User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1371 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 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.
  2. Apr 21, 2014
    This movie is a pathetic reboot of the original, tottaly destroyed everyhting the original stood for. Peter Parker is no longer a HUMBLE KID with HIGHSCHOOL PROBLEMS, and in the brink of POBRETY alone with his aunt, he is instead an Aristocratic Duoche bag, with Perfect looks, ALL the **** a Perfectly normal Highschool Life and With a GENERIC PERSONALITY.

    Well actualy...Everything About
    this movie Is FU***NG GENERIC,

    Even the tittle "The Amazing Spiderman" lmao!

    wich is Why I found it disapointing and BORING. Tottal spit to the face of the original and completly unnecessary.
  3. Feb 12, 2014
    This movie just sucks. How do you even think about remaking a movie about spiderman? Another one was realeased not many years ago and it was quite good. This one instead it's just spiderman for kids, the story is all messed up, the main character looks like a boy band member to catch some young teenager public (cmon peter parker should look and be just like a nerd, not a bieber/breaking dawn/skater/genius/rebel boy). Oh please it's just so bad.. Expand
  4. Nov 16, 2013
    More like the "The Amazing Computer-Generated Imagery Man!" This is a none-too-original origins story trite teenage romance hybrid in which dumb coincidences abound and the level of ridiculousness (e.g., a secret laboratory in the city sewers) grows increasingly tiresome. I won't say it's spectacular, but it is a spectacle of sorts all right, and I'd say skip it if only to dissuade them from making any more sequels. Expand
  5. Aug 25, 2013
    It's interesting that The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-man is different. They have very different characters, but really there are not really a different. Which is boring. Almost all story, scenes, actions were the same. Boring. I thought Tobey Maguire should be only be the spider-man, and The Amazing Spider-Man. But really tired of same movies, same sequels. same characters. Movies that are brought from comics. I want to see completely new ideas that made by director or writer. Expand
  6. Aug 21, 2013
    Well, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only girls must love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is interesting and very good but only the first half. After that the movie went bad. It reminds me of the power rangers kids series. I think there's a lot to fix in the movie story, but it's too late now.
  7. Aug 18, 2013
    Ok, I will say that the Amazing Spider-Man had some decent visuals, and a really great performance from Andrew Garfield. He was absolutely hilarious as Spider Man. Emma Stone was decent enough as Gwen Stacy. My biggest problem with the film is that just 10 years after the first Spider Man film was released, this is just a rehash of everything that happened. Not only that, but it was done worse than the original Spider Man. It felt rushed, like they were trying to cram a lot of stuff into a short window of time. It felt like they were competing with the first Spider Man, and they lost on almost every front. I didn't feel much of a connection to the villain, either. He was simply there, and for what reason? A good hero makes half of a good story, a good villain completes it. We are left with half of a good story, which isn't enough to keep this movie above water. It kept me entertained enough for the time I watched it, but afterwards, it simply left me disappointed and frustrated. One of the worst movies of 2012. Expand
  8. Aug 12, 2013
    One of the most over rated movie ever this had me sleeping
    this earns a highest of 2/10
    A very bad movie
  9. Jul 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 no arranca muy bien.
  10. Apr 11, 2013
    I was a big fan of the original Spider-man trilogy (yes even Spider-man 3), and i was being optimistic in hoping that this film would introduce a new darker quality to the character and the retelling of the origin, but overall i found the film to be underwhelming, unoriginal and in some parts, just plain stupid. Firstly i must point out that Andrew Garfield did a great job of portraying Peter Parker, as did Emma stone of Gwen Stacy, and they have good chemistry, but the script is not particularly thoughtful nor engaging, just classic cheeky rom-com stuff, but i guess there's nothing wrong with that, and the romance between the two is what makes this film a hit with the ladies. The Lizard on the other hand, played by Rhys Ifans, is a complete Ra's al Ghul rip off from Liam Neeson in Batman Begins, speaking in a slow wise voice and his plan to evolve the human race into raging lizards, for the benefit of the future of the planet or some crap. Much like Ra's extreme views of wiping out corruption for the the same reason. Much of the story is the same, dont be fooled, apart from the back story to peter's parents, its much like the original Spider-man of 2002. The special effects were pretty impressive but that basically meant the action sequences were hectic and cartoonish, which i guess is to capture the comic book style, but overall are boring. There are no cleverly planned out set pieces or twists in the plot, the final fight is on top of a skyscraper at night and another confrontation takes place on a bridge at night, very imaginative. This film is well made and the acting is pretty solid, and i can understand why newcomers to spiderman are loving it, but if you are familiar with Sam Raimi's trilogy and have watched a fair few superhero films like myself, you are likely to be disappointed with this film. Hopefully the sequel can find its own groove. Expand
  11. Mar 3, 2013
    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.
  12. Feb 6, 2013
    andrew garfield does not play garfield the THIS
    0/10000000000000000000000 DONT BOTHER WATCHING
  13. Jan 20, 2013
    This movie is awful and i gave it 4 out of 10 just because there are some things on which i can't close my eyes and got to admit, that they're done well. But there's some many wrong choices, especially in plot. I don't want to tell like every mistake, but most irritating for me was the fact, that this movie didn't bring main topic of Spider-man's existing, this movie never told us, that: with great power, comes great responsibility. In this movie this phrase never appears, and if authors wants to tell us about that in later movies, it's a big mistake, because then this movie looks even worse and cannot live on itself, only as a part of a trilogy, and i hate that tendency. This movie creates some interesting topics and never gives us answers, just to carry for other movies. This movie must be a self-contained story, but story is not only problem. I don't like this much "edgier, dark and realistic" atmosphere. I don't like this Parker with his tight jeans and skateboard. They wanted to tell us THE OTHER STORY THAT ISN'T REALLY REVEALED but instead it's the same story and not even finished. Effects and Ema Stone only saves this movie for me. Expand
  14. Dec 28, 2012
    No, I didn't think a reboot was warranted, and nothing in the previews urged me otherwise. That said, I thought for sure they'd do a great job with it, with the track record of hero-based reboots being taken seriously and respected in the last decade. I expected to at the very least be entertained. If you can read between the lines of the above, you can understand where I'm coming from when I say I am completely dumbfounded by the consistent amount of praise I see for this adaptation. Aside from looking more sterile and overly-indulging in video game caliber CG in places where it wasn't even necessary, making films from over a decade ago look modest in their graphics work, there were nothing but issues for me. From the set designs that actually didn't require green screens to the casting, I am left scratching my head because usually when I get online to complain there are 10 other people touching upon the bases I have been running in my head. A lot of reviews praise the additional back story. If by additional back story, you mean cliche scenes of going against the grain in high school complete with jock bullies, and locker drama seen in countless other 'teen angst overcame' movies, got it. They may have spent more time in his school and very non-Parker-esque like household, but that doesn't mean the extra time spent was actually "building" on anything. It wasn't even just the CG that was over polished and sterile, but even the story lines, and even the big build up scenes. Dennis Leary seemed to be completely playing up what must've been countless people's comments telling him that he reminded them of Aaron Eckhart in Harvey Dent's shoes, and the very hard to get wrong cliches got as thin as it gets when playing up the "rich girl brings rough-around-the-edges" kid to an extreme needlessly "formal" dinner at the Stacy residence. It was a series of scenes I spent wondering if Leary was embarrassed to be rattling off the script he was given for this, as surely the fans and rest of the internet would be tearing this thing to shreds. Silly me... or have I just gone mad? An honest wonder.

    The sewer drama unfolded like the audience had the brain capacity of a 7 year old, having to blatantly have a smart kid like Parker being so thoughtless as to rig up his camera so carefully to snap the lizard's photo, then zooming right in on the back of the camera to the "property of Peter Parker" label on the back that looked like it's only purpose being stuck there was for this scene specifically, covering most of the bottom of the item, then the movie pans right up to this, spoonfeeding us this "clue" in case we missed it. There is little to no attention to detail even on such a pivitol scene (like the rest of the film) to even make the label look "oops, forgot that was even on there". Nothing subtle here...and yes, subtly does work even for a comic book movie. Other tidbits that left me biting my tongue include the scene of the spider crawling out of the bite wound, and the fact that they got away with banking on the praise they'd receive for one aspect, namely "being truer to the original, and truer to reality" by incorporating the synthetic web shooter vs. the spider's venom itself passing on web-spinning capabilities as in some variations of these stories. The rest of the movie negates this cry for credibility in every way -- nothing felt natural. I guess I've been spoiled -- most movies I sit through are concerned with all of these things so my mind doesn't even have to wander to consider picking apart things like that. Much like an ex wife who lost a divorce who is defending her meltdown, "I've grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle!" In all honesty I expected this to be good, because they had so many skeptical eyes on them for such and early reboot and a legacy to uphold or outdo, and since that has actually been achieved by others more often than before, Marvel and Co. surely would only back something that would do it justice. In that light, this 4am squinty-eyed review is one I was not expecting to write, and I would've guessed I'd be more likely to write something like this for a movie like 'Chronicle', which I enjoyed much more than I thought I would. The Amazing Spider Man turned out to be quite the table turner for me.
  15. Dec 27, 2012
    One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. My brothers saw this in the theatre and were singing praises about it so of course one of them got it for Christmas. Every once in a while my brothers will recommend a good movie to see (The Avengers, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, etc.) and then they'll recommend crap like this and it just cements my theory that they'll watch anything that shows up on the TV screen. This movie has no redeeming values and is a complete retread of a superior movie that is only TEN years old. The directing is awful, pushing a dazed spiderman who can't act through scenes & events that feel like they are being checked off of a list. The camera work is boring, feeling like it was shot from all tripods & steadycams. The acting is non-existent except for Martin Sheen (who I feel bad for being stuck in this poor excuse for a movie) and most of the characters come off as jerks. If there are any non-stunt SFX, I didn't notice them... I guess the $230m budget went into filming in LA & NYC because for a superhero movie this is really bland. Everything about this predictable, copycat of a movie is a direct downgrade from the 2002 version and has no merits of it's own. Do not waste your time with this and do not support Hollywood's obsession with "remakes". Expand
  16. Nov 23, 2012
    A bit on the weak side I'm afraid. The movie doesn't seem to rise up from being a silly teenager flick, nerdy boy meets hot girl and then proceeds to tell her he's Spiderman. That's about it.
  17. Nov 21, 2012
    You're going to love this movie if you're new to Spiderman and the history behind this character. If you're an old Spiderman fan, you either loved it because you love Spiderman so much or hated the movie because it did not exactly portray the origins of Spiderman and his powers, except for Uncle Bens death. For an 2 hour film it seems the movie spend most of the time showing how a guy went from being the hipster d-bag at starbucks to the hipster d-bag holding a starbucks cup with super powers trying to do a kick flip in an abandon garage. Compared to the Dark Knight: Rises and the Avengers, this super hero movie is a super zero movie. I can't pathom how hard I tried to keep this movie from boring me to tears with scenes only suitable for teenagers who are going through puberty and can get off with such bland story line. Expand
  18. Oct 28, 2012
    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
  19. Oct 27, 2012
    Absolutely horrible. Riddled with nauseating cliches from beginning to end. This may be the worst and most unnecessary reboot ever. There is absolutely no originality in the plot. Even the soundtrack is ridiculously annoying. I'd have thought these directors could learn from the Nolans and the Snyders on how to make good superhero movies. The only high point in this movie is Emma Stone's solid acting. Garfield tries and his moments too, I'll give him that. The CGI is absolutely horrendous. It's like they're using software from 1999. Dr. Lizard has got to be the most un-terrifying bad guy ever. The 3D gimmicks are off-point and cheesy. Really, I have no idea how this movie got into production in the first place. Biggest letdown of the year. Expand
  20. Oct 6, 2012
    no se si alguien me pueda entender pero en cierto caso "use the traslator if you want" , yo personalmente pienso que la actuacion andrew garfield, emma stone, y martin sheen fue buena, los efecto fueron buenos, y la forma de dirigir de webb es muy interesante, pero la historia de la pelicula es muy mala, en los primeros 15 minutos peter "investiga" acerca de sus padres y despues deja de hacerlo. cuando el tio ben de peter muere, peter se dedica a hacer una busqueda como si fuera krave el cazador en encontrar al asesino de su tio, y despues deja de hacerlo para buscar al lagarto que al final termina encarcelado, mala la idea. el romance fue bien al principio pero despues se hizo muy rapido, como si los escritores pensaran: vamos hacer que peter bese a la chica, le revele su identidad y que al final de la pelicula rompa con ella para que 5 minutos despues regresen a ser novios!!! no me gusto mucho que peer fuera un chico con capulla que practica skate y con un peinado al de edwar cullen, que gwen fuera fria al final, lo digo porque cuando muere su padre no se le ve triste, pero cuanto termina con peter termina llorando, el lagarto fue una basura, un hombre lagarto gigante desnudo con una cara de simio, que tenia el plan de convertir la gente en lagartos, pero que ni siquiera logra durar mas de medio dia en su estado de lagarto, ¿y que paso con la familia de connors? ¿porque flash thompson no fastidia tanto a peter como en los comics? ¿porque gwen es una chica ricachona con una familia completa? ¿porque el capitan stacey le quita la dinamica de j jameson? Expand
  21. Oct 4, 2012
    Sally Fields as aunt may just doesn't seem right... she is a great actress. but as Aunt may, I just don't see it. This movie was too drawn out and unnecessary really, I really enjoyed Tobey Maguire as spidey more-so. Not sure what to make of the suit in this movie either... Although the premise of having Gwen Stacy as his first girl friend went along with the comic book series. I wished we could all just agree to forget about spider-man 3 and just let Sam Raimi remake it. but this time keep venom out of it until much later on. But I would say this one is just as bad as Spider-man 3, but on the other side of the spectrum. Where Spider-man 3 tried to bite off more than Sam Raimi could chew in a single length movie. This one is the utter lack there of. Expand
  22. Oct 1, 2012
    Worst Spiderman movie. Ever. End of story.
    Whoever wrote this movie's plot (I don't even want to know his name) should be ashamed. I can only feel disappointed in all the people that actually went to see the movie. It's just so terrible. Almost nothing new or relevant is revealed. I'm surprised nobody sued these people. The acting is a bit childish, and the cheesy romance played by Andrew
    and Emma is like a new version of Twilight, and I think I speak in name of all people when I say we don't want another Twilight. If you haven't seen this movie so far, then you've done good. Expand
  23. Sep 23, 2012
    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.
  24. Sep 3, 2012
    I want my money back. The only thing impressive about this movie was indeed the special effects. Awesome! But that certainly doesn't make up for some of the worst acting, the lamest story and the most annoying actors ever. I hated this movie. It was not the best Spiderman ever. It wasn't the best anything. It was horrible and unoriginal in every way. And I'm shocked that Sally Field would have anything to do with this trash. Expand
  25. Aug 25, 2012
    This is not spiderman..... a very bad and boring movie
    The previous was not good but far away better than this one. Hopefully it will end here and no trilogy come out
  26. Aug 3, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'd say this movie is equivalent to Spiderman 3. I hated all the conspiracy's in it. Garfield was a joke of a Parker, but Emma Stone played an... Amazing Gwen Stacey. Expand
  27. Aug 1, 2012
    I was skeptical as much as many people when I heard that Colombia Pictures was rebooting a franchise that was no more than a decade old. Nonetheless, I went in with an open-mind and judged this film from the perspective as both a reboot and on it's own merits. All I can say is this movie is amazing...amazingly underwhelming. That is not to say this movie is not without it's positives. The cast is generally well-rounded (Andrew Garfield really pours his soul into the role), the chemistry between the two romantic leads is very solid, and the action is well-choreographed, with tight cinematography to boost. The core issue with this movie is lies within the script and execution. One opportunity that this reboot sorely missed is the movie doesn't take the chance to stick closer to the comic book source material. Not only does it deviate more from the source material than the Raimi trilogy but the filmmakers go for a Nolan-Batman-esque dark tone by making Peter Parker an emotionally damaged teenager. This feels completely out of place since Spider-Man is supposed to be comical and wisecracking. Parker sometimes does wisecracks but it is so sporadic that it only ends up making his character confusing. Spider-Man is not Batman, the writers tried to put elements into a character that simply don't fit. Another huge misstep was in the villain plot, which features The Lizard. Not only is the motivations of the character confusing and seem to change on the fly, but he also looks like a combination between Killer Croc and a Goomba. Halfway through it becomes obvious that The Lizard is simply another Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin villain except not nearly done as well. Plus the script is so full of plot conveniences and half-baked elements that it truly feels like this script was subjected to many rewrites. Seeing this film, it seemed obvious that the filmmakers were trying to combine the dark brooding tone of the Nolan Batman franchise along with the high-concept sci-fi elements of the Avengers franchise and none of them seem to mesh nor are they executed with the same quality as those film's. I predict that this film is going to be the 'Superman Returns' of the Spider-Man series, a complete misfire of a reboot that fails to bring any fresh momentum to the franchise. This is definitely the weakest Spider-Man movie, even weaker than 'Spider-Man 3' (I never thought that could be possible). Expand
  28. Jul 30, 2012
    I am really not "getting" all the positive reviews this movie is getting, seems very formulaic to me, was too long by quite a bit. Spidy didn't seem nerdy enough to me as Peter Parker. I thought the whole becoming spiderman sequence from bite to finish was better in the first film. I thought Spideys spinning and swinging and Spiderman stuff was better in Spidey one. There was little if anything to recommend this over the first film, character development, villain, action all seemed to be worse to me.

    I am not one who says the movie has to be a slave to the original comic, but other than Gwen Stacy v. MJ as the original girlfreind the first movie seemed to follow the early comics better, and it did it so well that where the 2nd strayed it bugged me. The new one also seemed like a 60s ish story with a 20xx vibe rather than the nostalgic consistency of the first one.

    Wasn't expcting all that much, was still disappointed.
  29. Jul 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.
  30. Jul 26, 2012
    FIrst ask yourself if you were satisfied with Sam Raimi\'s Spiderman Trilogy. If the answer is yes, more than likely you will find this remake completely unnecssesary. If it\'s no, you might be in luck but keep in mind this Spiderman makes little to no attempt to introduce anything new or original in terms of plot. This movie is also loaded with plotholes and multiple events that stretch whatever sense of realism this spiderman brought to the table. Good news is Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are great! Bad news is pretty much everything else, in that this spiderman offers absolutely nothing new or interesting to the superhero. Expand
  31. Jul 23, 2012
    If you like the marvel universe and the comics, you will really loose faith in humanity.
    This is more a teenager movie than a spiderman movie. Spidey looks like an unsure crying teenager who may have look too many twiligh movies. In fact it could have been any "superhero" in this movie. The actor role is not good at all except for peter's girl friend. The Artistic direction seems to have
    gone out of budget and imagination and 3D effect are very unequal. The filming technics are poor, it's a pain to wash like some over used and missplaced focus effect. Even Spiderman 3 that was really bad, was above this in term of realisation. The final cut could have been amputed of 30 minutes to add some dynamic to the movie, some scenes are really long for nothing.
    By reference to the comics, the main character should be quick and intelligent, and this spidey is nothing of that, somtimes his reactions are so ridculous, you just want to slap him, put him in his costume and tell "so now what ? amaze me ... amazing spiderman" ... and certainly he would just cry.
    So in fact it's more a love/teen movie than a super hero movie, they could have replaced spidey be any hero/emo guy it whould have been the same. In term of character respect it's one of the worst marvel movie.
  32. Jul 23, 2012
    No script? No ideas? No creativity? Let's make Twilight in spandex and ram it down their throats! Peter Parker is an awkward science geek? Screw it, let's make him a sullen, brooding emo dick, take his shirt off, and rope in the broads. As much of a train wreck as John Carter is, at least it's not a cynical train wreck. This is: a disgusting, factory-assembled, boardroom-arbitrated, hopelessly written **** It's so cynical and calculating in the way it machinates every scene for maximum profit that it makes you physically sick. Marc Webb, Vanderbilt, Sargent, Kloves, all the hacks involved, and everyone at Sony should go straight to movie jail for this abomination. I still can't figure out what the Lizard was trying to accomplish. He's so badly written and unthreatening, you half expect him to yell "Switch to Geico or die, Spiderman!" Expand
  33. Jul 22, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie sucked. This Peter isn't geek, let me say again...PETER PARKER ISN'T GEEK! His hair, is NOT a Peter Parker's hair, he loves to spread he is the "amazing" spiderman, I tought he would even tell J Jonah Jameson(I bet he would if he was in this movie)...this Parker loves to show off, he is no better than Flash Thompson!! Gwen Stacy is intelligent, the lizard is ridiculous, it just don't look like a lizard, but like a halloween costume. In short it's a "twilighted" spider-man. Sam Reimi Spider-man is way better than this one, and Tobey Maguire is the real Peter Parker!! Expand
  34. MB_
    Jul 21, 2012
    Whatever you do do not take your kids to watch this film. They will resent you for weeks to come, it's just so damned boring. They will scream at you and moan at you as they watch it and hate you when you come out. Now if you're a grown up don't bother either, shallow, predictable and just plain boring. You have been warned.
  35. Jul 18, 2012
    Repetitive.Boring. Zzz. I saw this movie in 3d hoping the action might pop out at me... Well if I seen it in 4d I would have still fell asleep.Don't get me wrong people, but this is a supposed to be a "superhero" movie. Not a drama, love story, or an old folk tale. In video game terms...This movie has no replay value. Trying to tell the same story with less action is something I just don't get. I like Andrew Garfield as an actor. I even like what he did with the role. But the director forgot to say Take 1... Action! Expand
  36. Jul 18, 2012
    This movie has to be one of THE cheesiest superhero movies I've ever seen. The beginning was nice and sophisticated, but the villian...THAT terrible villian Lizard had no characted whatsoever, and neither did Peter. He was just a worried and aggrivated teen who had anger issues after his uncle died. He was so 1-Dimensional that I even groaned loudly in theaters. The plot is what
    really made me unconcious. The main threat is to infect the- wait this is spoiler free. Um, well, the main threat of the enemie is extremely predictable, and is a common plot that even superhero TV shows use frequently. The emotional parts in the end were also kind of a laughing stock. The action is not as bad, but it's not the most believable due to the strange CGI used on Lizard. This is only worthy to watch as a popcorn flick or as a low quality time waster, other than that, the Spider Man from 2001 is a lot batter choice. Expand
  37. Jul 17, 2012
    This movie is a **** I don't think that this is better than the Sam Raimi's trilogy, which has better enemies and better actors. I don't like the villain of this movie, and Garfield is not a good spiderman.
  38. Jul 17, 2012
    if you never saw the original movies then it might be worth seeing for some mild entertainment but in general it is a very dumb, unbelievable and badly written movie. there was no reason that i can see for this remake. the first movies were superior in every way.
  39. Jul 15, 2012
    This review contains spoilers. I saw a lot terrible mistakes in the film esp in the last part when lizard placed his hand that was holding spider man leg on his face,terrible mistakes and acting was extremely poor.... Fun to watch but terrible things and a spider that can't cast webs on his own is just bad.. really really bad...spider is stronger than lizard and he can't beat it...just bad Collapse
  40. Jul 14, 2012
    This movie was clearly written for a tween audience, to whom the characters and their motivations may pass as those of regular 17-year-olds, however to anyone with an iota of taste or sensibility this movie is shown for what it truly is - a soap opera with badly tacked-on action scenes. As a long-time reader of the spider-man comics and literature (including the Ultimate series, on which this movie is clearly based), it was almost as painful to watch Garfield's over-the-top and egotistical approach to Spider-man as it was to watch his laughable attempt to stir up emotions in the viewers (whether it be laughter or empathy). Although I do appreciate and commend the director for attempting to add Spidey's wit and humour in his action scenes (as is common in the books and an element the previous movies lacked), they unfortunately seemed to be more mean-spirited than the lighthearted, witty attitude Spidey exhibits in the books. Over all the character was badly interpreted, the surrounding characters were one-dimensional and the story was a mind-numbing bore. Throughout the movie, I found myself hoping the action segments would help resuscitate my interest - however even they were illogical and badly designed to the point where I could not bother paying attention any more. In conclusion, a disappointing installment in the series which takes the character in an unfortunate direction - perhaps in an attempt to recreate the success of the darker Batman movies - which leaves old-time Spider-man fans wondering if this is still the character they've always known. Expand
  41. Fin
    Jul 13, 2012
    You want to waste 2 hours of your life, then watch this movie.This movie is so boring, there is almost no action into it. The development of Parker is damn weak. You should watch this movie only if you're a teen, because there's no essence in it. This movie is way worse than the Spider-Man movie of 2002, not saying that one was a good one but it was watchable.

    Simply put, don't watch it
    and you'll do something more constructing with your time Expand
  42. Jul 13, 2012
    Just bloody awful. Horrible, in fact. And I usually can some redeeming qualities in superhero movies. Supergirl anyone? Emma Stone was blank and vacant. In fact I've seen wallpaper that was more interesting and talented. She's the next go to girl? Really? Poor Sally Field. After this I don't think she'll be shouting, "you like me, you really like me". She's so talented and so wasted in this. It wasn't the actors fault. There was no character development. No caring about our protagonist. In fact, I was hoping at one point Christian Bale's Batman would come in, growling and cape and cowl flowing, and shoot Garfield in the head. Again, not the actor's fault. Just horrible. Awful and a waste of time. McGuire's Peter Parker was much, MUCH, better. Expand
  43. Jul 12, 2012
    Even coming from a guy who loves the old spiderman films, i have to admit that this new movie is very well done.The performances are first rate. To me andrew garfield has a certain charm, and suits the spiderman character better than that of tobey maguire. Emma stone also exhibits a type of sweetness in her role of gwen stacey. Though the film has a large amount of character developement, and it honestly takes about 30 minutes for the first time that you get to see spiderman. But once the action starts, there is a lot of it. This is all in all, a great reboot that i think is better than the original. Expand
  44. Jul 11, 2012
    This movied is the definition of boring. It is basically the same as the first spiderman with the lizard instead of green Goblin as well as spiderman getting his powers in a new way. Too add to that, the first spiderman movies already had pleasing visuals where as this one had effects that were just ugly to watch. The Lizard looked so fake it were as if I was looking at a creature from minecraft. In fact I challenge those who read this review to watch spiderman 1 and tell me the amazing spiderman is still a good movie. The acting was poor and forced and the only real part I enjoyed of this movie was watching uncle ben get shot and adrew garfield crying like a little girl. In comparison this movie is no where near as good as the first and second spiderman, yet it may be better then the third however that is no accomplishment. Overall this movie is a fail and it is an embarsment to the other spiderman movies, I cant even say that this one is a remake, for any two year old could of made a movie like this. Just dont waste your money. Expand
  45. Jul 10, 2012
    I hate Marc Webb for this movie. Sure, the acting was great, but directing and script are a failure. This isnt the true Spider-man. Spider-man is about power and responsibility, and this one is only about revenge.
    How come he be a true hero if hes not interested in saving inocent civilians. And ooh, how he loves to reveal his identity to everyone. Hes so weak he can't even dodge a BULLET.
    He has no Spider-Sense.
    And Webb's words that the movie is by the comics is a huge lie.
  46. Jul 10, 2012
    This movie compared to the first Spider-man is **** you don't even have to see it, its a waste of money, Toby Maguir made a better Spider-man, The Amazing Spider-man is in my opinion the worst marvel movie yet
  47. Jul 8, 2012
    this movie was really slow for the first hour and then it got better andrew garfield has to be the worst actor i have ever seen play spider man he acts like he is on drugs half the time
  48. Jul 8, 2012
    I found it to be incredibly boring. Could not wait until it was over. There was just nothing I liked about this movie. I found the original spiderman movie to be a really good film so I hoped that this movie would be good as well, but I think that the latest movie is more hype than substance.
  49. Jul 8, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Just because it is a super-hero movie does not mean it cannot be smart and this movie is not smart. I can buy that someone can get bit by a radioactive spider and get super powers because, hey, that's the suspension of belief needed for the genre. If you are not going to go along with that then best to ignore fantasy type movies all together. What I can't by is a high security building with equipment dangerous enough to gas an entire city, can allow someone in just because they have a name tag (and throw someone out because they do not). I also cannot buy that you could just wander around as you please in such a place. And most of all, I do not buy that a teenage intern can access this place whenever they please and create an antidote for a mutant virus that only just appeared, in a matter of 8 minutes. I guess she stayed at a Holiday Inn. Dumb! Expand
  50. Jul 8, 2012
    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
  51. Jul 7, 2012
    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
  52. Jul 7, 2012
    Watched it, and it is in my opinion the worst Spider-Man movie there is. The movie is more focused on the emotional relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, there is not enough action it's all boring conversations and feelings. The actors looks way to old to be in high school. They also got Dr. Connors character all wrong, Connors wanted to maintain his human nature in the comic books, he didn't want to play a god. This Connors was very gloomy. Personally I think Andrew Garfield is a bad choice for Spider-Man, he looks like something that escaped Twilight, he doesn't look anything like a nerdy outcast. In the movie nothing about Peter's parents is really unveiled. I was looking forward to see the movie, I thought it was an interesting reboot, I liked the new costume and that they have gone back to the web shooters. But it was a great disappointment, I was hoping the Lizard could safe this movie but the villain was poorly made and nothing like I had expected.

    To me the best Spider-Man is and always will be Tobey Maguire.
  53. Jul 6, 2012
    What a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dying had no effect on him what so ever. He was very **** and went right into attacks. He was not tactical at all. It felt so incredibly rushed. The story moves so quickly. He just gets the suit. It's like he pulled it out of his ass or something. This was a complete let down. The story is so generic and one-dimensional. I don't even know why they had him like cameras. They tried to make him some cool kid. He used the camera like one time and didn't use it any other time. The comedy was the only thing appealing. The fight scenes were very generic and predictable. He's a lazy, disrespectful, over-confident, teenager who happens to get abilities to climb on walls. It is also stupid how he has those little machines pushing out webs. It makes him so much more vulnerable. All you have to do is aim for those and he's as good as dead. Would not watch again. Expand
  54. Jul 5, 2012
    I watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back. The actors and actresses used didn't always fit the parts, just didn't feel smooth enough. The movie never sucked me into it as most shows and movies are suppose to do and most good ones do do to me. I am glad I got to see this movie at no cost. Expand
  55. Jul 5, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The main problem with this film is that it is to the Spiderman legacy what Superman Returns was to the Superman legacy: Pleasantly executed but completely pointless. The trailers would have you believe this film focuses on the 'untold story' of Peter Parker's background, but aside from the fact the Parker's dad was a scientist and they died in a suspicious car crash, this aspect of the film is completely wasted because it's never explored fully. You're left with the impression Parker's untold story was just a rouse to get people to come and see the film, and you can almost feel Webb's eagerness to get this out of the way so he can concentrate on the business at hand: remaking Rami's first film. So Uncle Ben gets bumped off by some unknown petty criminal again, this gives rise to Peter's sense of responsibility again (though the emotional transition is not as believable as in the Rami's movie), Peter gets his powers from a genetically modified spider again (this time just in a different location) and Peter decides he can't fulfill his love interest because of his new gig as Spiderman...again. Yes, there's mechanical web-shooters instead of biological ones, and this Peter is slightly more cool than Toby Maguire's, and we have Gwen Stacy instead of MJ. But that's about it, those are the differences you're paying your money for!

    The relationship between Garfield and Stone however does work very well; the pair have a more natural chemistry than Maguire and Dunst and that translates effortlessly, though both are far too wise and articulate to be believable as high school students.

    I know some fans like the predictability element of superhero films, but I just wish that this film would have been braver. Nolan's Batman Begins, for example, was a true origin story, offering the audience something new. This film takes no risks and as such do not be under the impression this is an origin story - it's the same film as the 2002 original but with a much less engrossing villain (even the split personality/voices in the head is copied from Rami's Goblin here) If you care about Spidey, you'll end up feeling slightly ripped off by the whole thing.
  56. Jul 4, 2012
    Simply put, it was boring - all of it. The acting, the special effects, the same old storyline. Save your money folks. Go see the vampire killer Abe Lincoln. At least it was fun!
  57. Jul 4, 2012
    The Amazing Spider-Man is Sony pictures second trap to draw you back into theaters at top dollar to watch a freak show of them butchering this classic story into small disgusting chunks of it's former self. While I can not give away the context of the story it's straight forward that what Sony told originally in the first spider man trilogy of films that was true to the spider man saga, they have instead replaced with garbage bits of story twists simply for the sake of saying "oh this is something different. trust us it's not the same movie you paid for a few years ago." And to that respect it isn't the same movie as the Sam Remi films, it's something more disheartening and sad. Since i can't go into detail i will simply say if you are familiar with the spider-man canon and enjoy the story telling associated with the original work, do not see this film. It has nothing to do with the original spider-man comics we all know and love. it's a chopped up remix of non canon waste produced to sell tickets.The only enjoyable aspects of this film revolve around the action which not even Michael Bay could destroy, and Garfield as Peter Parker looks more familiar to the original Peter Parker that Steve Ditko illustrated.Those are weak points of enjoyment i was able to squeeze from this film. Sadly, This disastrous method of film production will continue as long as you purchase tickets to Sony licensed marvel films. Once the license is returned to marvel studios can we hope this fantastic timeless and beloved story can be told right. Go see something else it's not that hard. Or hell buy marvel comics. Expand
  58. Jul 4, 2012
    I dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, any way..............The actors look like they are reading off of Q cards. You dont get the sense of feeling towards themselves that people get when they are in love with there partner. Advice: wait till it comes out on tv or a Premium movie Chanel you may have. Don't waste you money.There are so many things wrong with this movie im just going to stop Expand
  59. Jul 4, 2012
    Tone is all wrong. Awkward only plays effectively until the awkward situation is resolved. This movie is as awkward as the main characters who never grow out of it. This movie has no sense of fun and no sense of Spider-Man or Peter Parker. Keep asking yourself...what does this kid want...and see if you find an answer. The movie was actually boring and the most satisfying moment was watching the credits role. Even the after-credits teaser was lame. Really?? Expand
  60. Jul 4, 2012
    This film was boring, drab and there was no real adventure. The first half sucked. Nothing to write abt villain. A superhero movie needs an equally strong and emphatic villain. This movie lacked that.
  61. Jul 4, 2012
    I don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into the ridiculous, the characters other than Peter Parker are written so lifeless and one-note. I thought there was plenty enough to distinguish this from the last franchise, but I think it's very fair to compare them if you give this one a fair shake standing on its own. This movie, however, does not stand well on its own, Ironically, this one apparently stayed more true to several of the details of the comics but lacks any of the energy and wonder of a comic book. The first movie of the last series had this is spades. Just a really disappointing effort, and the first recent Marvel movie I disliked more than I liked. Expand
  62. Jul 3, 2012
    I dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, any way..............The actors look like they are reading off of Q cards. You dont get the sense of feeling towards themselves that people get when they are in love with there partner. Advice: wait till it comes out on tv or a Premium movie Chanel you may have. Don't waste you money.There are so many things wrong with this movie im just going to stop. Expand
  63. Jul 3, 2012
    Wow. It's pretty bad. It barley held my interest. I found myself at times wishing it was over. The kid that plays spiderman has one of those faces you just want to Jamie Oliver. The tree points I gave it went to the cgi which was really good. The subplot about his parents it totally unnecessary, but maybe they have something big planned. Reminded me of a direct to dvd spiderman movie.

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

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