The Amazing Spider-Man
User Score
7.2 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1045 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 849 out of 1045
  2. Mixed: 90 out of 1045
  3. Negative: 106 out of 1045

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. MarcDoyle
    Jul 9, 2012
    7
    I enjoyed the first Raimi Spider-Man film (and hated the second one). At the time, with nothing to really compare them to, I thought Tobey and Dunst were solid enough, but after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I realize that there was real chemistry lacking between the original's leads. Garfield is much better than Tobey - Tobey's unaffected, bored look worked in The Cider House Rules, but not as Peter Parker. I buy Garfield much more as a high school kid, and Emma Stone is so much more dynamic than Dunst (who excels in such art house flicks as The Virgin Suicides and Melancholia - but not in the popcorn / comic flick realm). Even the antagonist is much more believable and even sympathetic in the right ways. All-around, I think this is the best big screen version of Spidey. No, it's nothing like the Batman Begins reinvention of that franchise, but it's still superior fare.… Expand
  2. kheas
    Jul 4, 2012
    9
    AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: 9.5 This film is a terrific "reboot" of the spider-man franchise. While we did have some retread of familiar ground, the necessary story elements that were repeated were done in a slightly fresher approach. From the spider bite origin of our hero to the inevitable death of Uncle Ben each classic moment was given a fresh coat of paint and melded into the modern story nicely. Even though I did enjoy Toby's portrait of the web head, Andrew Garfield fits the bill as BOTH high-schooler Peter Parker and Spidey himself. Garfield able to maintain every bit of the character in and out of the blue and red costume that made his portrayal feel more like the comic book character than ever before. The changes in the costume were not distracting in the least, the main villain was well thought out and acted plus all of the supporting characters built the frame work for what could be a terrific series of Spider-man Movies for today's audience. It may not be the big "explosive" blockbuster that was Avengers, but it is full of fun,heart and excitement all the same. Go see it and finally see why SPIDER-MAN has been such an enduring comic book character all these years. I look forward to more films in this newly minted franchise.… Expand
  3. vgmkyle
    Jul 22, 2012
    7
    Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had a lot of convincing to do, and after the end of The Amazing Spider-Man I was convinced. I feel like the Spider-Man universe is now a far more realistic one. This movie has all the great action you would expect with an interesting storyline and villain. If you've been waiting for a cooler Spider-Man, this is your move. Let's just hope the special effects and production values are a little more stellar for the next film.… Expand
  4. dreamfar
    Jul 17, 2012
    0
    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.
  5. BKM
    Jul 5, 2012
    5
    Reboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it really necessary to start from scratch so soon? While that can be debated, the film itself is a letdown thanks in large part to its attempts to present a 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
  6. Gilberto
    Jul 12, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short given that I really enjoyed those last films, and while this reboot didnt really satiate me completely, I did for a fact enjoyed watching it. The first problem with the film is that it is doomed to repeat what we already know. For the first half an hour, Spideys obligatory build up before becoming the hero we know is revisited, and that includes Peter being bitten by a spider and Peter watching his uncle Ben being murdered. The director seemed aware of the issue as the scenes are given some new twists, and also seemed to resume everything as quick as possible, but this overall make them feel uneventful. Once that is overcome, the movie starts opening some interesting elements, as well as some interesting characters. Emma Stone as Gwen is great to give an example. Actions scenes are quite nice ,but I dunno if as memorable as other heart pumping scenes from the first three, like per say: the train sequence in Spiderman 2. The soundtrack is OK but at the end pretty forgettable and really falls short to the outstanding soundtrack from the hexed trilogy before it. At the end, perhaps "The Amazing Spider Man´s" most unselfish but unfortunate fate is that it going to be compared to Sam Raimi´s work, and it is from that perspective that it falls short in some and other aspects. It is a good movie to watch with great characters, fighting scenes, music and actor performances, but all of that was also done (and in some ways even better) with the first line of movies and this calls into question if it was really necessary to start all over again.… Expand
  7. jwt7000
    Aug 2, 2012
    6
    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.
  8. kristen58
    Jul 6, 2012
    5
    I loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in a new universe, that's just fine, but 75% of this movie was just his origin story that we just saw in 2002 Spider-Man. I was just sitting there thinking "yeah, I know, move on already" for 90 minutes. Yeah, a few details were different...I think they could have changed more. I could also tell that this movie was very geared towards teenagers and the MTV crowd, and that made it seem stupid to me. The Twilight preview before the movie didn't help. Neither did the girls screaming "woo" in the theatre when Peter and Gwen kissed. Please. I also HATE cheesy 3D tricks, and this movie ended with the stupidest "this would look cool in 3D!" trick ever. It it so stupid and cheesy and not quality cinema. I don't give a crap about 3D! I just want to see a movie with real characters and a story, not watch Spider-Man shoot a web right at my face just because it would look cool in 3D. So enough venting, there were things I liked. One thing I did like was that they did a more humorous take on Spider-Man. This one definitely was funnier that the previous series. They also were obviously going for a more realistic character, as even as Spider-Man he was still clumsy, and his climbing and jumping was more human and less overdone with CGI. They also allowed the suit to look like real clothing, and not digitally enhanced. You could see wrinkles and I think even a zipper. How "perfect" the spidey suit always looked in the previous movies always bugged me. So, I kind of liked the new one, even though it seemed unpolished, since that's what they were going for. Overall it was entertaining and worth seeing, but most of the movie was unnecessary and redundant.… Expand
  9. Veritas
    Jul 4, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A huge step forward for Spiderman as an integral character in the Marvel movie universe. Only two things I didn't like were 1.) Parker's nonchalant attitude when receiving new powers. Dare I say good ole droopy-face Tobey had better writing on suddenly receiving crazy, life-changing powers.The new movie simply glazes over this part with a series of "teenager growing up" hijinx. 2. The cranes. I know there had to be some way to make more drama as Spidey swings to the Oscorp tower, but this is really an unfortunate way to include normal everyday people in the mix with Spidey. The beauty of Spiderman in NY is that most of the people he saves never have any other impact on his life. So this random dude, who had his kid rescued, just happens to have the connections at that one moment to get everyone on a crane in (no time)? Sorry, but even a heightened sense of disbelief won't save that scene. Defintely not the best superhero movie of the summer (Avengers...so far) but a solid movie.… Expand
  10. BrahmaBull
    Jul 4, 2012
    8
    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
  11. BlueMoon
    Jul 26, 2012
    4
    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
  12. Sonicphoto
    Jul 27, 2012
    6
    The idea of a reboot seemed dumb to me, it was too soon, but I decided to ignore that and hope for the best and see this. The problem is that, it doesn't change that much the original story, I was expecting a very different perspective of Peter's story, instead we get basically the same things repeated all over again but with a quicker pace, and like a fan made version of its origins. After it finishes introducing Spider-Man the movie starts to get better, but it doesn't leave a mark on you. Also, the Lizard's face felt it needed much more. Oh and what also annoyed me the most, was the tacked on jokes, the jokes felt very scripted, they didn't come out naturally. Is not bad to remake a movie, but please do a change to it, if you are doing it so soon! Batman Begins was a reboot and a very different one at that.… Expand
  13. KarthXLR
    Jul 7, 2012
    5
    Overly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaser in the end credits.

    Not necessarily bad, just completely forgettable.    … Expand
  14. Jacob
    Aug 1, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When it comes to reviewing Amazing Spider-Man it… Expand
  15. MRedzuan
    Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Right off the bat, The Amazing Spider-Man is the best out of all four Spider-Man movies released so far. The key positive aspect of Mark Webb's reboot and what Sam Raimi failed to achieve with his franchise is remain faithful to the comic books. All of Peter Parker's iconic moments is still intact, the inevitable spider bite, uncle Ben's death, the first time he dons the realistic-looking suit, it's covered in greater detail and you don't feel the … Expand
  16. man
    Jul 14, 2012
    8
    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
  17. Uh_Oh
    Jul 12, 2012
    10
    Wow!!! This movie so captures the essence of Spider Man! The cast is soo amazing, you care about what happens the entire movie. Do yourself a favor and throw the 3 Sam Raimi Spidermans in the garbage.
  18. txrangersfan72
    Jul 7, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a comic book geek for the past 3 decades, I'm a little more critical than most. However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" gets some things right, comic book-wise, but gets a lot wrong. And from a movie perspective, it's really quite weak. Overall, it's an amazing, albeit expected, disappointment.
    First, let's talk about what The Amazing Spider-Man did right. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man and Peter Parker were very good. He was skinny, gawky, **** and funny. He WAS Ditko's Spidey. I loved him as much as I loved Tobey. And that is saying a LOT. They included his love and aptitude for science. His dialogue while dealing with common criminals was very accurate with a teenager given a little bit of power, yet not realizing the responsibility that comes with it. Painful lessons then ensued to bring said **** teenager back down to Earth. This interpretation of the teenage mind was actually better than the original trilogy. In addition, the creation of his web shooters being a product of Oscorp that he essentially weaponizes was a perfect modern take on them, and another improvement on the original trilogy. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was absolutely adorable. Her strength, personality and sheer cuteness (even though I prefer the red hair...I have such a thing for red hair) complemented Andrew's portrayal well, especially as they interacted more and the story progressed.
    While I was hesitant about the Lizard as a primary villain, they wove him into the story so well that I was pleasantly surprised to find him so interesting. While Rhys Ifans did a great job as Dr. Connors was a much better selection for portraying the raging Lizard, I always liked Dylan Baker's Dr. Connors. The key to making the Lizard a suitable primary villain, though, was weaving him into a story with some depth, which they did. He was centralized very well with not only a reason to become the Lizard, but also a reason to tie him into Peter/Spidey. Also, fixing the problem they had with the portrayal of Venom, the Lizard was larger than life, ominous and a physically superior being to Spider-Man. Finally, while it took until end to finally see it, the last scene with Peter and Aunt May established a very good chemistry and character element to the overall story. I look forward to seeing this blossom in the future movies as it greatly exceeds the original casting by Raimi. At first I was concerned about May not being portrayed as old enough, but in the end, it worked.
    All of the good things above transpired in the second half of the film, which made me actually stay because, while I've only walked out of two movies in my life (Dune and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), this was very close to being my third. The first hour of The Amazing Spider-Man was mind-numblingly boring. I was not aware they were seriously going to redo and/or retell his entire origin. The "untold story" required it, apparently. For those who love the ACTUAL origin story and loved the way Raimi told it, this was a kick to the crotch. It was insulting. It was unnecessary. It was so very badly done. It, frankly, ruined the movie for me. I think there was a way to weave the actual origin into this without redoing it all. Next, the script. While the second half of the movie added meat to this new origin, which made the rest of the film tolerable, the dialogue was complete crap. As much as Andrew and Emma seemed good together, the dialogue between them tried repeatedly to screw it up. It was weak, fake and hard to watch. Completely unnatural for two people who appeared to have chemistry.
    Next, the directing. Direction in this film is clumsy, spotty and elementary. Some action scenes are good, some are choreographed and/or edited very poorly. The camerawork during the Emma/Andrew scenes meant to bring them together and have the viewer care about the relationship developing, misses the mark completely. Editing may be more at fault here, especially during action sequences, but the qualitative variance from scene to scene smack of a poorly directed film.
    In the end, while I am always a sucker for comic book movies, especially beloved ones like Spider-Man, nothing happened in The Amazing Spider-Man to warrant dumping Raimi and the original cast. As bad as some may have thought Spider-Man 3 was, this movie did absolutely nothing to prove this was the right direction in which to go. Yet, based on audience and critical reaction, as well as the press around the mid-credit surprise ending piece, two more movies have been announced to tell yet another trilogy. Hopefully this movie will improve over time as the story unfolds, but with Christopher Nolan's Batman/Dark Knight masterpieces and Raimi's original bar set, there is no reason this movie shouldn't have been able to stand on its own, independent of supporting story lines in later films.    … Expand
  19. TVJerry
    Jul 10, 2012
    6
    This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn. He brings a personality to the part that makes him constantly charming, even though his emotional side just keeps turning on the water works. The story starts with promise and the early discovery scenes are entertaining, but as the film develops, it falls apart. The action scenes are often muddled and over-edited. The lizard villain looks fake. The pacing lags more than once. Other than Garfield, there's not much here's to recommend. NOTE: Stay thru the first part of the credits for a sequel teaser.… Expand
  20. agagil
    Nov 23, 2012
    3
    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.
  21. Lambo442
    Dec 9, 2012
    9
    A superb Spidey film, as good as Spiderman 1+2 I thought, if not a little better. Just an all round good film and exactly what you want it to be. The 'web shooting machines (can't be bothered to google technical term) on his wrists are a geeky and therefore pleasurable addition. How couldn't you enjoy seeing a pink flash every time he fires a web?
  22. Leg0pc
    Jul 3, 2012
    9
    I went into this with low expectations but really really enjoyed what it had to offer. Honestly, Im a huge spiderman fan regardless growing up in the 80s and 90s but this really was better then the avengers. The CGI is flawless and imax 3D make this movie look absolutely amazing. The story was very compelling and the star studded cast was fantastic from Dennis Leary to Emma Stone who should be nominated for some type of award.

    There were its share of cheesy moments but this is a super hero movie and it is to be expected. Also, if I had to complain about anything, it would be the terrible music and sound throughout the movie. Truly, music can really make or break certain parts and this movies sound music wise was pretty terrible. Regardless for any super hero fan, an absolute must see    … Expand
  23. TheOnlineGamer
    Sep 17, 2012
    10
    Best Spider-man movie so far! The acting,special effects,Villain were all great and I can't wait to see the Green Goblin in the next movie. This will probably go down as one of the greatest movie franchises if they keep up the standard. 10/10
  24. VidsRule
    Nov 21, 2012
    10
    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
  25. jsowers
    Jul 19, 2012
    5
    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.
  26. billruller
    Jul 29, 2012
    5
    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
  27. TheQuietGamer
    Nov 10, 2012
    9
    When I first heard about this reboot I wasn't looking forward to it at all. I expected it to suck, after I saw that they changed Spidey's suit I was sure they were going to ruin Spider-Man, but after seeing the movie I'm proud to say that it's fantastic. Yeah they changed the suit, and while I'm still not cool with it I have to admit it's not a bad looking suit. They did add a few 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
  28. Tokyochuchu
    Nov 26, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider-Man is probably the best in the franchise yet. The movie is particularly fun when dealing with the discovery of powers. It doesn't hurt that Emma Stone is hot, either. This Spider-Man is at it's worst during the action scenes but still does more than enough to entertain. Basically speaking, The Amazing Spider-Man is a promising reboot.
  29. FDT44
    Jul 26, 2012
    6
    Its been a mere decade since Sam Raimi helmed Tobey Maguire (as twenty-something Peter Parker) and company together to set the modern standard for the webslinging hero. As the first two films experienced both commerical and critical success, it's understandable as to why the latest project, The Amazing Spider-Man may strike some fans as being "too soon." But, such popular wisdom didn'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
  30. allystew
    Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Seen "The Amazing Spiderman" tonight. Wasn't expecting much but very pleasantly surprised. Its better than the original as well for me. For sure its darker and the Peter Parker/Spiderman character is closer to the comics. More time is spent building the story, however this means the film takes a while to get going. Its worth it though as the relationships between Parker and those around him are given more time to develop. The action scenes are good and 3D is really great with the skyscraper web-slinging inducing real vertigo. Check it out.… Expand
  31. SFN
    Jul 7, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. best spider-man movie ever, period, Andrew plays a absolute perfect spider-man/ Peter Parker, the beautiful Emma stone is perfect for Gwen Stacy, people complain about how the movie takes awhile to get started and it does but only because their telling every detail that the others didn't mostly about Peter's parents, the acting is really good and the i was also impressed with the CG also, me being a spider-man fan and knowing everything there is to know about him this is a perfect film, all these people who say its no good are not real fans, this is a movie for actual spider-man fans not for everyone that goes and see's it, if your a fan you can't go wrong with this movie… Expand
  32. sundaygrundle
    Jan 27, 2013
    7
    It
  33. JonnyFendi
    Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Spidey is spicy than ever! Ready or not, here he comes. They take Spider-Man to THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) level. Darker! More realistic! And more serious! But don
  34. Moviebuffreview
    Aug 11, 2012
    10
    Amazing is an understatement. As a Spider-Man fan, I have waited for my whole life to get the true definitive Spider-Man movie, and I have finally gotten it. Wonderful performances, thrilling action, incredible screen writing, perfect humor, and fantastic character arcs make Spider-Man one of the most entertaining, and personal, comic book movies of all time. This is a fantastic movie, one that everyone should see.… Expand
  35. xdarkdrake
    Jul 20, 2012
    10
    I was very sceptical about seeing this reboot so soon after the last franchise did a good job with Toby at the helm of Spidey. I never heard of Andrew Garfield before this movie, but I thought he did an amazing job at portraying "youth angst". This is a must see even if you liked the previous versions!
  36. asthobaskoro
    Jul 5, 2012
    8
    Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone bound is undeniably charming. With sure-handed direction from Marc Webb, pull the memories of Raimi's trilogy. Spider-Man is only human being with spider bite, it's the most realistic but really close to its source. People complain about the 3D, so am I. But it's the agenda from the start, looks deeper.
  37. Hfahmy
    Aug 14, 2012
    5
    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
  38. Heavenly_King
    Jul 5, 2012
    10
    The movie is indeed AMAZING!

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

    The story is really well done, even though it forces some events a bit, that you may think require more time "completed", but still; the plot is well written. I have to say that this movie is an improvement over the previous ones in every aspect. The way he gets his powers and why he has them are better explained (even though that is not how it happens in the comics lol). The acting is good, you can feel the emotions and motivations of the characters. GO AND WATCH IT!!! IT IS ONE OF THE BEST SUPER-HERO MOVIES EVER!!!!    … Expand
  39. MonopolyBag
    Jul 5, 2012
    3
    I watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back. The actors and actresses used didn't always fit the parts, just didn't feel smooth enough. The movie never sucked me into it as most shows and movies are suppose to do and most good ones do do to me. I am glad I got to see this movie at no cost.… Expand
  40. Kazaam350
    Jul 3, 2012
    9
    It was truly amazing. I love the first 2 Spider-man movies, so I'm glad the new spider-man franchise started that good. Great performances, effects and action, and the best 3D since Avatar.
  41. SpartanEdge
    Jul 18, 2012
    7
    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
  42. MachoHombre
    Jul 5, 2012
    10
    Gone is the de facto essence of the original Sam Raimi series that captivated crowds with its webby charm. In fact, some may say that the story of Peter Parker's meteoric rise to superhero status has already been beaten to death and the Spider-Man name is better off succumbed to cobwebs; but, lo and behold, something amazing has emerged in its wake since we last caught up with our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Yes, arachnophobes rejoice, because there's nothing more to be afraid of. The Amazing Spider-Man may initially come across a sort of tumorous growth next to the already existing Spidey movie franchise, but what it does do, it does web-free. Swipe the whole 'radioactive spider' thing away and proceed to stomp all over it with relent as you may, what you'll discover is a movie that's not been built around the device of a magical creepy crawler that goes and turns the world upside down with an infectuous little bite, but a movie that plays off of this ludricous idea of eight-legged heroic origin beautifully. With that in mind, go see The Amazing Spider-Man. You won't be disappointed. Oh, and let me add that the little romance which goes on between Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) is not annoying, but stirring...not to mention that the director's last name is Webb.… Expand
  43. simpletaste
    Aug 1, 2012
    10
    I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Compared to the "other" first movie, I'd say I enjoyed them both equally, yet in different areas and aspects. They both had elements apart from each other that I recognized growing up and this one successfully updating the story for the times. My version of Spider-Man was the intelligent, science wiz that was not necessarily popular, yet wasn't an outcast either portrayed in this version. Compared to the other movie, I liked how they had Peter develop his own mechanism for dispensing the webbing which I was fond of as a kid, his more talkative nature while he's in his Spider-Man persona which in turn, funny as it sounds, makes him feel more human while in the suit. I loved the chemistry between Peter and Gwen and in my opinion, accurately projects that sorta young love, filled with awkward moments and uncomfortable eye contact that anyone can relate to when starting a new relationship with someone. The antagonist was no slouch, and everyone's performance were well done from top to bottom.… Expand
  44. shambo
    Jul 22, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Having watched the Spiderman trilogy, my expectations of The Amazing Spiderman were initially low. Reading into some early reviews of the movies, I felt unimpressed. Nevertheless, I decided to enter the theater with an open mind. What I got was unprecedented. I saw a movie that was spectacular, endearing,a film that actually made me care about the characters. Toby Maguire might as well have played a plank of wood sleeping in a field for three hours. Andrew Garfield brought something to the movie, that Raimi could never evoke from Maguire; flavor, a peculiar flair, that stimulates the movie, even when there is no action taking place. His character is rigorously researched, resembling the original Spiderman envisioned by Ditko and Lee. He brings humor to the table( albeit a bit cheesy). He is smart, dependable, and caring. He personifies the high-school geek, but brings to charm it. He encourages us to stand up to the bully. He is bold in the face of danger. He gets the girl. He is smart, both practically and theoretically.

    Then we see the dark dimension to the film. The dissonance in the family that leads to the poignant death of his Uncle. A scene that allows us to sympathize with the rebellious geek. We are offered a character with many dimensions, a flawed character, unlike the stereotypical heroes we are normally offered. The on screen relationship between Garfield and Stone is a pleasure to watch. The chemistry is bubbling between the pair. Including some memorable quotes and moving scenes. Trust, a quality long lost on our generation is exemplified in Stone's and Garfield's characters, when he reveals his true identity to her. The tension is augmented by the fact that Stone's father, Capitan Stacy, is actively hunting Spiderman. We see the overbearing father holds the same level of disapproval for Peter Parker as he does his altar-ego. The Down to earth nature of the film is best displayed through the blue collar, Uncle Ben, played by the veteran actor Martin Sheen. Sheen brings the intrinsic qualities of family love and togetherness to the movie. He is a man who has worked all his life. He can be tough on Peter but means well. He loves his wife, and is enraged when Peter fails to pick her up from a dangerous neighborhood. When Peter becomes disenchanted, he storms out. Uncle Ben follows, ending up in a dangerous area.Ironically, the danger Ben warns Peter about is the very thing that kills him. In the conclusion, we see the insightful text message sent to Peter, which urged him to come home that night. In a way Peter is faced with a unresolved guilt. He seeks vengeance, but revenge cannot satiate the hole his uncle's death leaves. I particularly loved the exploration of Peter's past. It gives us a greater character profile and helps us understand how he came to live with his aunt and uncle. The Lizard was a good villain no doubt, but I felt maybe his character should have had a bit more screen time. Overall, the atmosphere and the plot were good. Rounded off by a great cast. It has all the makings of a great movie. Bow down Mr Raimi 10/10    … Expand
  45. Agent_01
    Jul 5, 2012
    9
    defiantly worth t least a seven out of ten. I thought that no super hero movie I saw would seem any good after watching the avengers, but this while not as god as the avengers, is still a decent movie, and in my opinion better than the original. It is a worthy contender for the dark knight rise, but I don't expect it will be as good as that will. I can't really be bothered to go into detail
  46. MB_
    Jul 21, 2012
    1
    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.
  47. Halfwelshman
    Sep 24, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a decent quality film and a pretty fun ride. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are excellent, with Garfield remembering to be a human first and a superhero second, and stone having great chemistry with the web-head as Peter Parker's highschool sweetheart Gwen Stacy. Denis Leary is also superb as Gwen's over-protective, condescending but well-meaning police 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
  48. Gamer44
    Nov 30, 2012
    10
    This is by far the best spider man movie yet.Never thought a reboot of spider man would be 10 times better than the first spider man movie.Maybe it was the story line of the first spider man movie that made me fall asleep or could it have been the acting of Toby Maguire that made me hate Spider man 1,2 and 3. so when saw the trailer for the amazing spider man I truly thought this could probably be the worst spider man movie ever made.But never judge a book by it's cover or in this case never judge a movie by it's cover the amazing spider man is easily one of this year's best movies in my books.Glad I did not judge the movie by reading the other reviews given by other users on this website.Just have to say again the amazing spider man movie is the best one yet and I truly hope there could be sequel's if the amazing spider man so good who knows how good the sequel's could be.… Expand
  49. Jezamiah
    Jul 4, 2012
    9
    I thought the movie was...amazing (excuse the pun) unlike its predecessors it stayed true to the original storyline. Andrew Garfield did a good job and portrayed Peter Parker well enough. In 3D the experience was fantastic and i would certainly recommend it. The only negative i can say is that other characters seem to lack depth (perhaps there wasn't enough time). The best thing about this movie is the potential, there are several enemies that did not feature (Green Goblin, Venom) and there's enough in this series for at least 2 more films providing they're equally (or better) than the first film.
    As always it's a Marvel film DO NOT LEAVE IMMEDIATELY AT THE END.
    9/10    … Expand
  50. LordOFlibertY
    Jul 4, 2012
    7
    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
  51. Knicksfan7
    Jul 6, 2012
    9
    I have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 i didn't think Andrew Garfield was a great choice at first because i've only seen him in "The Social Network" which he was great in but i couldn't picture him as an action star, but i was wrong. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field and Martin Sheen all made up a perfectly blended together cast. I must also say that Rhys Ifans did more than an amazing job as the villain (The Lizard). The Lizard was pretty terrifying at times which is very hard to do in superhero films, and the tone of the movie was great, you actually feel for the characters and what they're going through which certainly is not easy to accomplish in a film, especially one like Spiderman. Everything overall was very well done in this film. My only flaws were the 3d is totally not worth it, there was little to no 3d at all, and in the trailers they showed Spidermans perspective on him swinging from building to building like first person but there wasn't any of that in the actual movie. It also got a bit corny at times when Peter (Spiderman) first got his powers, but thats to be expected to some extent. Overall this was a great film, a definite must-see of the summer, just not in 3d. 9/10… Expand
  52. skykappah
    Jul 8, 2012
    7
    Lets give you the bad stuff first. I take away 1 point for the lack of Spider-man action. As you may already know from reviews... It takes a bit of time before you get proper costume.
    When Spidey action does kick in, you grab some popcorn and it's over before you even put it in your mouth. That's most of the action sequences obviously some are longer than others. 1 point deduction for wea    k Spider-man character building.
    You know how in Sam Raimi's version you got or understood a healthy amount of time had passed from when Parker first becomes (the real) Spider-man to him getting famous from the media? Well that is non existent in this and it's taken for granted that you should know that has happened.
    Yeah it's not fair to force Mark Webb replicate what's been done before but it makes the new film seem rushed and haphazardly put together.

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

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

    Conclusion.
    As much as I hated the EMO "woe is me" overtones of Raimi's Spider-man. It's the superior film over Mark Webb's. Raimi being an actual lifetime fan of Spider-man knew how Spidey fought and moved. Though I guess we could defend the new version as more inexperienced Spider-man.
    It's not too inferior mind... It's just that nothing new has been put on table. You would have thought with The Avengers film coming to fruition at almost the same time they would have liaised and came to the same conclusion that a lot of costume time would have been better. If only you could splice Raimi's and Webb's films together then you'd get the perfect Spider-man.    … Expand
  53. cabrita
    Jul 3, 2012
    10
    It is a great film filled with human emotion and multiple conflicts. Webb makes a film more worried about characters then action. This is not to say that the action scenes are not masterfully crafted and beautiful looking. These characters are dear to us similarly to the ones of 500 days of summer. The only other super hero movies to have the same effect is Nolan's Batman series. You 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
  54. OZxQB
    Jul 20, 2012
    10
    Fantastic movie for comic fans. Better storytelling and characterization than the recent Spiderman movies in my humble opinion. If you've never seen a Spiderman movie, watch this one and skip the others. I hope this one becomes a franchise.
  55. fistobuizel
    Jul 5, 2012
    8
    This fresh reboot takes the original film to all new levels with a slightly more fleshed out stores and three-dimensional characters (figuratively and literally). The lizard may not make quite as good of a villain as the Green Goblin, but Garfield's Spiderman dominates. Tobey Macguire who? Emma Stone provides a relatable love interest and truly allows you to feel for her character. The cinematography and visual effects are top notch and help to provide a thoroughly enjoyable experience.… Expand
  56. kyled829
    Jul 7, 2012
    10
    When I first heard that they were rebooting Spiderman with stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and that it would be directed by Marc Webb, I was pretty excited. Once I stepped into the theatre, I was ringing with anticipation. And when the movie ended, I was speechless. Yes, this may sound dramatic, but to me, "The Amazing Spider-Man" exceeded my expectations in every single way and completely blew me away. It easily and instantly became one of my favorite movies, and I can't wait to see it again. Here's why: first, I loved the mysterious back story involving peter and his father, which drew you in from the minute the movie began and left you wondering as the movie ended. I was also a huge fan of the Lizard, a slithering, misunderstood villain whose action-packed battles with Spidey were thrilling to watch. Thirdly, and most importantly, the two main characters (Garfield and Stone) stole the show, in my opinion. Not only were their acting and character portrayals superb, but the chemistry between the two actors was so undeniably genuine that I felt as though I was experiencing every emotion along with them. Director Marc Webb, who made another favorite film of mine, (500) Days of Summer, proves that although he may not have the most extensive background in film making, he most definitely has the talent to make heartfelt, interesting and fun films, to say the least. I am absolutely obsessed with "The Amazing Spider-Man" and eagerly anticipate its sequels.… Expand
  57. Mcc123
    Jul 12, 2012
    0
    Even coming from a guy who loves the old spiderman films, i have to admit that this new movie is very well done.The performances are first rate. To me andrew garfield has a certain charm, and suits the spiderman character better than that of tobey maguire. Emma stone also exhibits a type of sweetness in her role of gwen stacey. Though the film has a large amount of character developement, and it honestly takes about 30 minutes for the first time that you get to see spiderman. But once the action starts, there is a lot of it. This is all in all, a great reboot that i think is better than the original.… Expand
  58. DarkEnergon
    Jul 25, 2012
    9
    The best Spiderman film to date, with a dream cast (Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Martin Sheen in particular) a compelling, to-the-point origin story, a fun soundtrack and some awesome fight scenes. While it does follow the same cues as Raimi's original Spiderman movie, that's simply because it's Spiderman's origin, it draws from the same comic book that Raimi's film drew from, so similarities are bound to occur. But overall, I believe this film far outdoes Raimi's Spiderman, the characters in this Spiderman are just so...I guess...loveable :/ And let's face it, the lack of Tobey Maguire makes would make any series reboot a winner, there's something about that guy's acting that stirs about the urge in me to lamp him one, quite an issue when I only ever see him on expensive, fragile screens.
    It does annoy me that they went with the age old, "Cop fights superhero because he doesn't want him taking the law into his own hands" bullsh!t we've seen a million times before, but I do like the way they tie that off towards the end.    … Expand
  59. PPPETER
    Jul 8, 2012
    4
    this movie was really slow for the first hour and then it got better andrew garfield has to be the worst actor i have ever seen play spider man he acts like he is on drugs half the time
  60. aqurban
    Jul 7, 2012
    10
    Brought to you from Stan Lee's Marvel comic: The Amazing Spider-man, this film production re-imagines all three previous movies into one master piece, in which incredible direction and presentation flows freely. Andrew Garfield makes debut as he takes the costume of his childhood hero, with extremely amazing performance.
  61. Kadeemluvmusic
    Jul 6, 2012
    9
    This is the first Spider-Man movie since 2007's Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is just what a summer reboot looks like! The movie was awesome, I saw the Tuesday night showing before people were getting ready for 4th of July weekend. The ending was shocking, but I can't say any spoilers right now! However, my guess is that there's gonna be a sequel to the movie soon if Andrew Garfield is gonna come back reprising Spider-Man. I believe The Hobgoblin should be in the movie, but I don't know yet. It was a great reboot and I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises coming out. I hope there's gonna be a line.… Expand
  62. SensibleGamer
    Jul 21, 2012
    6
    At the end of the day , regardless of how hard director Marc Webb tries to veil it , you simply cannot escape the fact that the Amazing Spider - Man is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle . Director Webb's decision to re - visit Spidey's origin , has in my opinion backfired . It lacks the maturity and slick sense of style so very characteristic of Christopher Nolan's Batman films , being overly - reliant on traditional comic book movie cliche and somewhat unimaginative set - pieces . The performances of the entire cast - Garfield and Stone in particular - are worth a mention as they keep you invested in some otherwise dull moments . At the end of the day , I can't help but feel that The Amazing Spider - Man could have been so much better had the creators not decided to take an overly - conservative approach and instead would've dared to think outside - the - box the way Nolan did with his Batman films . Nonetheless , it's still decent fun if you've got a few hours to spare , just don't set your expectations sky high… Expand
  63. nicov
    Jul 9, 2012
    7
    Quite a refreshing film actually. The new approaching was well developed and thoroughly planned, even considering It wasn't a smart idea to reboot the saga so early. Despite a little tuned off with a few things, it manages to give a totally new focus on the plot and still resemble the Spider-Man idea, very clearly and precisely.
  64. mwak
    Jul 23, 2012
    1
    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.    … Expand
  65. josephbalentine
    Jul 19, 2012
    8
    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.
  66. rafael14
    Jul 14, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is considerably more fun than the other three movie of Spider-Man because the actor who do Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) are better than the other and this movie tell the real part of spider-man and show how his turn his super hero and Emma Stone is perfectly in this movie, ok she is a excelent actress and she do Gwen Stacy, even she never listen about this character. the filme is fantastic… Expand
  67. cub317
    Jul 3, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie truly is amazing. It really is one of the best superhero movies I have ever seen. I disagree with what the critics are saying by giving it a measly 67 out of 100. I like that this movie stays more true to the original comics that it is based on. Spider-Man is now more of a wise-cracker, making jokes in a dangerous situation (unlike the Spider-Man of a certain other film trilogy I know). I also like that the story is darker, and less romantic (unlike a...oh scratch it you know the drill). The main villain is now not a true villain, but a guy who wants something back. This is what makes it so much more original than a lot of the other superhero movies, whose villains are filled with anarchy. The CGI is excellent. The Lizard (main villain) might be up to the level of how Davy Jones and Gollum looked in their respective films. There is only one real problem that I have with this film. Towards the end where Lizard is about to take over the city by turning everyone into reptiles, he intoxicates some S.W.A.T. team people by turning them into lizards like himself. However, these people do not help the lizard at all in the rest of the film. This leaves a plot hole in which you don't know what they did from there. You only see them changing back into their human form at the very end. This plot hole does not change my opinion on this movie however. To me it is still an excellent film, and I cannot wait for the sequel!… Expand
  68. GentlemanRick
    Jul 3, 2012
    9
    Lets just say, i wasnt expecting much from this move from the start. But holy cow was i wrong. I was sure Toby McGuire was the only one that could play Spider Man that good but Andrew Garfield was spectacular as well as the other actors. The action was more intense than the originals. The movie made me laugh, feel sad, had me in awe, just an amazing movie. Easily my favorite of 2012 so far and now we'll see what Batman brings to the table July 20th.… Expand
  69. Dufflad
    Jul 18, 2012
    5
    Alright, so if compared to the other Spiderman movies, this one is definitely better, it is a step in the right direction with its accuracy to Spiderman, it really did feel like Peter Parker and Spiderman, so I appreciate that a lot, but the film is written quite poorly with a pretty lame ending. There are many scenes I felt added nothing to the plot or characters, and KILLED the rising action, as well as the music was completely off putting in most scenes. I really liked the actors picked for this film, and hope that the next one is written better.… Expand
  70. EssenceOfSugar
    Jul 14, 2012
    6
    Despite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to drag and fill in gaps in the middle with pointless stuff. It wasn't really what I would call a fresh start; if it would bother people like writers and directors to take this material and put something new into it, it would be helpful to make us aware of what the film was supposed to be about. We get it, Peter gets bitten by a spider and gains superpowers, but what it was mainly setting up was for us to find out about a guy trying to achieve perfection who ends up turning into a giant lizard and terrorising the city. As well as revisiting familiar plot points, it gave us something fairly useless to go on - we could have known more about Peter's parents. Besides that, the characters themselves provided better entertainment, which is for the fact that good humour is something I like in films, but, ironically, Peter Parker had little depth despite being the main character. I would have given a higher score, but it pains me to say that you cannot make a good film if you cover familiar ground, add new ideas and claim it as your own.… Expand
  71. jlplatten
    Jul 6, 2012
    7
    Yeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-Man shots while jumping from building to building. Garfield's acting while Peter Parker saved this movie, and lucky for us, that pretty much dominated this movie.… Expand
  72. FreezyBaby
    Jul 4, 2012
    4
    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
  73. RippedCurtain
    Jul 4, 2012
    8
    This film is Great. The character of Peter is less annoying and more realistic this time around thanks to the great acting of Andrew Garfield. The origin story is better and weighs down the movie less than the original outing. Although i loved the Green Goblin from the original film, the Lizard is by far a better antagonist, this is probably due to the performance given by Rhys Ifans. All in all this is a great superhero film, you couldn't ask for much more (apart for some more time before a reboot.) Brilliant Action, Brilliant character development/design and brilliant casting.… Expand
  74. moviekretik
    Jul 3, 2012
    9
    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
  75. Friskytiger81
    Oct 25, 2012
    5
    In an industry full of unnecessary actions, the decision to revamp "Spider-man" not a decade since the redeux was first redone reeks of greed to the point of making this unenjoyable. Yes, it'd be better than "Spider-man" if only it were made before it, but it wasn't. This is more realistic, less involved in the comic-book character, and more in our world. Yes still, after a new Batman, "Spider-man" feels irrelevant.… Expand
  76. vini1904
    Aug 14, 2012
    10
    An excellent film, creative, good acting, great storyline and a good dose of emotion. The hero comes very close to human, he makes mistakes, gets hurt, suffering, one of the best films of the spider.
  77. EFYevan
    Jul 3, 2012
    10
    Fantastic movie! It kept my attention from beginning to end, which is hard to do for a movie that is over 2 hours long! The story was the best ever for Spider-Man, and everything was easy to understand and follow. Intense action sequences and very little to no swearing. Be sure to stay through half of the credits, there is a surprise at the end for a plot for a sequel!
  78. Happymonk
    Sep 5, 2012
    8
    The Amazing Spiderman might just about live up to it's name. It is a definite step up from the stuffy Spiderman 3, but I don't think it quite reached the heights of Spiderman 1 and 2. The plot is similar to that of Spiderman 1, but it doesn't suffer because of this: as it moves along at quite a brisk pace to lead into Spidey's climatic battle with the Lizard. The Lizard was a good 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
  79. Gamer84
    Jul 5, 2012
    10
    All I have to say is this is by far the best Marvel movie I have seen since Iron Man. I cant believe how well written this movie is. I wasn't bored, I cared about the characters and what they were going through. Every actor played there parts perfectly. It wasn't like avengers which was a 2 hour and 30 minute toy commercial and completely forgot about what the story was about and character growth. I can also say like others have already that its also better than the first 3 spiderman movies combined. Comic book movie directors, writers and producers should see this movie as the perfect example on how to do a well balanced Superhero movie.… Expand
  80. Zilcell
    Jul 5, 2012
    9
    This is pure comic book entertainment value. I consider this the best Spider-Man origin story yet. Its better than the original Spider-Man, but not quite as good as Spider-Man 2. Its hard to go back to having one superhero after seeing a movie like The Avengers, but The Amazing Spider-Man is a fantastic reboot because of high-powered action and high charisma coming from the film's leads. Also, The Lizard is the best Spider-Man villain since Doc Ock.… Expand
  81. Artomoz
    Nov 21, 2012
    3
    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
  82. ArgoLol
    Jul 18, 2012
    4
    What...
    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 r    eally 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
  83. RockLobster
    Jul 3, 2012
    7
    It's very hard for me to assign a number rating to this film, but I think a 7 is as close as I can get to the truth. I'd like to give it higher, but I don't think I could justify an 8. This is a pretty good movie. Nowhere near as good as the Avengers, but it definitely holds its own. The acting is great; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have great chemistry and Rhys Ifans is great as Dr. Connors. The action scenes are great and I think Garfield does a far better job at showing the wise-cracking side of Spidey than Tobey Maguire did.

    Where this movie falls down for me is that I don't feel it knows what it wants to be. While I think overall it is darker than the original trilogy, there are some moments that feel very cartoonish. Which would be fine, but it clashes with the dark tone of the film.

    tl;dr This film is good. See it if you like Spider-Man.    … Expand
  84. Doyle807
    Jul 3, 2012
    9
    A lot of people give this film hate simply because it was an early reboot, which I admit was a ridiculous move by Sony, and I was having doubts about this movie. But I saw it at the midnight showing and was blown anyway. Andrew Garfield is perfect as Spider-Man, although he does play Peter Parker with is awkward demeanour a lot better. Emma Stone is completely likeable and a great replacement for MJ and their romance is very well done. Rhys Ifans was the only lacking part for me, he acted a bit too much like Willem Dafoe did in the 1st Spider-Man. And I didn't really like the design of the lizard in this one. But the CGI for everything else was spectacular, especially in the last action sequence. The ending wasn't that fantastic it left a lot of questions unanswered, but overall it was a great movie. The origin story seemed to put off a few people so I can't wait to see what they do next!… Expand
  85. Hipsteran
    Jul 12, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers. 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.… Collapse
  86. PRADY
    Jul 4, 2012
    1
    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.
  87. dharma
    Jul 8, 2012
    7
    I am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes this installment too repetitive in several spots. While I have high hopes for this production team, we have to wait for the inevitable AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to see this interpretation flourish.… Expand
  88. M4GUIRE
    Jul 18, 2012
    7
    This movie is good fun. Lots of action, fighting, etc as you would expect from a Spiderman film. If you like Spiderman you should like this movie, if not, then why not?!?!
  89. aozeta
    Jul 4, 2012
    9
    Way better than the previous Spider-man films. Much improved screenplay, beyond blockbuster-quality-acting. Visual effects were clean. Cinematography was commendable.
  90. mgastryker
    Jul 3, 2012
    10
    I just finished watching the midnight showing and I can proudly say that this movie is an improvement over the previous ones. The way he gets his powers and why he has them are much more explained. The villain is amazing and the actors are great. There's also some comedy which put together with everything else makes this a fantastic movie.
  91. StevenF
    Mar 6, 2013
    8
    That was fast.. this reboot, that is, Sony are now bound to hold the record for the quickest franchise reboot in history, and many may now ask, did Spider-Man need a brand new set of films?
    Personally, no. The last film in the original trilogy starring Tobey Maguire and directed by Sam Raimi was a mess to say the least, but Iron Man 2 was a bit of a shambles, it didn't get a reboot.
    Alth    ough 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
  92. TheateraNerd
    Jul 9, 2012
    10
    After seeing this I wondered why Spiderman was NEVER this good! This movie is FANTASTIC!! It is the BEST Spiderman movie yet!! I love this new direction for Spiderman its more interesting...more captivating...so cinematic! This is one of my favorite movies for numerous reasons. This movie is most true to the comics. Spiderman is more flexible and agile than ever before. He has a real sense of humor, and captures the hurt from loosing his Uncle and the nerdy teen that we associate with Spiderman perfectly. The special effects top notch and the fight scene are choreographed better than Spiderman 1,2,and 3. They showcase both Spiderman and The Lizzard's abilities perfectly! See this movie if you havent! If tickets werent so expensive now a days I would see this twice!!!… Expand
  93. tallmanwriting
    Nov 12, 2012
    6
    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.
  94. MeltedFab5
    Jul 4, 2012
    4
    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
  95. L4DLegend91
    Jul 7, 2012
    7
    While I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with Spidey and Lizard are back and forth battles and great to watch. The one thing I was really worried about was the cast, luckily they proved me wrong. The comparisons are inevitable, people (including myself) will compare Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire unjustly. Maguire had 3 movies to cement his legacy, Garfield just this one. With all that said, I think Garfield does a better job of being Peter Parker than he does Spider-Man. He's a spot on Peter Parker in terms of size, mannerism, the way one would picture a "real life" Peter would act. As Spider-Man however, it's a bit raw. He brings the constant sarcasm and wit that the Maguire Spidey didn't do too much, but Garfield did go a bit over the top at times. Emma Stone, who plays more quirky characters in her career, ends up doing really well as the level headed Gwen Stacy. Rhys Ifans does a better Curt Connors/Lizard than expected, you could really feel for his character, also appearing pretty bad ass in the fight scenes as well. Very well done for Sony, hoping they take this trilogy in the right direction.… Expand
  96. jsp41
    Jul 3, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This reboot of spiderman is in no way bad, but definitely has room for improvement. To start off, everything looks great, the web slinging, spidey in his suit, and the Lizard. Andrew Garfield is a much better Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire, and I loved all of his smart quips during fights, its just a classic Spider-man thing and I really loved how Garfield played this role. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was likable, but overall was much more under developed compared to Parker and Dr. Connors. Speaking of Connors, he was awesome...until he became the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choice as the leads villain, but just didn't pose a huge threat to Peter or Spidey as I had hoped he would. My major problem with the movie as whole, however, was that Peter never found the guy who killed Uncle Ben, and I realize that maybe he realized what he was doing was immature as Capt. Stacy (played by a surprisingly good Dennis Leary) knocked Spidey for beating on criminals of the same type, but the director could have at least had more closure to the whole story arc, and it just abruptly ended as the Lizard came into play. All in all, a solid superhero movie that has room to grow into something great and I can safely say that I am looking forward to where this iteration of Spider-man goes in the future.… Expand
  97. Super8mm
    Aug 8, 2012
    8
    Being a fan of the old Spiderman movies i was curious as to how this one would turn out. Once I heard that Andrew Garfiled was going to be Spiderman I got excited. His performance in The Social Network was Amazing. Also Marc Webb the director of 500 days of Summer which I loved directed this film, and Emma Stone is playing Gwen Stacey, so far this movie looks great. Then I saw it and was blown away. The acting was great, and the chemistry between Andrew and Emma was awesome, The special effects were brilliant, and it was a great spin on Spiderman which I loved. Many people find it different from the original. But it's suppossed to be different, its a reboot, not a remake. Why would you want to watch the same movie twice. Anyway this movie was very entertaining and I loved it.… Expand
  98. brunogabriele
    Dec 29, 2012
    9
    Well, I really loved it. I wasn't keen on these Marvel heroes like Spider-man or Hulk, but I liked this movie, and it attracted me. I just wanted to keep on watching. I also like when things are realistic.
  99. quincytheodore
    Jul 9, 2012
    7
    Proving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New York and more vindictive Peter Parker who surprisingly exhibits more angst than Spider-Man 3's Venom. Andrew Garfield is amazing, he's just talented and a perfect cast for a teenage confused by his new found power but still with some wry humor. He's more organic, relaxed and looking very young beyond his age. His relationship with his surrogate parents is humbly relatable. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker and Sally Field as May Parker are brilliant, a kind authoritative figure and affectionate sympathetic guardian, respectively. The bond between them is seemingly genuine, a heartfelt care despite their ongoing tribulation. Martin has delivered one of the more convincing speeches in a rather private context than grandiose fashion of superhero pep talk.

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

    Acrobatic action is the ever present hallmark of Spider-Man, it's more flowing and enjoyable. I like the Spidey-cam, or whatever they call the first person view of Spider-Man is. If only it's more evenly utilized and edited to coexist with the action, it's probably more exhilarating, but that's just a minor complaint. The movement is fast but still regains the clarity of surrounding, which is important on making sense of what transpires on the screen. You can still see the CG effect of the combat, although it    … Expand
  100. Mad_Hatter91
    Jul 6, 2012
    10
    I found better this Spider-man than that of Sam Raimi. Meanwhile, I liked how they dealt with the psychology of Peter Parker, I liked the atmosphere are very dark and I loved the mystery that lies in the disappearance of Peter's parents (I also found the best costume that looks more amateur). Now could start a new trilogy and I'm happier this way because they are facing in the world of Spider-man.
prev
Page:

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
66 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 42
  2. Mixed: 11 out of 42
  3. Negative: 2 out of 42
  1. Slate
    Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Jul 5, 2012
    70
    This might be a fun summer blockbuster if only it even remotely needed to exist.
    Read full review
  2. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Jul 3, 2012
    30
    In short, the character is a lot like the way Stan Lee first envisioned him, but the trilogy's screenwriter Steve Ditko would probably loathe this new, unsatisfying, and hollow-feeling entry into the new cinematic Marvel Universe.
    Read full review
  3. Time Out New York
    Reviewed by: Joshua Rothkopf
    Jul 3, 2012
    60
    On the whole, it's passable stuff, a surprise, given how mechanical the masked character seemed.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »