absence of some key characters, including Harry Osborn. So, overall, action scenes are great, CGI brilliant, but the first half will likely bore those who have already seen the previous films. Expand
  11. Jul 12, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is one of the best movies this summer. Many reviewers are giving it a low score just because it is Spider- Man's origin story and similar to the 2002 Spider Man. I don't think you should review it like that, considering Tobey Macguire is a crappy Spider Man and this one is a much better version. Andrew Garfield is the perfect Spider Man in my mind. He was great in this movie. Not only that, most of the actors did extremely well, and the story was compelling. I loved it, and you will too! Expand
  12. Jul 12, 2012
    10
    Wow!!! This movie so captures the essence of Spider Man! The cast is soo amazing, you care about what happens the entire movie. Do yourself a favor and throw the 3 Sam Raimi Spidermans in the garbage.
  13. Jul 12, 2012
    10
    Before seeing the movie, had questioned whether the director and actors had charge required to achieve a good job or in the worst case a total failure. In my opinion, achieved the task and I hope and welcome the sequel.
  14. Jul 12, 2012
    8
    The movie is pretty good. The storyline is great and not much of the basics change from the original film. I like the fact that Merry Jane is not in the movie and Andrew Garfield is relly good. There are both action and funny scenes and there is the romance element as well.. And most important there is a scene after the credits so stay and watch ;)
  15. Jul 12, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short given that I really enjoyed those last films, and while this reboot didnt really satiate me completely, I did for a fact enjoyed watching it. The first problem with the film is that it is doomed to repeat what we already know. For the first half an hour, Spideys obligatory build up before becoming the hero we know is revisited, and that includes Peter being bitten by a spider and Peter watching his uncle Ben being murdered. The director seemed aware of the issue as the scenes are given some new twists, and also seemed to resume everything as quick as possible, but this overall make them feel uneventful. Once that is overcome, the movie starts opening some interesting elements, as well as some interesting characters. Emma Stone as Gwen is great to give an example. Actions scenes are quite nice ,but I dunno if as memorable as other heart pumping scenes from the first three, like per say: the train sequence in Spiderman 2. The soundtrack is OK but at the end pretty forgettable and really falls short to the outstanding soundtrack from the hexed trilogy before it. At the end, perhaps "The Amazing Spider Man´s" most unselfish but unfortunate fate is that it going to be compared to Sam Raimi´s work, and it is from that perspective that it falls short in some and other aspects. It is a good movie to watch with great characters, fighting scenes, music and actor performances, but all of that was also done (and in some ways even better) with the first line of movies and this calls into question if it was really necessary to start all over again. Expand
  16. Jul 12, 2012
    0
    Even coming from a guy who loves the old spiderman films, i have to admit that this new movie is very well done.The performances are first rate. To me andrew garfield has a certain charm, and suits the spiderman character better than that of tobey maguire. Emma stone also exhibits a type of sweetness in her role of gwen stacey. Though the film has a large amount of character developement, and it honestly takes about 30 minutes for the first time that you get to see spiderman. But once the action starts, there is a lot of it. This is all in all, a great reboot that i think is better than the original. Expand
  17. Jul 12, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Anyone who like superhero films will probably like this one.The movie was over all good with superb acting by Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.This is terrific reboot and I find this one much better than its predecessors.It has great scenes with comedy elements in it. Expand
  18. Jul 12, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Although making a reboot of a movie that was released 10 years before is absurd, I'm not going to complain about it because you knew that long before going to the movie and I believe it's not fair. However, because it was directed by Marc Webb and featured great stars (Emma Stone, Andrew Garfield, Sally Field) I must say I expected the movie to be more emotional and more character-developed than the old Spider Man movie. I must say I was wrong. Other than Peter Parker (which had a coming-of-age period that was interesting) the characters seem one-note. And it is such a shame because we all know that both Emma and Sally Field has great acting skills. Another problem in the movie was it's villain. The whole lizard thing was weird (him wanting the whole human population to be a lizard). Also, Andrew Garfield's spider man ego didn't match with Peter Parker, and while Spider man was fighting I completely felt that I was watching someone else. The length of the movie also made me killed myself and even Emma Stone with the umbrella couldn't save the extremely unnecessary love scenes. We know that there is going to be a sequel to The Amazing Spider Man. And I know that the only thing that will save that movie is Marc Webb's creativity that we didn't see in this movie. I except something like Expectations-Reality scene from 500 Days of summer in the next movie. Expand
  19. Jul 11, 2012
    5
    I had very mixed feelings for this film. I read the ultimate spider man comics, and had high expectations for this film to be based more on it. Which is kinda is and kinda isn't. I understand bringing in lizard man to introduce the new spider man. But the way they placed big events and brought characters in the movie I dont understand how they are going to make the second one good and especially making this series beat Sam Raimis spider man movies. This movie was ok, But throwing out main events out of the comic books and not following the story of how it should go, its going to end up like Sam Raimi's series. Bringing in Gwen Stacy and Her Father and killing her dad so quickly was a stupid idea. I just wish someone would actually follow a storyline for once. Collapse
  20. Jul 11, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw this movie it was amazing. I was exited since this movie was announced after 5 years.A great combination for Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield.This is the best spider-man movie I have ever seen.This is some of best action,humor and romance movies. Expand
  21. Jul 11, 2012
    7
    While certainly better than the third spiderman movie, this reboot suffers from a sense of over familiarity. So much of the origin story is known through the other version that its hard not to feel bored as the first half of the movie sets things up. Thankfully, Andrew Garfield is pretty good as Peter Parker and he carries things along. The action scenes are also an improvement on the original trilogy. The plot with the Lizard suffers from having to run alongside the origin stuff. I have no doubt that the sequel will benefit from being able to run with its own ideas from the get-go. Its not a bad start but its not brilliant. Sandwiched in between the popcorn fun of the Avengers movie and the (as yet unseen as I write this) epic conclusion to Nolans Batman movie trilogy was never going to be easy but Amazing Spiderman is worth a look regardless and the inevitable follow up may be more an indication of whether Garfield and Co. rise above Tobey Maguires run. Expand
  22. Jul 11, 2012
    10
    Amazing movie, i was on the edge of my seat throughout. Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are adorable together and have the best chemistry. A great combination of action, humor and romance. Best movie i have watched in a long time. 10/10
  23. Jul 11, 2012
    5
    As a summer movie, the Amazing Spider-man is great. As a movie though, wow is it bad. The editing for the film is just awful. It is incredibly apparent early in the movie that huge, huge chunks of the story have been edited out at the last second and only a scant few of the glaring holes are covered by re-shoots. Firstly, it is very noticeable that everything promised by every single trailer, even those in the month up to the film, was removed. There is no untold story, there is no resolution to the Oscorp storyline involving the serum, etc. Every single bit of that was removed. They completely failed to remove the dozens of references to it in the movie though. Peter gets angry numerous times about his parents leaving and disappearing on him. They attempt to cover that, sloppily, with a brief glimpse of him finding an article about their plane crash, yet he continues to get mad as if they abandoned him, not that they died tragically after only leaving him for a short time. There is no resolution to the Oscorp stooge guy taking the serum to that VA hospital. He gets attacked on the bridge by Lizard, but isn't killed or even hurt, and then he disappears from the film. In the trailers it is evident that he plays a big role further in the movie in revealing the "untold story" to Parker as he is dying. Every drop of that is removed and it just leaves this massive empty space about what the heck happened there. There is no motivation for the Lizard's actions. He simply starts to go nuts, hear voices, and decides to kill people/transform them into Lizards. Essentially it is the same story of the Green Goblin from Spiderman but done worse. Speaking of Lizard people, he magics up these gas grenades from nowhere, apparently having transformed his injected serum into an aerosol dispersant while living in the sewers, using them to make a bunch of cops into Lizards. They then disappear off screen until the antidote is launched out of the conveniently 2-minute countdown timed mortar. There was supposed to be much more involving them which was also cut from the film.

    In the end, it is an entertaining movie, but once you start to think about it you realize you saw about half what the movie promised in the trailers and only about 3/4ths of an actual movie thanks to all the horrible edited plot lines. You end up with a Spiderman movie that is better looking than the previous incarnations, has some very good pieces, but in the end feels like an incomplete movie and a total cash grab before Sony lost the rights. Hopefully the sequel is a much better put together movie which in part could have been caused by the completely inexperienced director they handed the franchise to.
    Expand
  24. Jul 11, 2012
    0
    This movied is the definition of boring. It is basically the same as the first spiderman with the lizard instead of green Goblin as well as spiderman getting his powers in a new way. Too add to that, the first spiderman movies already had pleasing visuals where as this one had effects that were just ugly to watch. The Lizard looked so fake it were as if I was looking at a creature from minecraft. In fact I challenge those who read this review to watch spiderman 1 and tell me the amazing spiderman is still a good movie. The acting was poor and forced and the only real part I enjoyed of this movie was watching uncle ben get shot and adrew garfield crying like a little girl. In comparison this movie is no where near as good as the first and second spiderman, yet it may be better then the third however that is no accomplishment. Overall this movie is a fail and it is an embarsment to the other spiderman movies, I cant even say that this one is a remake, for any two year old could of made a movie like this. Just dont waste your money. Expand
  25. Jul 11, 2012
    10
    I thought that this movie was really good. I was excited for this movie since it was announced and it lived up to my expectations. The moment I found out that Emma Stone was playing Gwen Stacy, I could not have been more excited. I was a bit skeptical about Andrew Garfield, however. After watching the movie, I can safely say Andrew Garfield is a great actor. I think all of the actors were fantastic in this movie! I love how similar this was to the comics. I think it was much better than the Spider-man films from Tobey Maguire. Kirsten Dunst pales in comparison to Emma Stone. Fantastic! 10/10 Expand
  26. Jul 10, 2012
    1
    I hate Marc Webb for this movie. Sure, the acting was great, but directing and script are a failure. This isnt the true Spider-man. Spider-man is about power and responsibility, and this one is only about revenge.
    How come he be a true hero if hes not interested in saving inocent civilians. And ooh, how he loves to reveal his identity to everyone. Hes so weak he can't even dodge a BULLET.
    He has no Spider-Sense.
    And Webb's words that the movie is by the comics is a huge lie.
    Expand
  27. Jul 10, 2012
    8
    I think this version far, far surpasses the last Spider-Man trilogy in basically every way possible. Overall, as a movie, I think this version works far better, it´s more interesting, faster & better paced, has better action scenes, shows us more of Peter Parker and his family & friends than what the last trilogy did, and just overall has a better feel to it.
  28. Jul 10, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spiderman is great reboot of the Spider-Man movie franchise originally directed by Sam Rami. Mark Webb, director of (500) Days of Summer, brings a fresh and exciting take on Spidey's origin story. Peter Parker, a geeky highschooler (played by the Social Network's Andrew Garfield) who is infatuated with the kind, rebellious Gwen Stacy (Easy A and Zombieland vet Emma Stone). Along the way, he fights Killer Croc, a monster he inadvertently creates, and becomes the masked hero we all love. The acting is great, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have amazing chemistry, and a talented cast including Martin Sheen and Dennis Leary help The Amazing Spider Man really stand out. Mark Webb is incredibly talented as the director, who once again really captures the emotions of these characters and makes the audience care for them. The Amazing Spider-Man may have small pacing issues, but it is a great superhero flick nonetheless, and I hope no one will hate me for saying it, makes for a more enjoyable experience than The Avengers. Expand
  29. Jul 10, 2012
    3
    This movie compared to the first Spider-man is **** you don't even have to see it, its a waste of money, Toby Maguir made a better Spider-man, The Amazing Spider-man is in my opinion the worst marvel movie yet
  30. Jul 10, 2012
    8
    I viewed the amazing spider man and love all the action scenes. There was so much action and real suspense, that is how a movie should be and that is what your money is really worth. The reptile look so scary and being in a room alone will give you the hebejebes. I loved this movie a lot. This spider man film is starting off when he first became what he had became. In the comic book he was suppose to be bitten by a radioactive spider, that is the man reason he can walk walls, just like a spider does, he can shoot web just like a spider, well almost most. The red costume is to conceal his real identity just like Superman and Batman. Spider man's main purpose is to stop and rid of crimes and violence in the city. I wish he was working for the Detroit police department, maybe it will fix the crime problems going on in that city. Well anyway. I think New York city is the perfect place to film that movie and working along side the NY PD is awesome. The best spider man film I really loved the most of all superhero films is, Spider man 2 with Dr. Octavius, who was played by Alfred Molina. The amazing spider man should be nominated for a academy award for best motion picture of this year, because of the action and the drama. Expand
  31. Jul 10, 2012
    6
    This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn. He brings a personality to the part that makes him constantly charming, even though his emotional side just keeps turning on the water works. The story starts with promise and the early discovery scenes are entertaining, but as the film develops, it falls apart. The action scenes are often muddled and over-edited. The lizard villain looks fake. The pacing lags more than once. Other than Garfield, there's not much here's to recommend. NOTE: Stay thru the first part of the credits for a sequel teaser. Expand
  32. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    Proving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New York and more vindictive Peter Parker who surprisingly exhibits more angst than Spider-Man 3's Venom. Andrew Garfield is amazing, he's just talented and a perfect cast for a teenage confused by his new found power but still with some wry humor. He's more organic, relaxed and looking very young beyond his age. His relationship with his surrogate parents is humbly relatable. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker and Sally Field as May Parker are brilliant, a kind authoritative figure and affectionate sympathetic guardian, respectively. The bond between them is seemingly genuine, a heartfelt care despite their ongoing tribulation. Martin has delivered one of the more convincing speeches in a rather private context than grandiose fashion of superhero pep talk.

    Emma Stone is okay as Gwen Stacy, she's clever and doesn't fumble in the role of damsel in distress, a great incentive by the director. And she's also hot, no upside down kiss this time. Rhys Ifans plays Dr. Curt Conners, Peter's somewhat mentor and also enemy. He's a confident albeit reclusive brilliant scientist, harboring less than secretive motive to repair his flawed physique. His acting is good, facial expressions are still present in his scaly CG persona, but his character has been plagued by the same schizophrenic mentality as previous archenemies.

    Acrobatic action is the ever present hallmark of Spider-Man, it's more flowing and enjoyable. I like the Spidey-cam, or whatever they call the first person view of Spider-Man is. If only it's more evenly utilized and edited to coexist with the action, it's probably more exhilarating, but that's just a minor complaint. The movement is fast but still regains the clarity of surrounding, which is important on making sense of what transpires on the screen. You can still see the CG effect of the combat, although it
    Expand
  33. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    Quite a refreshing film actually. The new approaching was well developed and thoroughly planned, even considering It wasn't a smart idea to reboot the saga so early. Despite a little tuned off with a few things, it manages to give a totally new focus on the plot and still resemble the Spider-Man idea, very clearly and precisely.
  34. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Spidey is spicy than ever! Ready or not, here he comes. They take Spider-Man to THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) level. Darker! More realistic! And more serious! But don
  35. Jul 9, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This was extremely entertaining! Although there were some weaker points, this movie is so much better than those made ten years ago. Marvel/Disney did a great job choosing actors, developing characters, and creating a great story, which more closely followed the comics compared to Spider-Man 1, 2, and 3. I wish the movie would have included more information about Peter's parents, but the clip at the end of the movie implied that this will develop in future films. Overall, fans of the comic book will really enjoy this film. Expand
  36. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Seen "The Amazing Spiderman" tonight. Wasn't expecting much but very pleasantly surprised. Its better than the original as well for me. For sure its darker and the Peter Parker/Spiderman character is closer to the comics. More time is spent building the story, however this means the film takes a while to get going. Its worth it though as the relationships between Parker and those around him are given more time to develop. The action scenes are good and 3D is really great with the skyscraper web-slinging inducing real vertigo. Check it out. Expand
  37. Jul 9, 2012
    10
    This Movie IS Indeed...AMAZING!Best Spider-man Movie YET!Never Got Boring,Kept Me Entertained From Beginning To End.Spidey was Wise Cracking And Built His own web Shooter As In The Comics.The Scene Were Uncle Ben Gets Shot Mad me Shed A Tear.
  38. Jul 9, 2012
    10
    I really enjoyed this movie. In fact I liked it much better than the Raimi trilogy, though I can't help but think that its just because of my age that I identify more with Andrew Garfield's character. Many people agree that the marketing for this movie impacted their enjoyment of the film. But I can tell that everyone involved really gave their all (Fantastic acting and directing), so that isn't the movies fault. Expand
  39. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    I enjoyed the first Raimi Spider-Man film (and hated the second one). At the time, with nothing to really compare them to, I thought Tobey and Dunst were solid enough, but after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I realize that there was real chemistry lacking between the original's leads. Garfield is much better than Tobey - Tobey's unaffected, bored look worked in The Cider House Rules, but not as Peter Parker. I buy Garfield much more as a high school kid, and Emma Stone is so much more dynamic than Dunst (who excels in such art house flicks as The Virgin Suicides and Melancholia - but not in the popcorn / comic flick realm). Even the antagonist is much more believable and even sympathetic in the right ways. All-around, I think this is the best big screen version of Spidey. No, it's nothing like the Batman Begins reinvention of that franchise, but it's still superior fare. Expand
  40. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Finally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are correct. The effects are amazing. The problems are the next: The Lizard, looks some weird, some important characters (yes the aunt may) appear on a background. Is a good reboot, I think that is better than the Avengers. I wanna watch the second part. Expand
  41. Jul 9, 2012
    10
    After seeing this I wondered why Spiderman was NEVER this good! This movie is FANTASTIC!! It is the BEST Spiderman movie yet!! I love this new direction for Spiderman its more interesting...more captivating...so cinematic! This is one of my favorite movies for numerous reasons. This movie is most true to the comics. Spiderman is more flexible and agile than ever before. He has a real sense of humor, and captures the hurt from loosing his Uncle and the nerdy teen that we associate with Spiderman perfectly. The special effects top notch and the fight scene are choreographed better than Spiderman 1,2,and 3. They showcase both Spiderman and The Lizzard's abilities perfectly! See this movie if you havent! If tickets werent so expensive now a days I would see this twice!!! Expand
  42. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    I was a little on edge about this Spider-Man reboot because I grew up watching Sam Raimi
  43. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    İf u ask me why 7 but not 10 i can state that main problem is Connors. He is good, i mean lizard is cool. but it is like a weaker copy of hulk. Even when it acts and fights. oh the other hand both avengers and reboot spider man's budget is 220 million. but look at the difference, Avengers action scene's are more incredible and lasts at least 30 minutes more than spider man. and cast is perfect, then for what producers spent 220 million. and where is the j,j? spider-man without his raging boss doesnt seem warm, as a movie it is good and watchable, some lacks of screenplay wounded and hardly walking spider at the end fight even doesnt feel his injuries. my points are 7-marc webb 9-andrew garfield 9 emma stone 6-screenplay 8-visual effects 10- stan lee's cameo:) Expand
  44. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    this one is much better than spiderman 3. some really god actions. the scope for 3D however seems restricted. Andrew Garfield looks good in the spider-man outfit. the "web spinner" machine in that watch thing was so cool. i would recommend every spidey lover to watch it.....
  45. Jul 9, 2012
    9
    Andrew Garfield is an emerging young actor that will be in the spotlight for years to come. He did great in this movie, and will do great in the following two as a part of this trilogy. In addition, we are privileged to see great performances by the other actors in this film. I personally enjoyed seeing Martin Sheen in this film, despite only being present for a portion of it. Emma Stone is bold and straightforward in her technique of this movie. She is a great young woman that will go far as well. Compared to the, "Spider-Man," trilogy with Tobey Maguire a decade ago, this is so much better and will be rewarded for that distinction. As I said before, the acting, along with the script, cinematography, story line, and special effects are absolutely phenomenal. Even the little things that make a film good are noticeable, such as the colors, lighting, and set dimensions.

    "With great power comes great responsibility," as it is often said, and this new trilogy will be making the mold for how Spider-Man is seen. Hopefully the following films match this and are better. I believe this will end up happening.
    Expand
  46. Jul 8, 2012
    8
    I hate to admit it, but I walked into this movie cursing myself. "Here we go again. Another rehash of a super hero that has been done a million times." The funny think is walked out of the theater saying, "about time someone did justice to Peter Parker." Don't you just love it when a movie both proves you wrong and awakens you to bigger and better possibilities?
    I'm not saying this is
    anywhere near Christopher Nollan's universe. But, what a cool movie this was. Awesome script, phenomenal direction work, and enough effects to support the story without turning it into another amusement park ride.
    The only scene that I had hoped not to find in the movie is the one when they line up the construction cranes. A touch of Hollywoodese. We'll look the other way on that one. It is a studio picture after all.
    In general, I very much believed the story and the characters. Everyone was riding a good balance between what life deals them and the sacrifices behind changing our own fate. What a script. You even feel bad for the bad guys in this.
    Andrew Garfield was a great voice for modern teenage angst, and Emma Stone was equally significant. Great pair to front this. Everyone else felt like the perfect piece of the puzzle. Although I have a feeling the majority of the kudos on this one should go to a flawless script and surgical camera work. This is what happens when talented filmmakers get together and decide to turn the camp in comic books into a real life drama. Congratulations. I'm sold!
    Expand
  47. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    I was very disappointed by this film. It seems like the writers took a copy of the Toby McGuire Spiderman script, broke it down scene-by-scene and said "We can top that." Each scene felt as though it was over the top--they made everything in the story personally connected to Parker/Spiderman. I felt as though I was watching a Spiderman film geared toward teenage girls (seriously? handsome skateboarding rebel Peter Parker?). Add in awkward and abrupt cuts, and sarcasm in serious moments, viewers just don't know when it is appropriate to laugh or cry.

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion.
    As much as I hated the EMO "woe is me" overtones of Raimi's Spider-man. It's the superior film over Mark Webb's. Raimi being an actual lifetime fan of Spider-man knew how Spidey fought and moved. Though I guess we could defend the new version as more inexperienced Spider-man.
    It's not too inferior mind... It's just that nothing new has been put on table. You would have thought with The Avengers film coming to fruition at almost the same time they would have liaised and came to the same conclusion that a lot of costume time would have been better. If only you could splice Raimi's and Webb's films together then you'd get the perfect Spider-man.
    Expand
  49. Jul 8, 2012
    9
    Ok... THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: Yes my first impresion was... hey!? what happened with Sam Raimi(director of the first 3 movies) and with Tobie McGuire!!! But today i saw this movie... and it was pretty COOL! Yes Andrew is a good spider-man and Emma is a good Gwen. The story is good and interesting. BUT... Where are Harry and MJ?? Where the hell is J.J. Jameson??? ANd the Daily Bugle??? Some of those ditails make the movie... a little bit confusing for thos who saw the oder 3 movies and the comics.... Yes.. if you´re a Spidy's fan (like me) you don't want to miss this movie.. but there are some things that are very important that weren't in this movie... and is a bit dissapointing Expand
  50. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    wow amazing as we bring new characters and new story nothing to do with the previous spider man, the performances are good and convincing which makes it worthy of a superhero movie and a new generation of spider man
  51. Jul 8, 2012
    4
    this movie was really slow for the first hour and then it got better andrew garfield has to be the worst actor i have ever seen play spider man he acts like he is on drugs half the time
  52. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    It's been five years since audiences have seen a Peter Parker on the big screen. Five years without any blockbuster spider man movie. People around the world including myself have been waiting so long for a good spider man movie...and we got this. What should have been "Spider Man 4" is the slow paced, awfully acted, stupid joke movie known as "The Amazing Spider Man". I feel this movie could have done a lot better if it was just called "The Spider Man". This movie was not amazing. It was very childish and insulted what Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire have done over the years. The only thing this movie has going for it is It's Visual Effects and the acting of Sally Field as Aunt May. Besides that, this movie is nothing special and should not be seen unless you are going to get the DVD. Expand
  53. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    Honestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold not just in this film but in the planned films to come" and it is possible that the sequels might be better than this film. On the acting part, Neither Andrew nor Emma acted good. All the people going crazy after Andrew Garfield should notice the fact that the film was about Spider-Man, not the former. BUT I really admire the visual effects the film utilized and the creativity in respect of the stunts and the action-sequences was better than the previous films. Expand
  54. Jul 8, 2012
    0
    I found it to be incredibly boring. Could not wait until it was over. There was just nothing I liked about this movie. I found the original spiderman movie to be a really good film so I hoped that this movie would be good as well, but I think that the latest movie is more hype than substance.
  55. Jul 8, 2012
    10
    Brilliant movie Andrew Garfield did an excellent job.
    He added emotion and played Parker well.
    The movie gave me goose bumps in some scenes.
    i wouldn't compare the Sam Rami's spider man to this one
    they are both different in their own ways and story... i recommend you to see it now while its on the BIG SCREEN
  56. Jul 8, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Just because it is a super-hero movie does not mean it cannot be smart and this movie is not smart. I can buy that someone can get bit by a radioactive spider and get super powers because, hey, that's the suspension of belief needed for the genre. If you are not going to go along with that then best to ignore fantasy type movies all together. What I can't by is a high security building with equipment dangerous enough to gas an entire city, can allow someone in just because they have a name tag (and throw someone out because they do not). I also cannot buy that you could just wander around as you please in such a place. And most of all, I do not buy that a teenage intern can access this place whenever they please and create an antidote for a mutant virus that only just appeared, in a matter of 8 minutes. I guess she stayed at a Holiday Inn. Dumb! Expand
  57. Jul 8, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Perhaps it's because it was only 5 years ago that the last Spiderman film was released but this movie just felt... unnecessary. i didn't feel that there was anything that stood out from Spiderman (2002.) Sure, we had cosmetic differences, but the biggest difference, the mysterious circumstances surrounding Peter's parents' deaths, just felt dull. I couldn't connect with Peter Parker - he was just an arrogant, spoilt ass and I had a hard time feeling sorry for him. The villain was just plain BORING ; an evil lizard bent on infecting a city - really? No thank you. Writing this review just made me further depressed so I just warn you that this Spiderman film really adds little to the original film produced in 2002. Expand
  58. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    The new Spider-man played by Andrew Garlfield is a-lot more down to earth and cool as a actor, overall boosting the films rating because he's a more relate-able character. This makes the film a-lot better to view because the actor isn't forced to cry all the time. A.k.a He makes the Tobey Maguire Spider-man look like a complete **** The villain is most likely the best in the series because he is the most **** up one and this also makes the fights more tense. It is a damn good film, so yeah, go see it. Expand
  59. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    I am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes this installment too repetitive in several spots. While I have high hopes for this production team, we have to wait for the inevitable AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to see this interpretation flourish. Expand
  60. Jul 7, 2012
    5
    Overly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaser in the end credits.

    Not necessarily bad, just completely forgettable.
    Expand
  61. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    This Movie was great, the new Spidey was awesome even with all the changes, Its a totally new FUNNY, POWERFULL,REALISTIC Spiderman, I was hoping to see an Avengers 2 clue but I thik we have to wait
    ooo and It has a secret scene after a Few credits
    It was trully AMAZING
  62. Jul 7, 2012
    7
    While I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with Spidey and Lizard are back and forth battles and great to watch. The one thing I was really worried about was the cast, luckily they proved me wrong. The comparisons are inevitable, people (including myself) will compare Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire unjustly. Maguire had 3 movies to cement his legacy, Garfield just this one. With all that said, I think Garfield does a better job of being Peter Parker than he does Spider-Man. He's a spot on Peter Parker in terms of size, mannerism, the way one would picture a "real life" Peter would act. As Spider-Man however, it's a bit raw. He brings the constant sarcasm and wit that the Maguire Spidey didn't do too much, but Garfield did go a bit over the top at times. Emma Stone, who plays more quirky characters in her career, ends up doing really well as the level headed Gwen Stacy. Rhys Ifans does a better Curt Connors/Lizard than expected, you could really feel for his character, also appearing pretty bad ass in the fight scenes as well. Very well done for Sony, hoping they take this trilogy in the right direction. Expand
  63. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    I don't know what people are talking about with saying the movie was a failure--sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but to say the acting was terrible and the story was old? The acting was believable and the story is what it is. It is following the comic books. The similarities there are between this installment and the others has to do with the fact that it is the same story! I felt they did a really great job at recreating the characters and taking a different route with Gwen Stacy, since the dynamic was more complex than it was with Mary Jane. Anyhow! I loved it! I'm pumped for the next movie. Guess what? I wasn't expecting the movie to make a story that veers from the original, but I was hoping to have a more believable character that wasn't a sap and a love interest that was actually palpable. It delivered those things. That's all it needed for me. I didn't expect a Gotham City retelling of Spider-man, because in Spider-man there isn't political corruption that's ever addressed. In its own rite it fulfilled something that most superhero movies have been missing: substance over action. Expand
  64. Jul 7, 2012
    6
    Well, its far from the best spider-man movie made. However, I still found this movie a half descent flick. I also (And i know everyone is going to disagree with me, but..) thought this movie was better than the Avengers. So, yeah, it was pretty cheesy at some parts, and Spidey was a bit too self centred (My uncle got murdered, Im gonna go kick the crap out of everyone), but it was still a descent flick. Character development was satisfactory, and I somehow liked the transition from webs loaded into wrists to technologically invented webs. It just fit the story better. Expand
  65. Jul 7, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a comic book geek for the past 3 decades, I'm a little more critical than most. However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" gets some things right, comic book-wise, but gets a lot wrong. And from a movie perspective, it's really quite weak. Overall, it's an amazing, albeit expected, disappointment.
    First, let's talk about what The Amazing Spider-Man did right. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man and Peter Parker were very good. He was skinny, gawky, **** and funny. He WAS Ditko's Spidey. I loved him as much as I loved Tobey. And that is saying a LOT. They included his love and aptitude for science. His dialogue while dealing with common criminals was very accurate with a teenager given a little bit of power, yet not realizing the responsibility that comes with it. Painful lessons then ensued to bring said **** teenager back down to Earth. This interpretation of the teenage mind was actually better than the original trilogy. In addition, the creation of his web shooters being a product of Oscorp that he essentially weaponizes was a perfect modern take on them, and another improvement on the original trilogy. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was absolutely adorable. Her strength, personality and sheer cuteness (even though I prefer the red hair...I have such a thing for red hair) complemented Andrew's portrayal well, especially as they interacted more and the story progressed.
    While I was hesitant about the Lizard as a primary villain, they wove him into the story so well that I was pleasantly surprised to find him so interesting. While Rhys Ifans did a great job as Dr. Connors was a much better selection for portraying the raging Lizard, I always liked Dylan Baker's Dr. Connors. The key to making the Lizard a suitable primary villain, though, was weaving him into a story with some depth, which they did. He was centralized very well with not only a reason to become the Lizard, but also a reason to tie him into Peter/Spidey. Also, fixing the problem they had with the portrayal of Venom, the Lizard was larger than life, ominous and a physically superior being to Spider-Man. Finally, while it took until end to finally see it, the last scene with Peter and Aunt May established a very good chemistry and character element to the overall story. I look forward to seeing this blossom in the future movies as it greatly exceeds the original casting by Raimi. At first I was concerned about May not being portrayed as old enough, but in the end, it worked.
    All of the good things above transpired in the second half of the film, which made me actually stay because, while I've only walked out of two movies in my life (Dune and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), this was very close to being my third. The first hour of The Amazing Spider-Man was mind-numblingly boring. I was not aware they were seriously going to redo and/or retell his entire origin. The "untold story" required it, apparently. For those who love the ACTUAL origin story and loved the way Raimi told it, this was a kick to the crotch. It was insulting. It was unnecessary. It was so very badly done. It, frankly, ruined the movie for me. I think there was a way to weave the actual origin into this without redoing it all. Next, the script. While the second half of the movie added meat to this new origin, which made the rest of the film tolerable, the dialogue was complete crap. As much as Andrew and Emma seemed good together, the dialogue between them tried repeatedly to screw it up. It was weak, fake and hard to watch. Completely unnatural for two people who appeared to have chemistry.
    Next, the directing. Direction in this film is clumsy, spotty and elementary. Some action scenes are good, some are choreographed and/or edited very poorly. The camerawork during the Emma/Andrew scenes meant to bring them together and have the viewer care about the relationship developing, misses the mark completely. Editing may be more at fault here, especially during action sequences, but the qualitative variance from scene to scene smack of a poorly directed film.
    In the end, while I am always a sucker for comic book movies, especially beloved ones like Spider-Man, nothing happened in The Amazing Spider-Man to warrant dumping Raimi and the original cast. As bad as some may have thought Spider-Man 3 was, this movie did absolutely nothing to prove this was the right direction in which to go. Yet, based on audience and critical reaction, as well as the press around the mid-credit surprise ending piece, two more movies have been announced to tell yet another trilogy. Hopefully this movie will improve over time as the story unfolds, but with Christopher Nolan's Batman/Dark Knight masterpieces and Raimi's original bar set, there is no reason this movie shouldn't have been able to stand on its own, independent of supporting story lines in later films.
    Expand
  66. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    For those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken some liberties in the origin story for the sake of a better movie, Marc Webb's version appears to be more loyal to the overall fantasy portrayed in the comics. Expand
  67. Jul 7, 2012
    4
    I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse, the action is scarce and not especially entertaining. What I did like were those short 1st-person view moments, which were quite breathtaking. All in all, it's a mediocre superhero movie, which I wouldn't be afraid to miss. Expand
  68. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    When I first heard that they were rebooting Spiderman with stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and that it would be directed by Marc Webb, I was pretty excited. Once I stepped into the theatre, I was ringing with anticipation. And when the movie ended, I was speechless. Yes, this may sound dramatic, but to me, "The Amazing Spider-Man" exceeded my expectations in every single way and completely blew me away. It easily and instantly became one of my favorite movies, and I can't wait to see it again. Here's why: first, I loved the mysterious back story involving peter and his father, which drew you in from the minute the movie began and left you wondering as the movie ended. I was also a huge fan of the Lizard, a slithering, misunderstood villain whose action-packed battles with Spidey were thrilling to watch. Thirdly, and most importantly, the two main characters (Garfield and Stone) stole the show, in my opinion. Not only were their acting and character portrayals superb, but the chemistry between the two actors was so undeniably genuine that I felt as though I was experiencing every emotion along with them. Director Marc Webb, who made another favorite film of mine, (500) Days of Summer, proves that although he may not have the most extensive background in film making, he most definitely has the talent to make heartfelt, interesting and fun films, to say the least. I am absolutely obsessed with "The Amazing Spider-Man" and eagerly anticipate its sequels. Expand
  69. SFN
    Jul 7, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. best spider-man movie ever, period, Andrew plays a absolute perfect spider-man/ Peter Parker, the beautiful Emma stone is perfect for Gwen Stacy, people complain about how the movie takes awhile to get started and it does but only because their telling every detail that the others didn't mostly about Peter's parents, the acting is really good and the i was also impressed with the CG also, me being a spider-man fan and knowing everything there is to know about him this is a perfect film, all these people who say its no good are not real fans, this is a movie for actual spider-man fans not for everyone that goes and see's it, if your a fan you can't go wrong with this movie Expand
  70. Jul 7, 2012
    8
    Anyone who actually knows anything about Spider-Man would understand this is better than the original. Andrew Garfield's wry sense of humor and character out of costume is more on par with the likes of Spider-Man in every sense. Emma Stone is immediately likable and her chemistry with Garfield is great. We were practically forced to like Kirsten Dunst and most of the scenes between her and Maguire were more painfully awkward than enjoyable. Expand
  71. RPD
    Jul 7, 2012
    9
    Andrew Garfield delivers. He's the Peter Parker we should have had in the first place. Better than Spider-Man 1, 2, and 3 combined. Went to see this with my son and a friend of ours and we left talking about how awesome it was. "Better than The Avengers?", I asked. They said yes. Me, I'm not sure if I'd go that far...
  72. Jul 7, 2012
    0
    Watched it, and it is in my opinion the worst Spider-Man movie there is. The movie is more focused on the emotional relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, there is not enough action it's all boring conversations and feelings. The actors looks way to old to be in high school. They also got Dr. Connors character all wrong, Connors wanted to maintain his human nature in the comic books, he didn't want to play a god. This Connors was very gloomy. Personally I think Andrew Garfield is a bad choice for Spider-Man, he looks like something that escaped Twilight, he doesn't look anything like a nerdy outcast. In the movie nothing about Peter's parents is really unveiled. I was looking forward to see the movie, I thought it was an interesting reboot, I liked the new costume and that they have gone back to the web shooters. But it was a great disappointment, I was hoping the Lizard could safe this movie but the villain was poorly made and nothing like I had expected.

    To me the best Spider-Man is and always will be Tobey Maguire.
    Expand
  73. Jul 7, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really enjoyed myself with this one. The story is the old Spider-man story we all know, but it's been changed so that this movie can shine on its own, and it does. It may be predictable, but it works and you really want to see what happens next, even though you already know what does. The movie also does a good job at building up the sequel, by keeping it subtle. There are a few things that haven't been resolved yet, one I'll get into right now. The romance between Peter and Gwen doesn't wait. After you get to know Peter, you get to know Gwen through her interactions with Peter. It's predictable and cliched as well, but it just works and sometimes you really feel for them, especially towards the end. You also get to know Dr. Curt Connors (Lizard) and how he wants to change the world to make the dominant species perfect. He seems sane at first, but then he goes insane through an addiction that I won't get into. The action is phenomenal; it gets the job done with flare. There's never a point where the acting is questionable. There's only a few negatives to this film. The first is with Peter's personality. He really has no defined trait except for his relationship with Gwen and that he used to be a Punk until his uncle died and he became Spider-man. I feel that the movie missed an opportunity where they could have used his photography to transmit his emotions. The other negative is the patriotic moment. In this, all the construction workers line up heavy-duty cranes so that Spider-man has an easier time getting to the final battle after a motivating speech by the boss and a cut to the American Flag. It's not needed, not that its a bad scene and it does make you feel proud. The one in the other Spider-man movie was appropriate because it was just after 9/11 and we all needed that moment for hope. It's not need in this film and it's the one cliche that drags the film down a little. Overall, I enjoyed myself with this movie and I hope you will too. Expand
  74. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    This movie was amazing, the characters are very well played and you really feel for them, the action scenes are awesome and really make you excited and think 'wow', it's not perfect, they spend a lot of time building the story and characters and then just kinda stop and it gets on with the Spider-Man/Lizard story, which isn't bad because the action scenes more than make up for it, anyone who's seen it may know what I mean, but a very good, enjoyable film, looking forward to the next one! Expand
  75. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    Brought to you from Stan Lee's Marvel comic: The Amazing Spider-man, this film production re-imagines all three previous movies into one master piece, in which incredible direction and presentation flows freely. Andrew Garfield makes debut as he takes the costume of his childhood hero, with extremely amazing performance.
  76. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Peter Parker more Peter Parker than ever, and Spider-man more Spider-man than ever.
  77. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Great movie! 9/10. I was also a Spider Man Tobey Maguire fan, but then I really got disappointed in Spider Man 3 because I was expecting a DARKER side of VENOM. Well, this reboot is way too promising, especially when you think "what if Venom/Carnage/Sandman/Jackal/Rhino/Electro/Vulture (name it all with your favorite villains) appears in a SOLO (I didn't like those ANNOYING TAG TEAM FESTS in SPIDER MAN 3) story sequel?, then you'd definitely be excited in awe. This is DARKER, no more exaggerated childish like Spider sense slo-mo's, more realistic, and I believe this could appeal comic fans. I wrote this review, also to show the producers that I want a VENOM/CARNAGE sequel, saving it for the last movie in the franchise (SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST). And if anyone agrees, please help me raise this to the producers!..................AMAZING MOVIE! Expand
  78. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    While the special effects are impressive, the story line is not as well thought out as the 2002 movie. Also Andrew Garfield acting is not as good as that of Tobey Maguire. However the special effects are better than the 2002 movie and the stunts are amazing. Also the suit is really cool. The Lizard is also very cool and his human form as Rhys Ifan is amazing.
  79. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Very good movie, it works almost flawlessly in transition between emotional and action scenes, both Garfield and Stone perform well and they have chemistry, add a great supporting cast and you got yourself a strong film. The action scenes and CGI work is outstanding as well, Spider-Man really shines and there's an obvious strong choreography work behind the scenes, simply fantastic. Couldn't have asked for a better reboot for the franchise. Expand
  80. Jul 6, 2012
    7
    Yeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-Man shots while jumping from building to building. Garfield's acting while Peter Parker saved this movie, and lucky for us, that pretty much dominated this movie. Expand
  81. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    I have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 i didn't think Andrew Garfield was a great choice at first because i've only seen him in "The Social Network" which he was great in but i couldn't picture him as an action star, but i was wrong. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field and Martin Sheen all made up a perfectly blended together cast. I must also say that Rhys Ifans did more than an amazing job as the villain (The Lizard). The Lizard was pretty terrifying at times which is very hard to do in superhero films, and the tone of the movie was great, you actually feel for the characters and what they're going through which certainly is not easy to accomplish in a film, especially one like Spiderman. Everything overall was very well done in this film. My only flaws were the 3d is totally not worth it, there was little to no 3d at all, and in the trailers they showed Spidermans perspective on him swinging from building to building like first person but there wasn't any of that in the actual movie. It also got a bit corny at times when Peter (Spiderman) first got his powers, but thats to be expected to some extent. Overall this was a great film, a definite must-see of the summer, just not in 3d. 9/10 Expand
  82. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Let me start by saying I am a HUGE Spider-man fan. I have been reading the comics since I was a child and I have always been very critical of how he is portrayed.

    As excited as I was about the Toby Maguire films, they were very flawed. If you are going to make a movie from characters that already exist, you have to stay as true as possible to those characters. They are popular for a
    reason and the people going to see them have expectations. The story may have been pretty accurate, but for the most part, the casting, acting, and CGI was horrible (Alfred Molina and Thomas Haden Church excluded, they were fantastic).

    That being said, Spider-man had to be remade, and "The Amazing Spider-Man", in my opinion, delivers.

    The cast looks as though they were pulled right from the books (minus Sally Field, so NOT Aunt May). Garfield as Parker is brilliant. From his tall, lanky, awkward, yet strong and agile frame to his sarcastic and adolescent comments, he is what I would have imagined and wanted him to be on the big screen.

    The Lizard was also very well portrayed. His size, strength, and intelligence came through clearly. No matter how much they showed him I still wanted more.

    The CGI was excellent, the changes between real actors and animation were nearly seamless. Spidey's agility was very apparent as some of his poses were recognizable from a few McFarlane issues.

    It was also the finer details hat made it great, like Spidey's web shooters and The Lizards lab coat (I would sigh when he took it off).

    The story line may not have been as accurate as it should, but his story is always told a little differently each time. I think this version was entertaining and interesting, it gave Spidey some greater depth and made it easier to get behind him.

    Now I didn't see this movie for the love story, or the specific actor, or to be on the edge of my seat every second. I went to see Spider-Man be Spider-Man, the fact that everything else about this movie was still fun to watch was a bonus.

    Any movie can be picked apart, but If you are a fan like me, you will love this film.
    Expand
  83. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Beautifully acted,great visuals,with a great addition of humor.In my opinion,it surpasses the original Spider-man,but it will take time for most people to realize it.
  84. Jul 6, 2012
    10
    I found better this Spider-man than that of Sam Raimi. Meanwhile, I liked how they dealt with the psychology of Peter Parker, I liked the atmosphere are very dark and I loved the mystery that lies in the disappearance of Peter's parents (I also found the best costume that looks more amateur). Now could start a new trilogy and I'm happier this way because they are facing in the world of Spider-man.
  85. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    This is the first Spider-Man movie since 2007's Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is just what a summer reboot looks like! The movie was awesome, I saw the Tuesday night showing before people were getting ready for 4th of July weekend. The ending was shocking, but I can't say any spoilers right now! However, my guess is that there's gonna be a sequel to the movie soon if Andrew Garfield is gonna come back reprising Spider-Man. I believe The Hobgoblin should be in the movie, but I don't know yet. It was a great reboot and I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises coming out. I hope there's gonna be a line. Expand
  86. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Right off the bat, The Amazing Spider-Man is the best out of all four Spider-Man movies released so far. The key positive aspect of Mark Webb's reboot and what Sam Raimi failed to achieve with his franchise is remain faithful to the comic books. All of Peter Parker's iconic moments is still intact, the inevitable spider bite, uncle Ben's death, the first time he dons the realistic-looking suit, it's covered in greater detail and you don't feel the Expand
  87. Jul 6, 2012
    4
    What a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dying had no effect on him what so ever. He was very **** and went right into attacks. He was not tactical at all. It felt so incredibly rushed. The story moves so quickly. He just gets the suit. It's like he pulled it out of his ass or something. This was a complete let down. The story is so generic and one-dimensional. I don't even know why they had him like cameras. They tried to make him some cool kid. He used the camera like one time and didn't use it any other time. The comedy was the only thing appealing. The fight scenes were very generic and predictable. He's a lazy, disrespectful, over-confident, teenager who happens to get abilities to climb on walls. It is also stupid how he has those little machines pushing out webs. It makes him so much more vulnerable. All you have to do is aim for those and he's as good as dead. Would not watch again. Expand
  88. Jul 6, 2012
    5
    I loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in 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
  89. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    All I have to say is this is by far the best Marvel movie I have seen since Iron Man. I cant believe how well written this movie is. I wasn't bored, I cared about the characters and what they were going through. Every actor played there parts perfectly. It wasn't like avengers which was a 2 hour and 30 minute toy commercial and completely forgot about what the story was about and character growth. I can also say like others have already that its also better than the first 3 spiderman movies combined. Comic book movie directors, writers and producers should see this movie as the perfect example on how to do a well balanced Superhero movie. Expand
  90. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    As far as genesis movies go, this one is fantastic. Furthermore, it completely trumps Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. I'll admit I was skeptical of Andrew Garfield's ability to carry an iconic role like this one, but he did so beautifully. He was the right amount of dorky, funny, and serious, while giving a new feel to the Peter Parker character. I also loved the fact that Emma Stone was in this movie, and as Gwen Stacy at that. She always provides solid acting and natural charm.

    The writers and directors did a good job of providing a lot of true-to-the-story components in the film. It is tough to do a revamp of a film within a decade and have the guts to actually retell the story from scratch, but this movie did just that. Overall, there was an appropriate balance of plot, romance, and action, as well as a seamless flow from beginning to end. Lastly, I was thoroughly entertained with Spider-Man's new fighting style. His movements were much sharper and present than in the past, but graceful and fluid when they needed to be. As a serious movie-goer and longtime comic book fanatic, this movie got it right.
    Expand
  91. Jul 5, 2012
    8
    This fresh reboot takes the original film to all new levels with a slightly more fleshed out stores and three-dimensional characters (figuratively and literally). The lizard may not make quite as good of a villain as the Green Goblin, but Garfield's Spiderman dominates. Tobey Macguire who? Emma Stone provides a relatable love interest and truly allows you to feel for her character. The cinematography and visual effects are top notch and help to provide a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Expand
  92. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    This is pure comic book entertainment value. I consider this the best Spider-Man origin story yet. Its better than the original Spider-Man, but not quite as good as Spider-Man 2. Its hard to go back to having one superhero after seeing a movie like The Avengers, but The Amazing Spider-Man is a fantastic reboot because of high-powered action and high charisma coming from the film's leads. Also, The Lizard is the best Spider-Man villain since Doc Ock. Expand
  93. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    The movie is indeed AMAZING!

    It is by bar the best Spider-man movie yet!! Spider-man is agile, fast and his acrobatic movements are really well performed. This is the best spider man characterization yet, it outdoes the 3 previous movies. In previous films, spiderman was very slow and felt heavy, and his acrobatic movements were a bit lame. In this movie the action sequences are
    spectacular!! Also the effects and the CGI are top notch.

    The story is really well done, even though it forces some events a bit, that you may think require more time "completed", but still; the plot is well written. I have to say that this movie is an improvement over the previous ones in every aspect. The way he gets his powers and why he has them are better explained (even though that is not how it happens in the comics lol). The acting is good, you can feel the emotions and motivations of the characters. GO AND WATCH IT!!! IT IS ONE OF THE BEST SUPER-HERO MOVIES EVER!!!!
    Expand
  94. Jul 5, 2012
    3
    I watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back. The actors and actresses used didn't always fit the parts, just didn't feel smooth enough. The movie never sucked me into it as most shows and movies are suppose to do and most good ones do do to me. I am glad I got to see this movie at no cost. Expand
  95. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    For those of us that grew up with the comics and eventually the cartoon series, you can imagine how disappointed we were when we saw all the things spiderman screwed up, the Green Goblin being enhanced like he was a main bad guy and venom getting a solid kill count of 1 before spiderman defeats him. On top of all that Sam Raimi mixed some of his own personal struggles as a youth with Tobi Mcguire. It was as if he was doing to spiderman what George Lucas was doing to Darth Vader.
    Webb comes along and completely brings truth to the series, captures the Lizard perfectly and defines a spiderman who is bright like his father and shows that he's actually quite vulnerable a hero. He doesn't shoot webbing out of his hands all weird. He actually builds the devices to launch webbing that was developed by his fathers corporation (why spiderman is often considered batmanesque, he's actually quite smart and designs things). I still tip my hat to Raimi, as he brought the series to the silverscreen for the first time & such a movie wouldn't have been done so well if it wasn't for him. Hopefully like Batman we'll get to see the series expand just don't bring in the green goblin, the hobgoblin is much more powerful and actually remains the same person throughout the series.
    Expand
  96. Jul 5, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Dear Mark Webb. Is your name Christopher Nolan? No? THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE?!?! Full disclosure here I actually review movies and videogames professionally this is not a professional review this is a fan's livid rant about how my fellow peers can rate an average movie so highly. I have to give Mr Webb credit for being bold. He tries a lot of new ideas some work but most don't. The plot changes itself in the middle of the movie not once but twice. I don't know who to blame here. i never expected much from this movie since hearing about it two years ago, but after seeing some of the previews I thought maybe just maybe it might not be half bad. Unfortunately I was horribly horribly wrong. What is it everyone loves about this movie? The story of the movie is just as lost and confused as the rest of us. I thought Emma Stone looked quite a bit like Gwen Stacy I think she did a decent job. I think Garfield did as best as he could with the script given to him he certainly moved like Spider-Man did, but why was his character portrayed so far from what makes Peter Parker? I really don't know who is at fault here I think enough went wrong that it isn't possible for one person to take the blame for all of it. I would recommend seeing it so you can understand just how horribly things went wrong. I would like to ask my fellow peers just how many of you sucked Stan Lee's dick to give this average movie such a high rating. Very little is ever resolved. The whole movie feels like they filmed about 6 hours worth of footage, and a few months before the movie was set to release they realized they were out of time, and said ok just watch the footage and give me 2 and a half hours worth of decent material. Then we all give it to the editors and work or magic. Audiences are so gullible and trusting now so they will just take whatever we give them as long as we throw some cool special effects in there to whet their appetite. Why am I so angry you ask? This movie was meant to "correct" whatever Canon issues the Sam Raimi films had. It does the exact opposite. They change the personality of Peter Parker ENTIRELY from "canon" He is a somewhat loner skater kid? I was waiting for Avril Lavigne sk8er boi to kick in in the background. Peter was bullied he doesn't save others from bullies he was NEVER a popular kid. Furthermore what happens to the vengeance? Ya we know he won't go through with it but the entire thing is dropped. They spend 20 minutes of the movie setting it up just to drop it entirely? Oh and what happened to the dialogue in EVERY trailer of Kurt Konners telling Peter "You think this was a coincidence?" I think we all know where the story would have gone, problem is it didn't exist in the movie. Whatever plot used to be in the movie, and isn't is advertised heavily in the trailer. This movie pissed me off but it pisses me off more that so many of my peers are freaking sell outs. It isn't horrible but it is far from Amazing. Who do we blame editing department? Director? Writer? Pushy Producers? They changed just about everything about Spider-man yet they claimed this would be more "true" to the original. And most importantly. WHY THE HELL DID HALF THE FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE KNOW WHO HE WAS? Expand
  97. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    The film is amazing, is not better than spider man 2 more equals the first film in terms of quality and is much better than Spiderman 3.
    The script is not very competent, however the actors as well as special effects and plot development are very good. In terms of adapting, the amazing spider man shows his strongest point, he takes seriously the fans showing several references to old
    comics. All this plus a great 3-D forms a very good film that deserves to be watched. Expand
  98. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    Gone is the de facto essence of the original Sam Raimi series that captivated crowds with its webby charm. In fact, some may say that the story of Peter Parker's meteoric rise to superhero status has already been beaten to death and the Spider-Man name is better off succumbed to cobwebs; but, lo and behold, something amazing has emerged in its wake since we last caught up with our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Yes, arachnophobes rejoice, because there's nothing more to be afraid of. The Amazing Spider-Man may initially come across a sort of tumorous growth next to the already existing Spidey movie franchise, but what it does do, it does web-free. Swipe the whole 'radioactive spider' thing away and proceed to stomp all over it with relent as you may, what you'll discover is a movie that's not been built around the device of a magical creepy crawler that goes and turns the world upside down with an infectuous little bite, but a movie that plays off of this ludricous idea of eight-legged heroic origin beautifully. With that in mind, go see The Amazing Spider-Man. You won't be disappointed. Oh, and let me add that the little romance which goes on between Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) is not annoying, but stirring...not to mention that the director's last name is Webb. Expand
  99. Jul 5, 2012
    8
    Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone bound is undeniably charming. With sure-handed direction from Marc Webb, pull the memories of Raimi's trilogy. Spider-Man is only human being with spider bite, it's the most realistic but really close to its source. People complain about the 3D, so am I. But it's the agenda from the start, looks deeper.
  100. Jul 5, 2012
    5
    This film is okay. Everything you expect, nothing you don't. List all of the superhero clichés and you'll find them. It isn't a smart movie in any aspect. Bad dialogue, questionable cutting. What frustrates me the most is all of the missed opportunities to take this rich universe and say something meaningful with it. Where it has the opportunity to soar, it strolls and plays it safe.
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.