A great cast, and solid directing headline the many merits of this exceptionally entertaining, but slightly extraneous reboot.

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

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 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

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

This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn. He brings a personality to the part that makes him constantly charming, even though his emotional side just keeps turning on the water works. The story starts with promise and the early discovery scenes are entertaining, but as the film develops, it falls apart. The action scenes are often muddled and over-edited. The lizard villain looks fake. The pacing lags more than once. Other than Garfield, there's not much here's to recommend. NOTE: Stay thru the first part of the credits for a sequel teaser.… Expand

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.

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 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

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 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

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.

Finally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are correct. The effects are amazing. The problems are the next: The Lizard, looks some weird, some important characters (yes the aunt may) appear on a background. Is a good reboot, I think that is better than the Avengers. I wanna watch the second part.… Expand

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.

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 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.… Expand

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.

Watched a 2D version in the cinema, and now the aftertaste is quite irony since the redux deliberately put an

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 Stone who does a great job! Overall it's nothing but entertainment and quite enjoyable to watch … Expand

I have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 i didn't think Andrew Garfield was a great choice at first because i've only seen him in "The Social Network" which he was great in but i couldn't picture him as an action star, but i was wrong. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field and Martin Sheen all made up a perfectly blended together cast. I must also say that Rhys Ifans did more than an amazing job as the villain (The Lizard). The Lizard was pretty terrifying at times which is very hard to do in superhero films, and the tone of the movie was great, you actually feel for the characters and what they're going through which certainly is not easy to accomplish in a film, especially one like Spiderman. Everything overall was very well done in this film. My only flaws were the 3d is totally not worth it, there was little to no 3d at all, and in the trailers they showed Spidermans perspective on him swinging from building to building like first person but there wasn't any of that in the actual movie. It also got a bit corny at times when Peter (Spiderman) first got his powers, but thats to be expected to some extent. Overall this was a great film, a definite must-see of the summer, just not in 3d. 9/10… Expand

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

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

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

Honestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold not just in this film but in the planned films to come" and it is possible that the sequels might be better than this film. On the acting part, Neither Andrew nor Emma acted good. All the people going crazy after Andrew Garfield should notice the fact that the film was about Spider-Man, not the former. BUT I really admire the visual effects the film utilized and the creativity in respect of the stunts and the action-sequences was better than the previous films.… Expand

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

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 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

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.

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 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

It has no real surprises, but still quite enjoyable if only to see the differences between this and the original. The cast is good, chemistry between Garfield and Stone in particular. Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben was another standout, and the dynamic that came about from blue-collar Ben and nerdy Peter Parker was interesting. The soundtrack isn't amazing, but it does bolster the impact of many scenes. The CGI on the lizard is well-done and the action scenes between him and Spider-Man are thrilling. The web swinging as a whole are fun, especially given how practical each swing seems. I had a few minor problems with the film. The dialogue is not always the freshest or the most interesting. As a result, the pacing is a little sluggish Here is where it hurts that the origin has already been shown before since the mystery and intrigue is all gone. Also, the villain is pretty underdeveloped and when he reveals his plan at the end, I was disappointed. All in all, not as good as the first Spider-Man, but very enjoyable and shows significant promise for better sequels to come.… Expand

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'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

In all honesty, I didn't really see much potential in Andrew Garfield playing Spider-Man at first, especially after watching all of the previews. However I must say, him and this film turned out much better than I originally anticipated. The rebooted script feels fresh and delivers some solid and entertaining action throughout although the action takes a while to pick up. Andrew Garfield actually turned out to be a pretty good Spider-Man. Acting was nothing great. Some of it seemed a bit amateur(Emma Stone.) Rhys Ifans was a pretty good and scary lizard. Summing up, a well-anticipated reboot that delivers well with stunning action sequences and decent acting. I do prefer the very first Spider-Man the best, however this was much better than the second and third movies.… Expand

This is the first Spider-Man movie since 2007's Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is just what a summer reboot looks like! The movie was awesome, I saw the Tuesday night showing before people were getting ready for 4th of July weekend. The ending was shocking, but I can't say any spoilers right now! However, my guess is that there's gonna be a sequel to the movie soon if Andrew Garfield is gonna come back reprising Spider-Man. I believe The Hobgoblin should be in the movie, but I don't know yet. It was a great reboot and I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises coming out. I hope there's gonna be a line.… Expand

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 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

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 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

Despite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to drag and fill in gaps in the middle with pointless stuff. It wasn't really what I would call a fresh start; if it would bother people like writers and directors to take this material and put something new into it, it would be helpful to make us aware of what the film was supposed to be about. We get it, Peter gets bitten by a spider and gains superpowers, but what it was mainly setting up was for us to find out about a guy trying to achieve perfection who ends up turning into a giant lizard and terrorising the city. As well as revisiting familiar plot points, it gave us something fairly useless to go on - we could have known more about Peter's parents. Besides that, the characters themselves provided better entertainment, which is for the fact that good humour is something I like in films, but, ironically, Peter Parker had little depth despite being the main character. I would have given a higher score, but it pains me to say that you cannot make a good film if you cover familiar ground, add new ideas and claim it as your own.… Expand

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.

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

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.

I am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes this installment too repetitive in several spots. While I have high hopes for this production team, we have to wait for the inevitable AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to see this interpretation flourish.… Expand

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'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

All I could think of while watching

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 that matters, isn't it?… Expand

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.

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, one that everyone should see.… Expand

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 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

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 that I can think of after "Batman" of course.… Expand

spiderman reboot was fantastic.. a great special something to look at! I loved peter and how he seemed nervous, smart and intelligent. Peter has a crush on Gwen Stacey and shes sexy.. i mean shes awesome.. shes not a damsel in distress more of the one in control and very more resourceful.. she is very good and I hope to see more of her in future installments.. the lizard is cool and I really enjoyed the look and feel of new york. spiderman is back and better than ever!… Expand

Overly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaser in the end credits.

Not necessarily bad, just completely forgettable.… Expand

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.

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.

Entertaining, but very unimpressive, the Spider-Man franchise reboot

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When it comes to reviewing Amazing Spider-Man it… Expand

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.

Seen "The Amazing Spiderman" tonight. Wasn't expecting much but very pleasantly surprised. Its better than the original as well for me. For sure its darker and the Peter Parker/Spiderman character is closer to the comics. More time is spent building the story, however this means the film takes a while to get going. Its worth it though as the relationships between Parker and those around him are given more time to develop. The action scenes are good and 3D is really great with the skyscraper web-slinging inducing real vertigo. Check it out.… Expand

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?

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.

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 effects and production values are a little more stellar for the next film.… Expand

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 (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

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 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

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 (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

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

The Amazing Spider-Man is considerably more fun than the other three movie of Spider-Man because the actor who do Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) are better than the other and this movie tell the real part of spider-man and show how his turn his super hero and Emma Stone is perfectly in this movie, ok she is a excelent actress and she do Gwen Stacy, even she never listen about this character. the filme is fantastic… Expand

Proving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New York and more vindictive Peter Parker who surprisingly exhibits more angst than Spider-Man 3's Venom. Andrew Garfield is amazing, he's just talented and a perfect cast for a teenage confused by his new found power but still with some wry humor. He's more organic, relaxed and looking very young beyond his age. His relationship with his surrogate parents is humbly relatable. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker and Sally Field as May Parker are brilliant, a kind authoritative figure and affectionate sympathetic guardian, respectively. The bond between them is seemingly genuine, a heartfelt care despite their ongoing tribulation. Martin has delivered one of the more convincing speeches in a rather private context than grandiose fashion of superhero pep talk.

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

Acrobatic action is the ever present hallmark of Spider-Man, it's more flowing and enjoyable. I like the Spidey-cam, or whatever they call the first person view of Spider-Man is. If only it's more evenly utilized and edited to coexist with the action, it's probably more exhilarating, but that's just a minor complaint. The movement is fast but still regains the clarity of surrounding, which is important on making sense of what transpires on the screen. You can still see the CG effect of the combat, although it… Expand

An entertaining film, but about a subject matter than has been done perhaps one too many times. My spidey-sense tells me they need to give this franchise a long rest.

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 Garfield and Stone was also pretty good. So see this movie in theaters and you shouldn't be disappointed.… Expand

The Amazing-Spider Man surpasses the original trilogy. The cast was well-chosen and they all give a lot of credibility to the characters. Andrew Garfield nails Spidey! So, great character development. The action sequences were great. The Lizard is just vicious, they could have added a bit more of humanity to the character while as Dr. Connors, but in the end they still did a better and more believable villain than the previous trilogie did, with the exception of Spider Man 2. I thought the CGI effects showed how a man would actually look if it turned into a lizard, and having the snout in the head didn't matter, I think it would give some sort of crocodilish/dinossaur look to him. They provides us great humour, they don't overuse it like in Raimi's films, offering a much more emotional and "darker" side of the story. Overall I give it a 9 just because they could have showed a bit more humanity to Dr. Connors, a moment with his kid or wife before the transformation but still he is a believable villain as the Lizard, and I like the fact it alters his persona.… Expand

I hate to admit it, but I walked into this movie cursing myself. "Here we go again. Another rehash of a super hero that has been done a million times." The funny think is walked out of the theater saying, "about time someone did justice to Peter Parker." Don't you just love it when a movie both proves you wrong and awakens you to bigger and better possibilities?
I'm not saying this is anywhere near Christopher Nollan's universe. But, what a cool movie this was. Awesome script, phenomenal direction work, and enough effects to support the story without turning it into another amusement park ride.
The only scene that I had hoped not to find in the movie is the one when they line up the construction cranes. A touch of Hollywoodese. We'll look the other way on that one. It is a studio picture after all.
In general, I very much believed the story and the characters. Everyone was riding a good balance between what life deals them and the sacrifices behind changing our own fate. What a script. You even feel bad for the bad guys in this.
Andrew Garfield was a great voice for modern teenage angst, and Emma Stone was equally significant. Great pair to front this. Everyone else felt like the perfect piece of the puzzle. Although I have a feeling the majority of the kudos on this one should go to a flawless script and surgical camera work. This is what happens when talented filmmakers get together and decide to turn the camp in comic books into a real life drama. Congratulations. I'm sold!… Expand

A good reboot of the Spider-Man franchise, but I think all of this should have happened in 2003. The boring drama scenes are still the same old thing from the original.

'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

I'm sorry, but the reboot just didn't work for me at all. The story was just all over the place, and it moved so slowly. I understand that they were going for a character piece here, but they're focusing too much on every plotline that it's just hard to hold on too. Also, I know they're trying to go on a more darker approach to the Spider-Man storyline, but another main reason for Spider-Man's appeal to audiences is the wonder and joy of discovering and using these powers, and it's utterly lacking in this movie. Yes, there's some humor on Peter using the powers for the first time, but it's hardly wonder. And Jesus, the new Spidey costume sucks. Andrew Garfield was pretty good as Peter Parker though. Oh well. Hopefully they learned from their mistakes in time for the second movie in 2014.… Expand

I don't know what it is, I've scene this 3 times and the first I thought it was a great superhero movie, the second I thought it was something more. Something that mixes music and visuals to create a very meaning full experience. And the third I found it truly and full-blown emotional experience. Again, the music and important moments as well as the ending created the most meaningfull superhero movie yet. It was awesome.… Expand

I wasn't really interested to see this movie, even though the trailer looked pretty cool. My friends tell me that this wasn't so good, so I never bothered. Until my dad wanted to see it with me, so I broke down and watched. Its actually better than I thought, but its not as great as I hoped it will be. After the disappointment of Spiderman 3, I was hoping the re-boot's will make a dark and serious Spiderman movie, but this one was lil too silly. I will give credit, the fight scenes, special effects, and the beginning of the story took it slow and explained more than the original. I also like that they used Gwen Stacy instead of Mary-Jane Watson, this follows more to the comics. However, the problem starts when Peter Parker becomes Spiderman. I don't understand why he has to use a device to shoot webs, I wish they use the same idea from the original when the webs come out of his wrist. Another thing...is it me, or is Spiderman more goofier in this one? He chuckles and acts like a child the whole time while wearing the suit, kinda like how Dark Suit Spiderman did in Spiderman 3. As for the new actor of Peter Parker / Spiderman, he was okay. He's likable and funny, but for some reason I just think Tobey Macguire was mostly memorable and more mature. I kinda think new Spiderman is too exposing, he reveals his true identity 4 times....not that much of a private superhero. The Lizard, he was pretty good. I like the character and the CG of the mutated monster looked pretty good. So my thoughts in this movie are kinda mixed, I like the movie but I don't find it as great as I wish it can be. I'm still glad I finally got to see it, and maybe change my mind if I see it again and like it.… Expand

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.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Last year X-Men (First Class)reboot was very fantastic, and The Rise of the Planet Apes was also very good! This year, Marc Webb dared to begin another Spider-Man Franchise, and to my surprise; was amazingly done.Not as good as Batman Begins but is as good as last year X-Men: First Class.

Fresh and old plot-lines were mixed up to gave the audience an exquisite story of old-brand new spidey hero. Again, heroism brand of spider-man focus on his relationship to his family, friends and peers, and of course our superhero is one-hell of a lover-boy; new love interest which an ingredient of fresh story and is a sample exploits an untold story which I think the major flaw of the movie because it doesn't elaborates the secret behind his parents death which I hope can be lighten to us the next spidey-movie.

Overall, Andrew was great to replicate what Tobey done and Emma and other cast were good. The story maybe a shadow of the Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Franchise but is still effective enough to let you bite. Action and web-slinging choreography and other visual effects were great even the background music, especially Coldplay's "Till Kingdom Come" track.… Expand

This was a great movie, despite what people have been saying that 'Its just another spiderman film' well, they are right, it is, but thats just it, all spiderman films have been brilliant and given the spectator a very great feeling at the end of it, just as I had during, and at the end of it. There were a few very minor errors I noticed, so minor that I can't even fully remember them, overall, it was an 'amazing' film.… Expand

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

Way better than the previous Spider-man films. Much improved screenplay, beyond blockbuster-quality-acting. Visual effects were clean. Cinematography was commendable.

Five years after the last Raimi Spider-man film which was an utter disappointment comes The Amazing Spider-Man to bring the hero back into gear. But is it better than its predecessors? The answer is yes and no. The Amazing Spider-Man shows a new Peter Parker, who instead of a nerd, is actually a chill hipster dude who skateboard. Yeah, um that's not who Peter Parker is supposed to be. But putting that aside, Spider-man was almost perfectly done. One-liners and just taken in a plain humorous sense in some parts of the movie. But, the movie did try to get serious in many scenes like when Uncle Ben dies and that part was actually well done and creates more emotion to Peter's and his uncle's relationship which wasn't so strong in 2002's Spider-Man. The origin story has been told before but this one was well done to say the least. The Lizard looked weird and honestly, didn't even look like a lizard. The action in this movie is really well done also because the camera follows Spidey really well and Andrew Garfield did a decent job as his role. Emma Stone is perfect as Gwen Stacey, probably even better than Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-man. She is much more of a likable character than Mary Jane ever was in the previous movies. This movie was far from being AMAZING but it sure was pretty fun to watch and all Spidey fans should check it out and give it a chance.… Expand

While certainly better than the third spiderman movie, this reboot suffers from a sense of over familiarity. So much of the origin story is known through the other version that its hard not to feel bored as the first half of the movie sets things up. Thankfully, Andrew Garfield is pretty good as Peter Parker and he carries things along. The action scenes are also an improvement on the original trilogy. The plot with the Lizard suffers from having to run alongside the origin stuff. I have no doubt that the sequel will benefit from being able to run with its own ideas from the get-go. Its not a bad start but its not brilliant. Sandwiched in between the popcorn fun of the Avengers movie and the (as yet unseen as I write this) epic conclusion to Nolans Batman movie trilogy was never going to be easy but Amazing Spiderman is worth a look regardless and the inevitable follow up may be more an indication of whether Garfield and Co. rise above Tobey Maguires run.… Expand

A pretty good movie I may say myself however the still think Spiderman 2 is the best Spiderman film ever made. The 'Amazing' Spider-Man is a pretty solid movie especially to all you newgens can't be stuffed watching Maguire's acting. The cast is solid but I feel that they wasted the Lizard's character. Its not that the actor is bad but I don't feel that did much to try and flesh him out like Doc Oct.

7/10… Expand

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 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

Right off the bat, The Amazing Spider-Man is the best out of all four Spider-Man movies released so far. The key positive aspect of Mark Webb's reboot and what Sam Raimi failed to achieve with his franchise is remain faithful to the comic books. All of Peter Parker's iconic moments is still intact, the inevitable spider bite, uncle Ben's death, the first time he dons the realistic-looking suit, it's covered in greater detail and you don't feel the … Expand

Nothing new. Replica of the previous Spider Man. He falls in love with a girl he can never marry, his mentor is killed again, but spider man didn't catch the killer this time. The fight is against his father co-researcher, who tries to find a formula to restore lost organs as he is one handed, but instead the formula changes him into a monstrous lizard who kills and destroys. A war flares between spider man and this monster. Nothing special, spider man wins at the last moment, his girl father dies and urges him to leave his daughter, needless to say, his girl father is the chief officer in charge of arresting spider man. Poor scenario, traditional plot, well done picture taking and scenes. Anyhow, must see movie, not genuinely entertaining though.… Expand

I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse, the action is scarce and not especially entertaining. What I did like were those short 1st-person view moments, which were quite breathtaking. All in all, it's a mediocre superhero movie, which I wouldn't be afraid to miss.… Expand

Yeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-Man shots while jumping from building to building. Garfield's acting while Peter Parker saved this movie, and lucky for us, that pretty much dominated this movie.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Although making a reboot of a movie that was released 10 years before is absurd, I'm not going to complain about it because you knew that long before going to the movie and I believe it's not fair. However, because it was directed by Marc Webb and featured great stars (Emma Stone, Andrew Garfield, Sally Field) I must say I expected the movie to be more emotional and more character-developed than the old Spider Man movie. I must say I was wrong. Other than Peter Parker (which had a coming-of-age period that was interesting) the characters seem one-note. And it is such a shame because we all know that both Emma and Sally Field has great acting skills. Another problem in the movie was it's villain. The whole lizard thing was weird (him wanting the whole human population to be a lizard). Also, Andrew Garfield's spider man ego didn't match with Peter Parker, and while Spider man was fighting I completely felt that I was watching someone else. The length of the movie also made me killed myself and even Emma Stone with the umbrella couldn't save the extremely unnecessary love scenes. We know that there is going to be a sequel to The Amazing Spider Man. And I know that the only thing that will save that movie is Marc Webb's creativity that we didn't see in this movie. I except something like Expectations-Reality scene from 500 Days of summer in the next movie.… Expand

I loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in a new universe, that's just fine, but 75% of this movie was just his origin story that we just saw in 2002 Spider-Man. I was just sitting there thinking "yeah, I know, move on already" for 90 minutes. Yeah, a few details were different...I think they could have changed more. I could also tell that this movie was very geared towards teenagers and the MTV crowd, and that made it seem stupid to me. The Twilight preview before the movie didn't help. Neither did the girls screaming "woo" in the theatre when Peter and Gwen kissed. Please. I also HATE cheesy 3D tricks, and this movie ended with the stupidest "this would look cool in 3D!" trick ever. It it so stupid and cheesy and not quality cinema. I don't give a crap about 3D! I just want to see a movie with real characters and a story, not watch Spider-Man shoot a web right at my face just because it would look cool in 3D. So enough venting, there were things I liked. One thing I did like was that they did a more humorous take on Spider-Man. This one definitely was funnier that the previous series. They also were obviously going for a more realistic character, as even as Spider-Man he was still clumsy, and his climbing and jumping was more human and less overdone with CGI. They also allowed the suit to look like real clothing, and not digitally enhanced. You could see wrinkles and I think even a zipper. How "perfect" the spidey suit always looked in the previous movies always bugged me. So, I kind of liked the new one, even though it seemed unpolished, since that's what they were going for. Overall it was entertaining and worth seeing, but most of the movie was unnecessary and redundant.… Expand

There is a thin line between great CGI and over the top CGI, and this movie is trying to woo both sides. Spiderman has always been a great movie to watch with the whole family, and while it moves up to being a teen film it still stays true to family fun.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Perhaps it's because it was only 5 years ago that the last Spiderman film was released but this movie just felt... unnecessary. i didn't feel that there was anything that stood out from Spiderman (2002.) Sure, we had cosmetic differences, but the biggest difference, the mysterious circumstances surrounding Peter's parents' deaths, just felt dull. I couldn't connect with Peter Parker - he was just an arrogant, spoilt ass and I had a hard time feeling sorry for him. The villain was just plain BORING ; an evil lizard bent on infecting a city - really? No thank you. Writing this review just made me further depressed so I just warn you that this Spiderman film really adds little to the original film produced in 2002.… Expand

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.

I was a little on edge about this Spider-Man reboot because I grew up watching Sam Raimi

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

I was disappointed with this film because it does not do anything meaningful that the previous Spider-Man trilogy already accomplished. There was no need for another movie that does nothing to distinguish itself.

I quite enjoyed this movie.The lead actor is far better than Toby Mquire in my opinion,& the film definately had its moments & it felt 'more real' in the way it was presented as opposed to the very bright & colourful look of the Sam Raimi films.I dont think the action was anywhere near as good as the Raimi films so far though,& no where near as much of it.Still,its only the first movie in this series,so theres room for improvment in this area in any sequels,of which i hope there are.… Expand

After seeing this I wondered why Spiderman was NEVER this good! This movie is FANTASTIC!! It is the BEST Spiderman movie yet!! I love this new direction for Spiderman its more interesting...more captivating...so cinematic! This is one of my favorite movies for numerous reasons. This movie is most true to the comics. Spiderman is more flexible and agile than ever before. He has a real sense of humor, and captures the hurt from loosing his Uncle and the nerdy teen that we associate with Spiderman perfectly. The special effects top notch and the fight scene are choreographed better than Spiderman 1,2,and 3. They showcase both Spiderman and The Lizzard's abilities perfectly! See this movie if you havent! If tickets werent so expensive now a days I would see this twice!!!… Collapse

Presents itself as a more accurate interpretation of the webslinging hero and coupled with some nice action scenes and a more-likeable Peter Parker, its a solid film. A solid film full of discrepancies. While it does present itself as an excellent reboot to the franchise, The original Spider-man movies and esp, Spider-man 2, despite the occasional cheesiness and non-canon elements, does convey a more Spider-man vibe to it - it feels like Spider-man, genuine Spider-man as opposed to this version which, while decent, does feel detracted from the overall feel of Spider-man. The world itself apart from Parker, Uncle Ben and Gwen Stacey, lack character and feels more like a well-shot action film that coincidently has Spider-man in it. Seriously, if you placed a different main character in the movie and just have Spider-man as a side line character, the film would be fine. Its a great film but ultimately, it just doesn't have the feel and distinct 'Spidey-ness' of the original films. Spider-man 2 remains my favourite.… Expand

"The Amazing Spider-Man" is one of the most enjoyable and engaging comic-book films to come out recently. The new cast of characters brings an interesting dynamic to this new version of the Spider-Man origin story, which still has not been fully told. This journey of discovery Peter Parker goes on makes him more human and interesting. Although there are a few tiny areas of wasted potential and plot lines (some major but most very minor) that don't go anywhere, this is a worthy entry into the Spider-Man saga. I enjoyed this even more than the 2002 original.… Expand

I liked Tobey's version when it came out, but now that I've seen Andrew's version, I think they raised the bar. Raimi's trilogy (at least at first) seemed to stick to the well-known origin story. This one modernizes it a bit and, understandably, they tried to stay away from comparisons to the original film as much as possible. I'm not crazy about all the changes, but I think they worked well. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy sells her role much better than Kirsten Dunst sold Mary Jane Watson. And I have to agree with reviewers who said the chemistry between the leads was much better in this version. I saw no problems with the CGI or effects. I think they were faithful to the characters of Uncle Ben, Curt Connors, and even Captain Stacy. There's an obvious back story they left unfinished so looking forward to more.… Expand

Andrew Garfield pulls off Peter Parker with a lot more believability than Tobey Maguire. This isn't the best super hero movie by any stretch, but it's an entertaining 90 minutes. I'll probably even watch a sequel, something I never did with Maguire in the lead role.

Realistically, this movie probably isn't worth more than a 7, mainly because of the redundancy with the first Spider-man movie. Yes, The Amazing Spider-man promised us an "untold story", but turns out it was just false promises, it ends up being an almost copy of the first film, just improved. The biggest improvement it brings to the table is the romance, or should I say the love interest. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was a joy, she was an actual character that could stand on her own and not just a pretty prize like Mary Jane in the original trilogy. The interactions between her and Peter were really cute too (also great chemistry between the two actors), you get the feel they were partners supporting each other, which you didn't get at all in the Raimi trilogy, Mary Jane was more of a burden on Peter than anything else. It's simply put the best romance I've seen in any superhero movies to date. Special effects were pretty good too, especially Spider-man swinging, and the pacing was very good, I was never bored or wondering what was the point of a scene any time during the film. The weakest point of the movie was the villain though, he came across as very cartoony (and frankly stupid) which really clashed with the otherwise realistic interactions between the characters, his plan wasn't very smart either. Ultimately, this movie suffers from not departing enough from the original movie, which depending on how much you like the character, or how fresh the original is in your mind, may or may not be a problem. For me it just wasn't but I can see how it could be for some. Overall though this is still a very solid superhero movie in my opinion.… Expand

The Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short given that I really enjoyed those last films, and while this reboot didnt really satiate me completely, I did for a fact enjoyed watching it. The first problem with the film is that it is doomed to repeat what we already know. For the first half an hour, Spideys obligatory build up before becoming the hero we know is revisited, and that includes Peter being bitten by a spider and Peter watching his uncle Ben being murdered. The director seemed aware of the issue as the scenes are given some new twists, and also seemed to resume everything as quick as possible, but this overall make them feel uneventful. Once that is overcome, the movie starts opening some interesting elements, as well as some interesting characters. Emma Stone as Gwen is great to give an example. Actions scenes are quite nice ,but I dunno if as memorable as other heart pumping scenes from the first three, like per say: the train sequence in Spiderman 2. The soundtrack is OK but at the end pretty forgettable and really falls short to the outstanding soundtrack from the hexed trilogy before it. At the end, perhaps "The Amazing Spider Man´s" most unselfish but unfortunate fate is that it going to be compared to Sam Raimi´s work, and it is from that perspective that it falls short in some and other aspects. It is a good movie to watch with great characters, fighting scenes, music and actor performances, but all of that was also done (and in some ways even better) with the first line of movies and this calls into question if it was really necessary to start all over again.… Expand

I just don't get it. The Spider Man trilogy started in 2002, and now we already have a reboot? Man, can't wait until this superhero fad dies off and never comes back.