User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1450 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 20, 2013
    7
    Two hours long, this reboot of the Spiderman franchise is substantial; a solid film. It is nothing like the original trilogy, but it still keeps your attention for a little bit, occasionally losing focus, then hitting a solid note again. It's a drifting movie looking for a target.
  2. 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. TheThis 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
  3. Nov 10, 2012
    9
    When I first heard about this reboot I wasn't looking forward to it at all. I expected it to suck, after I saw that they changed Spidey's suit I was sure they were going to ruin Spider-Man, but after seeing the movie I'm proud to say that it's fantastic. Yeah they changed the suit, and while I'm still not cool with it I have to admit it's not a bad looking suit. They did add a few moreWhen I first heard about this reboot I wasn't looking forward to it at all. I expected it to suck, after I saw that they changed Spidey's suit I was sure they were going to ruin Spider-Man, but after seeing the movie I'm proud to say that it's fantastic. Yeah they changed the suit, and while I'm still not cool with it I have to admit it's not a bad looking suit. They did add a few more elements from the comics this time around. Peter is a high-schooler, has web-shooters this time around, and Gwen Stacy is the love interest this time around, and they all make the movie feel fresh. It's the same origin story we saw in the first Spider-Man movie back in 2002, but they manage to make their own changes to these familiar scenes to make them different rather than a complete retread. A big addition to the series is the mystery behind Peter's parents, which is something I can't wait to see where they take it. The movie is fantastic and Spidey fans will not be disappointed, however it does have some flaws, they left out Spider-Man's spider sense, and didn't include the classic "With great power comes great responsibility". While leaving out Spidey's spider sense isn't really a big deal at all, just noticeable (and to be honest I really didn't miss it), the fact that they left out those powerful words from Peter's Uncle Ben (at least in my opinion) is horrible and never should have happened. Even with it's flaws I loved every second of this movie, and can't wait to see where they take it from here. Expand
  4. Nov 28, 2012
    8
    A great cast, and solid directing headline the many merits of this exceptionally entertaining, but slightly extraneous reboot.
  5. Jan 3, 2013
    8
    So much better then the original Spider Man. Garfield fits perfectly as Peter Parker, The rest of the cast is solid as well, The story is more loyal to the comic books. It's simply an enjoyable movie.
  6. Nov 5, 2012
    6
    An interesting new take on the Spiderman franchise. I like the way this film gives us a feel for who Peter Parker is as a person by taking us through his past and then introducing the key characters that make up his life in the present.
  7. Mar 15, 2013
    7
    I liked the Raimi Spider Man movies (even the third one was ok), but unlike those movies I really liked how Marc Webb handles the relationship between Peter and Gwen.
  8. Nov 26, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider-Man is probably the best in the franchise yet. The movie is particularly fun when dealing with the discovery of powers. It doesn't hurt that Emma Stone is hot, either. This Spider-Man is at it's worst during the action scenes but still does more than enough to entertain. Basically speaking, The Amazing Spider-Man is a promising reboot.
  9. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    I enjoyed the first Raimi Spider-Man film (and hated the second one). At the time, with nothing to really compare them to, I thought Tobey and Dunst were solid enough, but after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I realize that there was real chemistry lacking between the original's leads. Garfield is much better than Tobey - Tobey's unaffected, bored look worked in The Cider House Rules,I enjoyed the first Raimi Spider-Man film (and hated the second one). At the time, with nothing to really compare them to, I thought Tobey and Dunst were solid enough, but after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I realize that there was real chemistry lacking between the original's leads. Garfield is much better than Tobey - Tobey's unaffected, bored look worked in The Cider House Rules, but not as Peter Parker. I buy Garfield much more as a high school kid, and Emma Stone is so much more dynamic than Dunst (who excels in such art house flicks as The Virgin Suicides and Melancholia - but not in the popcorn / comic flick realm). Even the antagonist is much more believable and even sympathetic in the right ways. All-around, I think this is the best big screen version of Spidey. No, it's nothing like the Batman Begins reinvention of that franchise, but it's still superior fare. Expand
  10. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    This is pure comic book entertainment value. I consider this the best Spider-Man origin story yet. Its better than the original Spider-Man, but not quite as good as Spider-Man 2. Its hard to go back to having one superhero after seeing a movie like The Avengers, but The Amazing Spider-Man is a fantastic reboot because of high-powered action and high charisma coming from the film's leads.This is pure comic book entertainment value. I consider this the best Spider-Man origin story yet. Its better than the original Spider-Man, but not quite as good as Spider-Man 2. Its hard to go back to having one superhero after seeing a movie like The Avengers, but The Amazing Spider-Man is a fantastic reboot because of high-powered action and high charisma coming from the film's leads. Also, The Lizard is the best Spider-Man villain since Doc Ock. Expand
  11. Aug 8, 2012
    6
    Watched a 2D version in the cinema, and now the aftertaste is quite irony since the redux deliberately put an
  12. Nov 22, 2014
    9
    I enjoyed the revived Spiderman even more than the any of the films from the original trilogy. This film focuses more on the Spiderman that we see in cartoons and comic books and Andrew Garfield just seems more suited for the role than Tobey McGuire did. He could never win the fans bad after the dance scene in Spiderman 3. I like the addition of Gwen Stacey as a main character as they areI enjoyed the revived Spiderman even more than the any of the films from the original trilogy. This film focuses more on the Spiderman that we see in cartoons and comic books and Andrew Garfield just seems more suited for the role than Tobey McGuire did. He could never win the fans bad after the dance scene in Spiderman 3. I like the addition of Gwen Stacey as a main character as they are following the storyline that should have been followed during the first 3 films. Expand
  13. Aug 24, 2014
    7
    Strong 3 1/2 stars.

    Very enjoyable. Good plot elements and plenty of that giddy feeling you get when a superhero blooms. However, I found that Peter's discovery of his abilities was somewhat... dismissed and not really focused on. That seemed to be a persisting theme in the movie; it moved fluently and didn't feel empty but nothing was really delved too deeply into, be it people,
    Strong 3 1/2 stars.

    Very enjoyable. Good plot elements and plenty of that giddy feeling you get when a superhero blooms.

    However, I found that Peter's discovery of his abilities was somewhat... dismissed and not really focused on. That seemed to be a persisting theme in the movie; it moved fluently and didn't feel empty but nothing was really delved too deeply into, be it people, their evolution or backgrounds.

    For whatever reason I thought the Lizard could have been created a little better. There was something off about him, I don't know what, as he looked just as good as the rest of the movie but something kept bothering me about him.

    All in all a great movie, with very nice soundtrack and good actor performances. Definitely able to stand in comparison to the other recent Marvel movie endeavors (although I wouldn't yet compare this to the most successful ones).
    Expand
  14. Jan 15, 2013
    6
    I still don't think this movie needed to be made, but I honestly didn't care so long as it was a good film; The Amazing Spider-Man is a good film. Sure, it covers some familiar territory, but it also adds/changes some aspects of the story which is much appreciated; it stands on its own and is more than capable of sustaining another franchise for a while longer. Andrew Garfield is a veryI still don't think this movie needed to be made, but I honestly didn't care so long as it was a good film; The Amazing Spider-Man is a good film. Sure, it covers some familiar territory, but it also adds/changes some aspects of the story which is much appreciated; it stands on its own and is more than capable of sustaining another franchise for a while longer. Andrew Garfield is a very solid and likable Peter/Spider-Man (as well as a solid actor), and Emma Stone is great as well; their fantastic chemistry is what drives this film. Rhys Ifans is an adequate villain, but he's underwhelming to say the least. I look forward to the sequel and potential future Marvel collaborations. Expand
  15. Mar 6, 2013
    8
    That was fast.. this reboot, that is, Sony are now bound to hold the record for the quickest franchise reboot in history, and many may now ask, did Spider-Man need a brand new set of films?
    Personally, no. The last film in the original trilogy starring Tobey Maguire and directed by Sam Raimi was a mess to say the least, but Iron Man 2 was a bit of a shambles, it didn't get a reboot.
    That was fast.. this reboot, that is, Sony are now bound to hold the record for the quickest franchise reboot in history, and many may now ask, did Spider-Man need a brand new set of films?
    Personally, no. The last film in the original trilogy starring Tobey Maguire and directed by Sam Raimi was a mess to say the least, but Iron Man 2 was a bit of a shambles, it didn't get a reboot.
    Although it is clear that there wasn't much necessity to restart this superhero, thats not to say this isn't a good film, because its actually a great film, with a few inkling flaws that stick out, but this tells an excellent origin story that the original never did.
    New director Marc Webb tells an interesting story here, he goes right back to basics with our hero Peter Parker being left by his parents to his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) after a interestingly vague opening, thus sets a motion many mysterious and unexplained events that will truly hold you to enjoy this film.
    We are then introduced to an older Peter, (played by Andrew Garfield) who brings a new sense of spirit and light-hearted,pop-cultured nature to the role. He longs after Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) who is in his class and who is also working at Oscorp, where Peter is then bitten by a genetically modified spider, he then realises that he has incorporated superhuman abilities and uses them to his advantage. Working at Oscorp also is Dr. Curt Connors, who is attempting to re-grow is amputated arm by combining genes, with disastrous results.
    When tragedy strikes, Peter seeks revenge, now donning a custom-made spidey suit. He soon attracts attention to himself through the police and of course Dr Connors, and as he continues to explore his abilities, he shows his emotional attachment to Gwen.
    This love story is Webb's strongest point of the film, not just between Gwen and Peter, but the overall reaction to situations within the film, it feels more real and life-like and brings the movie in a different direction than its predecessors. The one low point has to be the pacing of the story, as it never seems to be told as a stand alone film, it always seems to be building to something we, the viewer know we won't see in this film, whether its unanswered questions or unexplained plot developments that are not acted upon, it always seems that, 'yeah, we're gonna leave that to the sequel'...why? Why not tell the story now and develop later?
    But this aside, it has excellent acting in the form of the two young leads, and a strangely enjoyable emotional depth that Marc Webb delivers with excellent confidence, perhaps not a mind-blowing reboot, but certainly an excellent restoration of the franchise.
    Expand
  16. Sep 24, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a decent quality film and a pretty fun ride. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are excellent, with Garfield remembering to be a human first and a superhero second, and stone having great chemistry with the web-head as Peter Parker's highschool sweetheart Gwen Stacy. Denis Leary is also superb as Gwen's over-protective, condescending but well-meaning police captainThe Amazing Spider-Man is a decent quality film and a pretty fun ride. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are excellent, with Garfield remembering to be a human first and a superhero second, and stone having great chemistry with the web-head as Peter Parker's highschool sweetheart Gwen Stacy. Denis Leary is also superb as Gwen's over-protective, condescending but well-meaning police captain dad. Rhys Ifans is less successful as The Lizard, the film's most prominent antagonist, his performance inconsistent, his character's motivations ill-defined and his CGI-transformed appearance looking a little off (an anthropomorphic face grafted onto a reptilian body turns out not to be the cleverest design decision in motion picture history). It's nice to see a new take on the titular hero that's more like Smallville than Sam Raimi's trilogy, but you do feel a little cheated at the film's conclusion with its many hanging plot threads that will doubtless be resolved in the sequel(s). Though The Amazing Spider-Man breaks new ground in terms of its slow-burning style of storytelling, the key beats in the plot are predictable and cliched, and the film as a whole is far too long, though I'm not sure which scenes could justifiably be cut to improve pacing without negatively impacting the story as a whole. It's oddly gratifying to see director Marc Webb finally attempt to address the (theoretical) physics involved in someone swinging from skyscrapers, and by executing many of the film's stunts in reality using sophisticated wire-work and harnesses, he manages to avoid the slightly rubbery Spidey of the Raimi era. The Amazing Spider-Man is a solid foundation for a new franchise that remains pleasingly grounded and promises to explore the lesser-known lore of the Spideyverse. The post-credits scene also suggests that the sequel could go to some really interesting places now all that lengthy exposition is out of the way again. Expand
  17. May 12, 2014
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a mixed bag getting a lot of stuff right and some stuff eh. The film smartly chooses to really develop Peter Parker making him a full fleshed out character, which is why I love Spider-Man. The film also smartly goes for a more realistic story as opposed to the cartoony/light-hearted feel of the Raimi films giving the movie an identity of its own. The film suffersThe Amazing Spider-Man is a mixed bag getting a lot of stuff right and some stuff eh. The film smartly chooses to really develop Peter Parker making him a full fleshed out character, which is why I love Spider-Man. The film also smartly goes for a more realistic story as opposed to the cartoony/light-hearted feel of the Raimi films giving the movie an identity of its own. The film suffers though from a not so impressive supporting cast, a second half that lacks the depth/substance that made the first half mostly engaging, and rehashing some stuff from the original film. At the end of the day though I liked it. In all honest there are two big reasons why this film didn’t leave that big of an impact on me. For starters, I have immense love of the original films (especially the first two), which will be hard to shake and the fact that this film is coming out ten years after the original Spider-Man movie and five years after the last Spider-Man film so that one is still stuck in my mind. Maybe if the film had come out later or been the original Spider-Man movie I would be more in love with it as opposed to comparing it to the original because it works as its own thing. The second reason why I feel like this movie didn’t make that big of an impression on me was because it came out the same year as The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises two big superhero movies that had a lot of people talking and I guess this one just got lost in the shuffle. So if you are one of the people who missed this film when it came out check this film out as it is entertaining. I’d especially recommend it to people who didn’t think much of the original film as people who didn’t care much for it (ex. Doug Walker, Confused Matthew, and Roger Ebert) seem to prefer this one. If I could shake my nostalgia for the original I’d probably really enjoy it to. If you are a die hard fan of the original like me then try to go in with an open mind or you will be disappointed like I was upon my first viewing. The second time around I was able to accept the film for what it was and appreciate it for what it was trying to do. This is a good start to this new Spider-Man franchise and I hope that Sony keeps it going and doesn’t botch up the second one along with the other planned sequels or they’ll have to try again in another 10 years (which they will probably do anyway) and I don’t know how it will be reviewing the reboot of the reboot. Expand
  18. Nov 29, 2012
    9
    This was an outstanding movie and, in my opinion, better than the Spider-Man films of a decade ago. I enjoy the way Andrew Garfield portrays the Peter Parker character much more than Toby McGuire. He is not such a dweeb, is more charismatic, wittier, and just a better actor in general. And thank you to whoever decided to use Emma Stone as the romantic/love interest. Not only is she one ofThis was an outstanding movie and, in my opinion, better than the Spider-Man films of a decade ago. I enjoy the way Andrew Garfield portrays the Peter Parker character much more than Toby McGuire. He is not such a dweeb, is more charismatic, wittier, and just a better actor in general. And thank you to whoever decided to use Emma Stone as the romantic/love interest. Not only is she one of the best young actresses in Hollywood but she is absolutely stunning. Much more believable for the role of the beautiful "damsel in distress" than Kirsten Dunst. I'm sorry but I am not a fan of Dunst and don't understand why people find her attractive. I also thought the rest of the cast was great. Denis Leary and Martin Sheen almost stole the show. The director also made the physics more realistic. With the exception of a football bending a goal post in half, the physics felt more authentic throughout, not only the combat but also just the gliding through the city shooting out webs. I also liked the plot development. I had a friend mention how they prolonged the "origin" too much for his tastes but I actually enjoyed that a lot. If they are making this into a trilogy, there's plenty of time for Spider-Man moments but you can never come back and capture the beginning stages of the superhero and the person behind the mask. Ultimately, the only thing that held this movie back for me was that it felt like we've seen it before. Other than some minor alterations to the story and obviously different actors, this was very similar to the one a decade ago and more than anything, it FELT like the older one. I thought it was better but not by much, mainly because it had the same overall feel and tone. I would've much rather had them take the Spider-Man story they had here and made it a little darker and more intense and dramatic. There is plenty of potential there but they don't take advantage of it. Instead, you essentially have yet another little kid/teenager superhero movie. Out of all of the superhero movies being made, it's definitely the least mature of them and that holds it back for me. Give Christopher Nolan this story and he'll make it amazing. Expand
  19. Aug 16, 2014
    5
    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 ****
  20. Jan 31, 2013
    7
    It was far better than I expected it to be. But was it really necessary to have yet another Spider-Man origin story so soon? Andrew Garfield is far more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was but I still feel he doesn't look the part. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker & Sally Field as Aunt May were a pleasant surprise, but I feel their faces are far too familiar to be playing suchIt was far better than I expected it to be. But was it really necessary to have yet another Spider-Man origin story so soon? Andrew Garfield is far more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was but I still feel he doesn't look the part. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker & Sally Field as Aunt May were a pleasant surprise, but I feel their faces are far too familiar to be playing such iconic characters. Emma Stone is a pretty good Gwen Stacy. But as someone else here said both Stone & Garfield are perhaps a bit to old for the roles they've been cast in, and they look it. The movie could have been better as it did take a bit too long to build up to Spider-Man's first appearance (about an hour if I remember correctly.) However the Spider-Man of this movie is just perfect. Far more true to the character from the comics. The Lizard was also pretty well portrayed and I'm one of the few who actually liked the new design, it felt more believable. Classic Lizard does look cooler but might have come off too cartooney in live action. Also, it really was a shame that Ben Parker never said his famous "with great power ...." line. I found it really curious as to why they left it out? Overall: A slight improvement on the 2002's Spider-man, but just barely. Hopefully the pacing in the next film will be a bit better without needlessly drawn out expositional scenes. Expand
  21. Mar 8, 2014
    8
    I'm actually really pleased with this reboot. It's darker than the original Sam Raimi movies, it's not as cheesy, and I would say this movie comes in match with "Spider-Man 2". However, I did not find the lizard too interesting - it could have been better developed.
  22. Mar 13, 2015
    4
    A third of the movie is a mediocre remake of the 1st Spider-Man movie. Another third of the movie was a bad teenage soap opera. The few action scenes were cliche and predictable. The Lizardman looked cheesy as hell. I didn't see much humor and fun in the film like I did in Sam Rammi's Spider-Man movies. It was boring.
  23. Mar 31, 2013
    9
    This is a solid reboot of a rather recent series of films that probably didn't need to be done so soon, but it has been done very well. Andrew Garfield is great as the new Peter Parker and overall it's a great cast! Storyline is similar to how the other series starts out but things change here and there. MJ is no more but Gwen is in the leading lady role played by the gorgeous Emma StoneThis is a solid reboot of a rather recent series of films that probably didn't need to be done so soon, but it has been done very well. Andrew Garfield is great as the new Peter Parker and overall it's a great cast! Storyline is similar to how the other series starts out but things change here and there. MJ is no more but Gwen is in the leading lady role played by the gorgeous Emma Stone who does a great job! Overall it's nothing but entertainment and quite enjoyable to watch Expand
  24. Sep 23, 2012
    3
    The worst movie and marvel that ever seen! This film does nothing more than fill scenes without inportancia (leftover). The biggest star of the movie is boredom.
  25. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Finally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of AndrewFinally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are correct. The effects are amazing. The problems are the next: The Lizard, looks some weird, some important characters (yes the aunt may) appear on a background. Is a good reboot, I think that is better than the Avengers. I wanna watch the second part. Expand
  26. Jan 13, 2014
    6
    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.
  27. Jul 13, 2012
    5
    All I could think of while watching
  28. Nov 10, 2014
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a mostly successful reboot of Spiderman despite having an agonizingly weak antagonist and shared plots with first Spider-Man movie.
  29. Mar 2, 2013
    10
    Amazing Spider Man? I agree!!!!! This was way better than the Dancing spider man on the other version! I loved it! It felt much more realistic, it`s more like the new batman series! The story, the action, everything was good. I usually hate the romance scenes since every movie feels they need one, but I can in this movie it blended in with no problem. This is the best super hero movie thatAmazing Spider Man? I agree!!!!! This was way better than the Dancing spider man on the other version! I loved it! It felt much more realistic, it`s more like the new batman series! The story, the action, everything was good. I usually hate the romance scenes since every movie feels they need one, but I can in this movie it blended in with no problem. This is the best super hero movie that I can think of after "Batman" of course. Expand
  30. Dec 8, 2014
    8
    Although the story sometimes succumbs to some of the 2002's Spider-Man plot points, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a satisfying installment in Marvel canon thanks to its fantastic cast, well-handed direction and an appealingly dark tone.
  31. Jun 7, 2013
    6
    With the Sam Raimi directed trilogy still fresh in our minds it is impossible not to make comparisons when watching this latest reboot of the franchise, particularly since the movies opening forty-five minutes again takes us through Spiderman’s origin story. Most viewers will be already be familiar with this story and so it is questionable whether so much time needed to be spent on it butWith the Sam Raimi directed trilogy still fresh in our minds it is impossible not to make comparisons when watching this latest reboot of the franchise, particularly since the movies opening forty-five minutes again takes us through Spiderman’s origin story. Most viewers will be already be familiar with this story and so it is questionable whether so much time needed to be spent on it but it still makes for watchable cinema.

    From then on the movie goes in its own direction and in some ways The Amazing Spiderman is an improvement over its predecessor. Being released ten years after the first of the previous trilogy the special effects and CGI are obviously a big improvement with Spiderman himself moving far more convincingly and The Lizard looking very realistic. Emma Stone, as Gwen Stacy, is also far more likable than Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane Watson while Andrew Garfield is close to matching Toby Maguire in the lead role. The plot involving Peter Parkers parents also provides a little more depth to the overall plot of the movie and its future sequels.

    On the down side this reboot, while having its moments, was not quite as funny as Raimi’s origin story and seeing the Webbed Crusader on screen does not have quite the same impact it once had. This is certainly a decent start to this new franchise however and I am hopeful it will deliver more in the future.
    Expand
  32. Aug 17, 2014
    6
    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
    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
  33. Apr 22, 2015
    6
    Where to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam RaimiWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

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

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

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

    For me, this is as deflating a movie as I have seen all year. Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary that it made me want to gnash my teeth in frustration. Rebooting Spider-Man, while a questionable endeavor in its own right, offered an opportunity to do something unique with the character. Take it to a place where it hasn't been.
    Expand
  34. 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 YorkProving 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
  35. Jul 29, 2014
    6
    I believe "The Amazing Spider-Man" has some better qualities than the "Spider-Man" trilogy. Garfield's take on the character seems pretty interesting and fresh, compared to Maguire's, and Emma Stone is adorable as Gwen Stacy. The plot is nothing new and original, the story may seem pointless after so much Spider-Man on screen in the 2000s, but the chemistry between Garfield and Stone andI believe "The Amazing Spider-Man" has some better qualities than the "Spider-Man" trilogy. Garfield's take on the character seems pretty interesting and fresh, compared to Maguire's, and Emma Stone is adorable as Gwen Stacy. The plot is nothing new and original, the story may seem pointless after so much Spider-Man on screen in the 2000s, but the chemistry between Garfield and Stone and some beautiful CGI and sound save the day. Expand
  36. Jan 6, 2014
    6
    Mudou um pouco a história e realmente ficou interessante.
  37. Jul 29, 2013
    7
    Well cast and shot, but I think the story was a bit lacking. The 'greatness' that Peter Parker was supposedly destined for according to Uncle Ben was nowhere to be seen. The first half, in which the protagonist is often seen without the costume, is more engaging. There were some memorable scenes, like the first time Peter talks to Gwen. This is my second favourite movie of the characterWell cast and shot, but I think the story was a bit lacking. The 'greatness' that Peter Parker was supposedly destined for according to Uncle Ben was nowhere to be seen. The first half, in which the protagonist is often seen without the costume, is more engaging. There were some memorable scenes, like the first time Peter talks to Gwen. This is my second favourite movie of the character after Spider Man 2. Expand
  38. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    It is a great film filled with human emotion and multiple conflicts. Webb makes a film more worried about characters then action. This is not to say that the action scenes are not masterfully crafted and beautiful looking. These characters are dear to us similarly to the ones of 500 days of summer. The only other super hero movies to have the same effect is Nolan's Batman series. You knowIt is a great film filled with human emotion and multiple conflicts. Webb makes a film more worried about characters then action. This is not to say that the action scenes are not masterfully crafted and beautiful looking. These characters are dear to us similarly to the ones of 500 days of summer. The only other super hero movies to have the same effect is Nolan's Batman series. You know that when you can compare a film to Nolan's Batman series it is a great film and this one is the best of the year so far. Collapse
  39. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    This is the first Spider-Man movie since 2007's Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is just what a summer reboot looks like! The movie was awesome, I saw the Tuesday night showing before people were getting ready for 4th of July weekend. The ending was shocking, but I can't say any spoilers right now! However, my guess is that there's gonna be a sequel to the movie soon if AndrewThis is the first Spider-Man movie since 2007's Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is just what a summer reboot looks like! The movie was awesome, I saw the Tuesday night showing before people were getting ready for 4th of July weekend. The ending was shocking, but I can't say any spoilers right now! However, my guess is that there's gonna be a sequel to the movie soon if Andrew Garfield is gonna come back reprising Spider-Man. I believe The Hobgoblin should be in the movie, but I don't know yet. It was a great reboot and I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises coming out. I hope there's gonna be a line. Expand
  40. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    I have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 iI have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 i didn't think Andrew Garfield was a great choice at first because i've only seen him in "The Social Network" which he was great in but i couldn't picture him as an action star, but i was wrong. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field and Martin Sheen all made up a perfectly blended together cast. I must also say that Rhys Ifans did more than an amazing job as the villain (The Lizard). The Lizard was pretty terrifying at times which is very hard to do in superhero films, and the tone of the movie was great, you actually feel for the characters and what they're going through which certainly is not easy to accomplish in a film, especially one like Spiderman. Everything overall was very well done in this film. My only flaws were the 3d is totally not worth it, there was little to no 3d at all, and in the trailers they showed Spidermans perspective on him swinging from building to building like first person but there wasn't any of that in the actual movie. It also got a bit corny at times when Peter (Spiderman) first got his powers, but thats to be expected to some extent. Overall this was a great film, a definite must-see of the summer, just not in 3d. 9/10 Expand
  41. 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.
  42. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    I am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes thisI am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes this installment too repetitive in several spots. While I have high hopes for this production team, we have to wait for the inevitable AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to see this interpretation flourish. Expand
  43. Dec 17, 2013
    8
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a mostly successful reboot of Spiderman despite having an agonizingly weak antagonist and shared plots with first Spider-Man movie.
  44. BKM
    Jul 5, 2012
    5
    Reboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it really necessary to start from scratch so soon? While that can be debated, the film itself is a letdown thanks in large part to its attempts to present a darkerReboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it really necessary to start from scratch so soon? While that can be debated, the film itself is a letdown thanks in large part to its attempts to present a darker and hipper Spidey than we are accustomed to. Peter Parker rides a skateboard? He barely even has to try to win the affections of Gwen Stacey? None of this feels true to the web slinger's roots. But the biggest problem is that Marc Webb and his creative team haven't made the franchise their own. Ultimately The Amazing Spider-Man feels too carefully plotted out and safe when it needs to take risks and find its own identity. Expand
  45. May 11, 2013
    8
    It is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter'sIt is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter's parents deaths adds some complexity to the story and Peter's first experience of Spider-Man's abilities is made into an amusing sequence. Credit for that must go to Andrew Garfield, who improves on Maguire's take on Parker no end, proving that Peter can be geeky without being too pathetic. Perhaps it was setting the story in high school, with the sympathies that come with being different in that environment, that makes Garfield's Peter more likeable.

    Once the origin of Spider-Man is complete, the film moves through the gears and the budding romance and chemistry between Peter and Gwen is sincere and likeable. With a supporting cast including veterans Martin Sheen and Sally Field, there is no shortage of strong performances.

    The film is a bit heavy handed with it's vigilante right or wrong mantra and I was hugely disappointed with Rhys Ifan's Lizard. Ifan's performance as Connor's is decent enough but for me visually the Lizard didn't fit closely enough with the character's traditional appearance. Maybe it was an attempt to make the character realistic in a Christopher Nolan manner but rather than look like a lizard (with a lizards head) he looks like a generic green monster that could appear in any film.

    An enjoyable, if unnecessary, return to Spider-Man's roots with a fresh bunch of characters that is worth a watch even if just for a comparison with the original trilogy.
    Expand
  46. Jul 27, 2012
    5
    In the year of tentpole epic superhero films, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really stand out. After only five years after the last installment, the disapointing Spider-Man 3, the series has been rebooted for audiences once again. For those new to the series, this would be a nice way of introducing them to the web slinging superhero. But for those of us old enough to remember the original,In the year of tentpole epic superhero films, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really stand out. After only five years after the last installment, the disapointing Spider-Man 3, the series has been rebooted for audiences once again. For those new to the series, this would be a nice way of introducing them to the web slinging superhero. But for those of us old enough to remember the original, it may come off as predictable. The more light-hearted tone of the original is lost here (there are moments of humor, but it is overall, more serious and dark) and, while the effects have improved and are worth checking out here, the storytelling is pretty standard. There are engaging performances from Garfield (I particularly liked his bringing out of the well-known hero), Stone, and Ifans, but it doesn't really bring anything else new to the series. In a year of big tentpole super-hero films like The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really live up to it's title. That little pun probably has probably been used by anyone who didn't really like the film either in their reviews. Expand
  47. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    Honestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold notHonestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold not just in this film but in the planned films to come" and it is possible that the sequels might be better than this film. On the acting part, Neither Andrew nor Emma acted good. All the people going crazy after Andrew Garfield should notice the fact that the film was about Spider-Man, not the former. BUT I really admire the visual effects the film utilized and the creativity in respect of the stunts and the action-sequences was better than the previous films. Expand
  48. Jul 21, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It was a safe, solid action film which did not push any boundaries. I would have given this higher but it was just too similar to the original film and was done too soon in my opinion. Could still be a solid series of films as long as they try new story lines but I understand why this one was quite similar to the first Spiderman as it is about his origins. Expand
  49. Feb 15, 2013
    8
    Totally enjoyable. Funny and warm. Best thing is the new actor playing Spider-man/Peter Parker: Andrew Garfield is sensational. It feels more real than Tobey McGuire playing the part. Rest of the cast is really good too. Overall the acting is better than in the previous trilogy. Another good point is the soundtrack, really nice. Some of the special effects are amazing, others not thatTotally enjoyable. Funny and warm. Best thing is the new actor playing Spider-man/Peter Parker: Andrew Garfield is sensational. It feels more real than Tobey McGuire playing the part. Rest of the cast is really good too. Overall the acting is better than in the previous trilogy. Another good point is the soundtrack, really nice. Some of the special effects are amazing, others not that much. Probably the weakest point is the plot once the lizard starts his plan. It´s obvious they eliminated too many scenes and some things didn´t make sense. I suppose they didn´t want to make the movie longer than what it is (2 hours). People interested can see the deleted scenes in the dvd release. It really helps. The movie has a little touch of realism compared to the previous trilogy and it´s certainly appreciated. The upcoming second part is really promising with this director and actors. Expand
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Jul 26, 2013
    5
    Watching it again I realized this filmed was completely flawed albeit mostly entertaining. Aside from Uncle Ben, everything in this rings completely false.
  53. Mar 24, 2013
    10
    I was hesitant to see this movie, as the ones done in the early 2000's were exceptional. This version did not disappointing me, showing the early life of Peter Parker that was based more closely on the comics than the original that starred Tobey McGuire.
  54. Jul 4, 2013
    9
    With science and wit dangling from its webs of storytelling, "The Amazing Spider-Man" uses Garfield and Stone's acts to soar, and leaving a wonderful impression in the end.
  55. 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 andDespite 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
  56. Jul 15, 2013
    4
    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 no arranca muy bien.
  57. Apr 27, 2014
    7
    An alright superhero movie. I was never a big fan of the first Spiderman movies and not a fan at all of Spiderman in general. He is one of my least favourite superhero's. There were some cool action scenes in this movie to keep me entertained enough but nothing to special at all.
  58. Jul 24, 2012
    5
    If your a Spidey fan there were some things to like in this reboot. Unfortunately being released so soon after Raimi's version they will always be compared. I was looking forward to seeing a little more of Parker's back story with his parents, but that plot line fell way short in my book and did little that the original did not. I also found the Uncle Ben story line far less satisfying inIf your a Spidey fan there were some things to like in this reboot. Unfortunately being released so soon after Raimi's version they will always be compared. I was looking forward to seeing a little more of Parker's back story with his parents, but that plot line fell way short in my book and did little that the original did not. I also found the Uncle Ben story line far less satisfying in this version. I did enjoy the Stacy character quite a bit, although again I liked the chemistry between Parker and Watson from the original quite a bit better. The Lizard as the villain was one area that I would consider an improvement on the first. Also the visuals where Spidey are concerned I found to be compelling when put up against the first. Overall not enough to warrant a reboot in my estimation. Expand
  59. Jul 21, 2012
    8
    Great movie. I liked it much better than the avengers. The story is engaging, actors well suited to their roles, and awesome action. I'd say my only complaint was that I felt the movie was a little too "twilight" in that it focuses a lot on a teenage love story. But definitely recommend.
  60. Oct 22, 2014
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is the story of Peter Parker, an outcast high schooler who was abandoned by his parents as a boy, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today. Peter is also finding his way with his first high school crush, Gwen Stacy, and together, they struggle withThe Amazing Spider-Man is the story of Peter Parker, an outcast high schooler who was abandoned by his parents as a boy, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today. Peter is also finding his way with his first high school crush, Gwen Stacy, and together, they struggle with love, commitment, and secrets. As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents' disappearance – leading him directly to Oscorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner. As Spider-Man is set on a collision course with Connors' alter-ego, The Lizard, Peter will make life-altering choices to use his powers and shape his destiny to become a hero. Expand
  61. Dec 9, 2012
    9
    A superb Spidey film, as good as Spiderman 1+2 I thought, if not a little better. Just an all round good film and exactly what you want it to be. The 'web shooting machines (can't be bothered to google technical term) on his wrists are a geeky and therefore pleasurable addition. How couldn't you enjoy seeing a pink flash every time he fires a web?
  62. Apr 22, 2015
    7
    not as good as spider man 1.2 and even 3 (I liked 3). its not very good but it still pretty good. the spider man charter was play down a little bit but that's it.
  63. Jul 15, 2012
    9
    I loved this film. Some people said that it was too soon for a reboot, but really it offered a brand new look on the hero. The cast was brilliant, particularly Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone in the lead roles. It had some awesome action scenes and the Lizard was well done. Awesome film! Definetely brushes off the cobwebs from Spider-Man 3.
  64. Jul 22, 2012
    7
    Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had a lot of convincing to do, and after the end of The Amazing Spider-Man I was convinced. I feel like the Spider-Man universe is now a far more realistic one. This movie has all the great action you would expect with an interesting storyline and villain. If you've been waiting for a cooler Spider-Man, this is your move. Let's just hope the special effectsAndrew Garfield and Emma Stone had a lot of convincing to do, and after the end of The Amazing Spider-Man I was convinced. I feel like the Spider-Man universe is now a far more realistic one. This movie has all the great action you would expect with an interesting storyline and villain. If you've been waiting for a cooler Spider-Man, this is your move. Let's just hope the special effects and production values are a little more stellar for the next film. Expand
  65. Aug 1, 2013
    8
    Serving two fantastic leads in Garfield and Stone as well as a great villain in Rhys Ifans as The Lizard, everything works out perfectley in this superb reboot of my favorite superhero. It's truly amazing, not just amazing, but quite spectacular!
  66. Jul 26, 2012
    6
    Its been a mere decade since Sam Raimi helmed Tobey Maguire (as twenty-something Peter Parker) and company together to set the modern standard for the webslinging hero. As the first two films experienced both commerical and critical success, it's understandable as to why the latest project, The Amazing Spider-Man may strike some fans as being "too soon." But, such popular wisdom didn'tIts been a mere decade since Sam Raimi helmed Tobey Maguire (as twenty-something Peter Parker) and company together to set the modern standard for the webslinging hero. As the first two films experienced both commerical and critical success, it's understandable as to why the latest project, The Amazing Spider-Man may strike some fans as being "too soon." But, such popular wisdom didn't halt the 500 Days of Summer director Marc Webb from attempting to prove the nay seyers wrong. Challenged with the prospect of following 2002's Spiderman, this Spidey-film, in production, suffered from the sole disadvantage of being a subsequent act: avoiding semblance. Being a remake, however, involves at least some similarity. In any regard, the film succeeds in distinguishing itself largely due to the new Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield. Known for his spotlighted performance in The Social Network, Garfield assumes a modernized persona in 'Spider-Man.' He, though playing a bit older of a teenager than did Maguire in his debut, is instantly accepted in his role, having a fresh-faced innocence framed with anxious tics, angst, wry humor, and an unpretentiously down-played charisma that realistically reflects towards today's youth. Moreover, unlike the hackneyed "nerdy" image Maguire attained, Garfield is a punkish, skateboarding, internet-surfing, texting teen who just feels right; factor in the tall, lengthy stature that fills the red and blue arachnid suit which draws a far closer semblance to the comics than does Maguire's diminutive clumsiness. Peter Parker, then, is an abounding improvement; we even get to see him as a child in the Prologue. His love interest, the newly monikered Gwen Stacy--no more scarlet-headed Mary Jane--played by the ultra-talented Emma Stone is a beachy, yet intelligent blonde, all emo-short skirts, high boots and blimpingly gazing eyes underscored with thick-painted eyeliner; she is terrific and delightfully lighter and more expressive in character than the cold, equivocally taciturn Mary Jane of previous films. The two together, though, don't always stick like one would want them to, as the pathos and jokes don't land consistently, but individually they work wonders. When a mid-plot twist reveals Gwen's father (Denis Leary) is head honcho of the police force, (Leary miserably nods along) the divided love affair between the two crossed teenagers assumes more of the same division as between Peter and Mary Jane, and ups the ante in cohesive sentiment. As for Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, they are near perfect castings but neither is used nearly enough. And, the one-armed scientist-reptile-symbiote, Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) the screenplay's poor excuse of a villain, is a character no more an antagonist than Peter Parker for a chunk of the film. He is brought to his monstrous transgressions by one Dr. Ratha, who demands that Connors create an antidote for an ailing company superior. While The Amazing Spider-Man does devote some attention to character revamping, namely Peter Parker and the fledgling Gwen Stacy, as well as capturing some subtle nuances from the comics, it also fails to web its components together, often revisiting the same plot points of its predecessor. Though forgiving the latter is sensible, the former is impeachable. What we're talking about: plot contrivances, continuity errors, gaping lapses in logic, and embarrassing coincidences. For one, not nearly enough is said about Peter's parents, particularly his father. Early on, Peter is searching the web (why is a teenage prodigy using Bing?) and it is there he whimsically finds an article of his father with Connors. Others include: what happened to Uncle Ben's murderer? What happened to Dr. Ratha after he was seen in his vehicle on the Williamsburg bridge? Why are no photos taken of the 8-foot tall reptile rampaging through cars like magots? Why are a swarm of lizards walking on a web of Spiderman's in the sewer? Who writes "Property of" on anything? Why do crane operators work during evacuations? If Dr. Connors' reptile-transforming serum was ephemeral, and thereby needed to be injected every four hours or so, why would he expose the entire New York population to it?; the effects would be short-lived. And, the last I will mention, why is Denis Leary the only police officer on the roof of the building in the finale, when hundreds of other SWAT personnel are meandering on the street, watching the hero and villain fight? It's these contrivances and more that mar all that 'Spider-man' offers; director Marc Webb can only feint the mishaps with unfulfilled emotive closeups that merely break up the pervasive silliness for a short time, but such aren't ever forgotten. By the looks of it, the making of 'Spider-man' was lost right from the boardroom; oh, there it is, WHOP! It's an icky mess to clean up. Expand
  67. Feb 27, 2015
    9
    Un reboot excelente, muestra el origen y el desarrollo de Spiderman de una manera distinta, mas humana y dramática que la trilogía de Sam Raimi, es de las mejores películas de Spiderman que existen (pero no supera a Spiderman 2 de Sam Raimi)
  68. Apr 26, 2014
    8
    I heard many mixed things about this film so I went it with middling expectations. I was a huge fan of the Sam Raimi Spiderman trilogy due to the fact that it was the first superhero film I saw and they were released as I grew up. Now with Amazing Spiderman its a bit darker, less cheesy and I have to say a lot better.
    Peter Parker, played by Andrew Garfield, is the geek we have come to
    I heard many mixed things about this film so I went it with middling expectations. I was a huge fan of the Sam Raimi Spiderman trilogy due to the fact that it was the first superhero film I saw and they were released as I grew up. Now with Amazing Spiderman its a bit darker, less cheesy and I have to say a lot better.
    Peter Parker, played by Andrew Garfield, is the geek we have come to know and love, but his geekyness has moved with the times. He is now what a geek would be seen as in modern society. He is quiet, has a hobby that he loves to do and he is interested in stuff at school. He is no super nerd like Toby Maguire's Parker but the stuff he likes, he knows very well.
    He has a thing for Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone, and she sort of has a thing for him too so the awkward chemistry between the two is already set in stone even before he gets his superpowers unlike the Peter/MJ romance from before.
    After finding out new information about his parents death Peter seeks out Dr. Curtis Connors, his fathers partner at Oscorp. Peter gets bitten by a spider on the subsequent visit, gains powers and BAM! Spiderman is born! Curt however is researching animal DNA to bond with human DNA in order to overcome obstacles humans face. When he combines his DNA with that of a lizard, he transforms into the films villain...The Lizard.
    So there are as many as three or four stories going on in The Amazing Spiderman at one time, so that justifies the 2 and a half hour run time pretty well but there are a couple of problems with this. The whole story about Peter investigating his parents death gets put to the side and is never brought up again after only being going about 40 minutes, leaving it unexplained. The vengeance on Uncle Ben's death is also dropped, which despite it being dropped for bigger more important things, is still a little stupid because the whole point of getting revenge on Ben's killer was to teach Peter that revenge isn't the answer and so that was never realised. Curt Connors is also not really explored as a character, he is very two dimensional up until his transformation and then he is just a straight up no holds barred bad guy for no apparent reason apart from to move the plot along.
    The rest of the film is excellent though and exactly what a Spiderman film should be. Andrew Garfield is a much more Spidey-like Spiderman than Toby Maguire was, Emma Stone's Gwen is actually pretty interesting compared to Kirsten Dunst's boring MJ. Everything has been stepped up a gear and yes the film has its shortfalls, but as a whole product, The Amazing Spiderman is the best Spiderman film to date and one of the best superhero films I have seen in a while.
    Expand
  69. Jan 23, 2013
    7
    Its a made well movie but not great. Some errors like lines and ageing makes it bad, worst part is that they are 29 and 27. THEY ARE TEENS! They can't be 30 it's like seeing Iron Man be 74. It is a movie likely to succeed but a prequel would not be high in getting a prequel.
  70. 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.
  71. May 5, 2014
    4
    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.
  72. Dec 23, 2014
    7
    .This Summer Witness yet Another Spider-Man movie so Sony Can Retain The Rights To It's Character.The Amazing Spider-Man is dark and more mature than the original but lacks story.It brings back the moments that we already saw in the original film and brings back Thing we like about the character Peter Parker/Spider-Man.Andrew Garfield is great being Peter/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen.This Summer Witness yet Another Spider-Man movie so Sony Can Retain The Rights To It's Character.The Amazing Spider-Man is dark and more mature than the original but lacks story.It brings back the moments that we already saw in the original film and brings back Thing we like about the character Peter Parker/Spider-Man.Andrew Garfield is great being Peter/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy.Spider-Man looks so good when he's fighting a villain and New York is Just so good too. Expand
  73. Aug 11, 2012
    10
    Amazing is an understatement. As a Spider-Man fan, I have waited for my whole life to get the true definitive Spider-Man movie, and I have finally gotten it. Wonderful performances, thrilling action, incredible screen writing, perfect humor, and fantastic character arcs make Spider-Man one of the most entertaining, and personal, comic book movies of all time. This is a fantastic movie, oneAmazing is an understatement. As a Spider-Man fan, I have waited for my whole life to get the true definitive Spider-Man movie, and I have finally gotten it. Wonderful performances, thrilling action, incredible screen writing, perfect humor, and fantastic character arcs make Spider-Man one of the most entertaining, and personal, comic book movies of all time. This is a fantastic movie, one that everyone should see. Expand
  74. Jul 16, 2012
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is very well done. The acting is great, the effects are great, the characters development is very well done. The audience is presented with a more human superhero, flawed in numerous ways but struggling to overcome them while at the same time adapting to his new-found strength. Really, judging it from the comic-lover's point of view, its flawless. And that's all thatThe Amazing Spider-Man is very well done. The acting is great, the effects are great, the characters development is very well done. The audience is presented with a more human superhero, flawed in numerous ways but struggling to overcome them while at the same time adapting to his new-found strength. Really, judging it from the comic-lover's point of view, its flawless. And that's all that matters, isn't it? Expand
  75. May 4, 2014
    7
    Very decent spider-man film, sadly the main problem i have with the film is the fact that it really feels, slow, boring and doesn't have that FUN witty Peter Parker/spider-man charm also the Villain, The Lizard was pretty terrible their wasn't any really reason for me to FEEL anything for him. Otherwise its a good film with amazing visuals and a brilliant cast with cool little hints at 2Very decent spider-man film, sadly the main problem i have with the film is the fact that it really feels, slow, boring and doesn't have that FUN witty Peter Parker/spider-man charm also the Villain, The Lizard was pretty terrible their wasn't any really reason for me to FEEL anything for him. Otherwise its a good film with amazing visuals and a brilliant cast with cool little hints at 2 whats to come from Marc Webbs spider-an film series. Expand
  76. Jan 4, 2015
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a very enjoyable reboot with fun action and some likeable characters. However, the villain was very weak and there were some moments that were so implausible that they were stupid. Still, the movie is fun and definitely worth your time.
  77. Apr 25, 2013
    8
    It is much like the 2002 version, the plot and relatively good action scenes Guides, reasonable performances but q makes the 2002 version better and charisma tobey maguarey, which has adrew garfield
  78. Sep 2, 2012
    10
    What could have been done to make the movie better? Absolutely nothing. The Amazing Spider-man is a fantastic movie, the best movie in months, and the best superhero movie since The Avengers. It was even better than Chronicle. My point is, The Amazing Spider-man was a great movie that you should see immediately.
  79. Oct 28, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. what a waste of movie? Tobie still the greatest Actor who ever played both spider man and peter parker role.Who open door in a restricted lab ,so any one can go there and be a spider man how lame is that ? Expand
  80. Jul 9, 2015
    8
    A mostly slick, entertaining and emotionally involving recombination of fresh and familiar elements. As a new chapter in the super powered arachnid saga, it stands on its own quite nicely, focusing more on human emotions than on a panoply of special effects. Where Tobey Maguire in the original Spider-Man trilogy was earnest, Garfield's Spider-Man is a whip-smart and cheeky tech-genius,A mostly slick, entertaining and emotionally involving recombination of fresh and familiar elements. As a new chapter in the super powered arachnid saga, it stands on its own quite nicely, focusing more on human emotions than on a panoply of special effects. Where Tobey Maguire in the original Spider-Man trilogy was earnest, Garfield's Spider-Man is a whip-smart and cheeky tech-genius, with an undercurrent of teenage angst. His combination of fresh-faced innocence, nervous agitation and wry humor is immediately appealing. His chemistry with his charming co-star Emma Stone is yet another breath of fresh air in this reboot. While Maguire and Dunst seemed to transcend a tragically pseudo romantic aspect in Raimi's franchise, Garfield and Stone who both are gifted with wonderful screen presence are so effortlessly likable you can't help but feel like a third wheel. While its villainous figure is unfortunatelly one-dimensional as a character and lacks intimidation and originality visually, this reboot ultimately succeeds as a much more intimate origin story than what Raimi could have ever achieved. Expand
  81. Nov 30, 2012
    6
    Under the engaging direction of Marc Webb, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an intimate and energetic reboot of Sam Raimi's original blockbuster trilogy, and for sharing so many similarities to the first film, it stands on its own very well and is impressively refreshing. Andrew Garfield puts forth a more relatable, complex and yet simpler Peter Parker - he's **** and egotistical when he hasUnder the engaging direction of Marc Webb, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an intimate and energetic reboot of Sam Raimi's original blockbuster trilogy, and for sharing so many similarities to the first film, it stands on its own very well and is impressively refreshing. Andrew Garfield puts forth a more relatable, complex and yet simpler Peter Parker - he's **** and egotistical when he has the upper hand early on, yet also delivers the emotional sobriety during the more serious and dire moments, and overall delivers a very solid performance as a teenager taking on these enormous new powers. The chemistry between him and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is perhaps the biggest improvement - where the MJ/Peter plot in Raimi's trilogy grew tired out and soap opera-ish, here the romance is tangible and very authentic. The film also has some very nice emotional moments, particularly near the end, that lends it some dramatic credence it might have been lacking until then. However, the action scenes are not nearly as fun as Raimi's, and even during the climax they don't seem to carry much tension or suspense - which doesn't mix well with the otherwise darker and more serious treatment - and a couple of moments that should be emotional heavyweights are treated with surprising briskness. Overall, it's a very solid and enjoyable reboot, but so far Raimi's trilogy is still the better Spider-Man. Expand
  82. Jan 11, 2015
    7
    Definitely doesn't reach the height of the Sam Raimi films and while it may be too early for a Spider-Man reboot, it's worth seeing for any Marvel fan anxious to see another film involving your friendly neighborhood, Spider-Man.
  83. Jul 7, 2012
    5
    Overly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaserOverly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaser in the end credits.

    Not necessarily bad, just completely forgettable.
    Expand
  84. Aug 10, 2012
    6
    Quality direction and cast counterbalance a lackluster script and a lack of differentiation from the 2002 film. While it's slightly better than its predecessor, the film isn't good enough to justify its own existence.
  85. Dec 12, 2013
    8
    Stays a lot like the first Spider-Man in terms of plot, but action-packed fight sequences and great use of CGI make it a fresh take on Peter Parker's story.
  86. Jun 25, 2015
    5
    The editing is horrible and it has a very dull tone. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is unlikable, but his Spider-Man is pretty decent. However the more I re-watch it, the lower it gets. I'd rather watch Spider-Man 3...
  87. 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 aroundSeen "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
  88. Jul 28, 2012
    4
    This movie was a lot worse than the first 3. Andrew Garfield was not a good enough nerd to be peter parker, the whole story behind lizard was very confusing, and overall, this movie was a very mediocre superhero movie reboot.
  89. May 28, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If I were to sum up how I feel about this movie, I would say: mahogana. That is a bizarre expression, but that what this film is to me: Bizarre. There was of course A lot of talk about why a reboot to a series no even that old enough to deserve a reboot. The reason why was because Fox was about to lose the license to the series, and so they needed to kick Raimi out of the project, he was working on the 4th one but it would take too long for him to finish. So in the end we get a new spider man, new director, and brand new cast. With all of that stuff being hurled at us, can I as a viewer withstand it? Almost. I almost can withstand all the new stuff, but I can't stand some of the decisions they made though. The actor they got was pretty good to play Peter, but as Spider man he's either too dark or too even for spider man. The villain is almost a contender for most disappointing villain in an actually decent superhero movie, he's so boring, and is just a ridiculous villain. I think his abilities are unclear, as in he can regenerate at an incredible rate is rather unexplained. Lizards don't grow their limbs back immediately, it takes quite a while. His plot makes no sense, make the whole city lizards, why? What good would come out of doing that? One of the most important scenes in the spider man universe is done horribly in this picture, the death of peter's uncle. The saying is: with great power comes great responsibility, but that doesn't matter because his uncle is an idiot for trying to wrestle away a gun from a younger thug. The whole T.V mentality of this is really infuriating because now we have to wait until the next one because filmmakers discovered that they don't have to tell a story in one film, but rather have it spread to multiple films. I guess I can say I don't hate this film, but I should highlight that I don't like it. Expand
  90. Dec 11, 2012
    6
    'The Amazing Spider-Man' fails to match the original Spider-Man, and deems itself to be ultimately pointless - revisiting original plot points, a predictable premise and a mediocre villain all are contributing factors. It seems that the film industry is spawning less and less original films, and more re-boots, re-hashes and sequels - and this is a shining example of that. TASM is a good'The Amazing Spider-Man' fails to match the original Spider-Man, and deems itself to be ultimately pointless - revisiting original plot points, a predictable premise and a mediocre villain all are contributing factors. It seems that the film industry is spawning less and less original films, and more re-boots, re-hashes and sequels - and this is a shining example of that. TASM is a good film, but we were only just getting used to Sam Raimi's Spidey Trilogy - and even though Spider-Man 3 was horrid, this still seems too similar to the original whilst not quite introducing anything new or fresh that might drive this new trilogy. Expand
  91. May 25, 2015
    7
    A reboot already? How rediculous! Well, aside from the fact that this reboot could have waited at least another three years (how can you reboot something after five years?), it's a pretty decent movie. I say decent, as I'd give it a 6.5/10. It's cool to see a new take on his origin, and with a villain not in any previous Spider Man movie (The Lizard). The action is good and so is the CGI.A reboot already? How rediculous! Well, aside from the fact that this reboot could have waited at least another three years (how can you reboot something after five years?), it's a pretty decent movie. I say decent, as I'd give it a 6.5/10. It's cool to see a new take on his origin, and with a villain not in any previous Spider Man movie (The Lizard). The action is good and so is the CGI. Still, the writing feels weaker than the last Spider Man origin story. I just didn't care for it as much. Expand
  92. May 3, 2014
    8
    This movie came out a while ago and so ill keep it simple for anyone who hasnt seen it yet. Its a good movie. period. It makes for one awesome summer flick! very enjoyable!
  93. Jul 21, 2015
    7
    He restarted franqicia Spiderman but I 've never seen Andrew Garfield presented as this superhero but good performance , this is worth recognizing his talent. Congratulations , Andrew !
  94. Aug 14, 2012
    10
    An excellent film, creative, good acting, great storyline and a good dose of emotion. The hero comes very close to human, he makes mistakes, gets hurt, suffering, one of the best films of the spider.
  95. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    This version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields, and Rhys Ifan. Each of them did a wonderful job of making their characters feel very real and genuine. The effects were really good as well (exceptThis version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields, and Rhys Ifan. Each of them did a wonderful job of making their characters feel very real and genuine. The effects were really good as well (except for the lizard, which looked really weird). My big problem with this film is that it spent a little too much time on exposition and it relies on some of the same old super hero cliches and sentimentality making the movie seem "cheap" at times. It's also follows a very similar path as the original Spider-Man, and even though the filmmakers pulled it off, I wish they could have taken it in a different direction. But the bottom line is that it's an entertaining, better than average super hero movie, and I'm kinda looking forward to a sequel. Expand
  96. Jul 18, 2015
    5
    The Amazing Spiderman is a mediocre film while it does have sweet visuals and a likable protagonist the main problems are that the film is tonally bipolar, the villain is weak the origin story is the exact same thing we have already seen.
  97. Oct 25, 2012
    5
    In an industry full of unnecessary actions, the decision to revamp "Spider-man" not a decade since the redeux was first redone reeks of greed to the point of making this unenjoyable. Yes, it'd be better than "Spider-man" if only it were made before it, but it wasn't. This is more realistic, less involved in the comic-book character, and more in our world. Yes still, after a new Batman,In an industry full of unnecessary actions, the decision to revamp "Spider-man" not a decade since the redeux was first redone reeks of greed to the point of making this unenjoyable. Yes, it'd be better than "Spider-man" if only it were made before it, but it wasn't. This is more realistic, less involved in the comic-book character, and more in our world. Yes still, after a new Batman, "Spider-man" feels irrelevant. Expand
  98. Sep 5, 2012
    8
    The Amazing Spiderman might just about live up to it's name. It is a definite step up from the stuffy Spiderman 3, but I don't think it quite reached the heights of Spiderman 1 and 2. The plot is similar to that of Spiderman 1, but it doesn't suffer because of this: as it moves along at quite a brisk pace to lead into Spidey's climatic battle with the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choiceThe Amazing Spiderman might just about live up to it's name. It is a definite step up from the stuffy Spiderman 3, but I don't think it quite reached the heights of Spiderman 1 and 2. The plot is similar to that of Spiderman 1, but it doesn't suffer because of this: as it moves along at quite a brisk pace to lead into Spidey's climatic battle with the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choice for the movie, as many people would not have heard of him before, but he is not quite distinguished enough from the Green Goblin for my liking (even though he is a different character his themes and actions are slightly too similar to those of the Green Goblin in Spiderman 1). The acting is good all round, and Andrew Gafield's Spiderman seems closer to the source material than Tobey Maguire's, pulling one-liners from every direction and appears more awkward as a person, which is a good thing. Now that they've got the back story over with they can really focus on a very exciting sequel, which I am very much looking forward in anticipation, 83/100. Expand
  99. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    This movie is hard to talk about. The fact that it is really different from the Sam Raimi franchise was a plus for me because I personally didn't care about the previous franchise. So I gave this film chance because I knew that it would play off the original comics and I must say the "Amazing Spider-Man" amazed me. From the action sequences to the humor to the chemistry between GarfieldThis movie is hard to talk about. The fact that it is really different from the Sam Raimi franchise was a plus for me because I personally didn't care about the previous franchise. So I gave this film chance because I knew that it would play off the original comics and I must say the "Amazing Spider-Man" amazed me. From the action sequences to the humor to the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was also pretty good. So see this movie in theaters and you shouldn't be disappointed. Expand
  100. Nov 4, 2012
    5
    The Amazing Spider-man was an almost decent summer flick, which seemed as if it could possibly surpass the original Spider-man films. It did for some parts, but ultimately collapsed by the end. I must admit, this adaptation of Spider-man was a friskier and wittier one, which moves at a clip; and Peter Parker's scientific ingenuity and sharp comic sense are well fleshed out. Marc Webb (ofThe Amazing Spider-man was an almost decent summer flick, which seemed as if it could possibly surpass the original Spider-man films. It did for some parts, but ultimately collapsed by the end. I must admit, this adaptation of Spider-man was a friskier and wittier one, which moves at a clip; and Peter Parker's scientific ingenuity and sharp comic sense are well fleshed out. Marc Webb (of (500) Days of Summer) knows how to direct romantic elements which is possibly the films high point, even more so than the action sequences which were uncreative and gravely disappointing. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy replacing Mary-Jane) can be considered improvements of their predecessors. And though it was a fun watch, and the beautifully dizzying cinematography and effects kept me glued, I can't help but feel a great sense of Deja vu. Seeing that the original film ended only a few years ago, why bother with a remake? It didn't break new ground nor radically set itself apart from the original, so why bother? This was simply rehash that didn Expand
Metascore
66

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 42
  2. Negative: 2 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Jul 5, 2012
    70
    This might be a fun summer blockbuster if only it even remotely needed to exist.
  2. Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Jul 3, 2012
    30
    In short, the character is a lot like the way Stan Lee first envisioned him, but the trilogy's screenwriter Steve Ditko would probably loathe this new, unsatisfying, and hollow-feeling entry into the new cinematic Marvel Universe.
  3. Reviewed by: Joshua Rothkopf
    Jul 3, 2012
    60
    On the whole, it's passable stuff, a surprise, given how mechanical the masked character seemed.