Columbia Pictures | Release Date: July 3, 2012
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1680 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,170
Mixed:
343
Negative:
167
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
TVJerryJul 10, 2012
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.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
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
5
Meth-dudeAug 16, 2014
The movie was ok for the visually stunning part but for the acting and the action scenes the movie just failed.There was not enough action and when there was some of it,it was filmed like ****
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
cameronmorewoodNov 5, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
marcmyworksJan 13, 2014
An interesting beginning in the reboot franchise, but too tweeny for my liking. Andrew Garfield is the essence of Peter Parker but his acting gets lost in a cloud of CG.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TokyochuchuNov 26, 2012
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 actionThe 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
GreatMartinJul 13, 2012
All I could think of while watching
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
lasttimeisawAug 8, 2012
Watched a 2D version in the cinema, and now the aftertaste is quite irony since the redux deliberately put an
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TheApplegnomeAug 17, 2014
This reboot is less impressive than the original.

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

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

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

The Amazing Spiderman get a 6.5
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
worleyjamersJan 15, 2013
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 storyI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
homer4presidentMar 13, 2015
A third of the movie is a mediocre remake of the 1st Spider-Man movie. Another third of the movie was a bad teenage soap opera. The few action scenes were cliche and predictable. The Lizardman looked cheesy as hell. I didn't see much humorA third of the movie is a mediocre remake of the 1st Spider-Man movie. Another third of the movie was a bad teenage soap opera. The few action scenes were cliche and predictable. The Lizardman looked cheesy as hell. I didn't see much humor and fun in the film like I did in Sam Rammi's Spider-Man movies. It was boring. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
HalfwelshmanSep 24, 2012
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 asThe 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
6
drlowdonJun 7, 2013
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 throughWith 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Iky009Jan 6, 2014
Mudou um pouco a história e realmente ficou interessante.Mudou um pouco a história e realmente ficou interessante. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
aadityamudharApr 18, 2016
I loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if theI loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in a new universe, that's just fine, but 75% of this movie was just his origin story that we just saw in 2002 Spider-Man. I was just sitting there thinking "yeah, I know, move on already" for 90 minutes. Yeah, a few details were different...I think they could have changed more. I could also tell that this movie was very geared towards teenagers and the MTV crowd, and that made it seem stupid to me. The Twilight preview before the movie didn't help. Neither did the girls screaming "woo" in the theatre when Peter and Gwen kissed. Please. I also HATE cheesy 3D tricks, and this movie ended with the stupidest "this would look cool in 3D!" trick ever. It it so stupid and cheesy and not quality cinema. I don't give a crap about 3D! I just want to see a movie with real characters and a story, not watch Spider-Man shoot a web right at my face just because it would look cool in 3D. So enough venting, there were things I liked. One thing I did like was that they did a more humorous take on Spider-Man. This one definitely was funnier that the previous series. They also were obviously going for a more realistic character, as even as Spider-Man he was still clumsy, and his climbing and jumping was more human and less overdone with CGI. They also allowed the suit to look like real clothing, and not digitally enhanced. You could see wrinkles and I think even a zipper. How "perfect" the spidey suit always looked in the previous movies always bugged me. So, I kind of liked the new one, even though it seemed unpolished, since that's what they were going for. Overall it was entertaining and worth seeing, but most of the movie was unnecessary and redundant. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MovieManiac83Apr 22, 2015
Where to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engineWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

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

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

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

For me, this is as deflating a movie as I have seen all year. Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary that it made me want to gnash my teeth in frustration. Rebooting Spider-Man, while a questionable endeavor in its own right, offered an opportunity to do something unique with the character. Take it to a place where it hasn't been.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
gameguardian21Mar 14, 2016
I was pretty disappointed in this reboot. All this is was to make a excuse to retell the story. While some parts I liked, the dialogue was awkward, and it didn't feel like spider man to me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
BKMJul 5, 2012
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 reallyReboots 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
7 of 15 users found this helpful78
All this user's reviews
5
TheDude-Jul 18, 2015
The Amazing Spiderman is a mediocre film while it does have sweet visuals and a likable protagonist the main problems are that the film is tonally bipolar, the villain is weak the origin story is the exact same thing we have already seen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TheDRauchJul 27, 2012
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 thoseIn 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
theahsanhaseebJul 8, 2012
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 itHonestly, 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
dev92Jul 21, 2012
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
txrangersfan72Jul 7, 2012
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
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
5
SeriosityJul 26, 2013
Watching it again I realized this filmed was completely flawed albeit mostly entertaining. Aside from Uncle Ben, everything in this rings completely false.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
EssenceOfSugarJul 14, 2012
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 dragDespite 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
4
JmsbppJul 15, 2013
No me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que noNo me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que no arranca muy bien. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MattyiceJul 28, 2012
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
seancriswellJul 24, 2012
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 hisIf 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
YellowKirbyNov 26, 2015
I liked this movie when I first saw it, but It's quite forgettable, really. Andrew Garfield really isn't as good a Spider-Man as Tobey Maguire, and Rhys Ifans' Lizard isn't as interesting as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. All in all, it's anI liked this movie when I first saw it, but It's quite forgettable, really. Andrew Garfield really isn't as good a Spider-Man as Tobey Maguire, and Rhys Ifans' Lizard isn't as interesting as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. All in all, it's an alright movie, but it's no match for the original trilogy. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
FDT44Jul 26, 2012
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,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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
joao1198pedroMay 5, 2014
This film is the second worst spider man film, ok this is more kind to it source material but it is still a bad movie with a terrible vilain, but emma stone save a hole part from this film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews