The Amazing Spider-Man

User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1554 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    Proving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New YorkProving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New York and more vindictive Peter Parker who surprisingly exhibits more angst than Spider-Man 3's Venom. Andrew Garfield is amazing, he's just talented and a perfect cast for a teenage confused by his new found power but still with some wry humor. He's more organic, relaxed and looking very young beyond his age. His relationship with his surrogate parents is humbly relatable. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker and Sally Field as May Parker are brilliant, a kind authoritative figure and affectionate sympathetic guardian, respectively. The bond between them is seemingly genuine, a heartfelt care despite their ongoing tribulation. Martin has delivered one of the more convincing speeches in a rather private context than grandiose fashion of superhero pep talk.

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

    Acrobatic action is the ever present hallmark of Spider-Man, it's more flowing and enjoyable. I like the Spidey-cam, or whatever they call the first person view of Spider-Man is. If only it's more evenly utilized and edited to coexist with the action, it's probably more exhilarating, but that's just a minor complaint. The movement is fast but still regains the clarity of surrounding, which is important on making sense of what transpires on the screen. You can still see the CG effect of the combat, although it
    Expand
  2. 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.
  3. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    This version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields, and Rhys Ifan. Each of them did a wonderful job of making their characters feel very real and genuine. The effects were really good as well (exceptThis version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields, and Rhys Ifan. Each of them did a wonderful job of making their characters feel very real and genuine. The effects were really good as well (except for the lizard, which looked really weird). My big problem with this film is that it spent a little too much time on exposition and it relies on some of the same old super hero cliches and sentimentality making the movie seem "cheap" at times. It's also follows a very similar path as the original Spider-Man, and even though the filmmakers pulled it off, I wish they could have taken it in a different direction. But the bottom line is that it's an entertaining, better than average super hero movie, and I'm kinda looking forward to a sequel. Expand
  4. Nov 29, 2012
    9
    This was an outstanding movie and, in my opinion, better than the Spider-Man films of a decade ago. I enjoy the way Andrew Garfield portrays the Peter Parker character much more than Toby McGuire. He is not such a dweeb, is more charismatic, wittier, and just a better actor in general. And thank you to whoever decided to use Emma Stone as the romantic/love interest. Not only is she one ofThis was an outstanding movie and, in my opinion, better than the Spider-Man films of a decade ago. I enjoy the way Andrew Garfield portrays the Peter Parker character much more than Toby McGuire. He is not such a dweeb, is more charismatic, wittier, and just a better actor in general. And thank you to whoever decided to use Emma Stone as the romantic/love interest. Not only is she one of the best young actresses in Hollywood but she is absolutely stunning. Much more believable for the role of the beautiful "damsel in distress" than Kirsten Dunst. I'm sorry but I am not a fan of Dunst and don't understand why people find her attractive. I also thought the rest of the cast was great. Denis Leary and Martin Sheen almost stole the show. The director also made the physics more realistic. With the exception of a football bending a goal post in half, the physics felt more authentic throughout, not only the combat but also just the gliding through the city shooting out webs. I also liked the plot development. I had a friend mention how they prolonged the "origin" too much for his tastes but I actually enjoyed that a lot. If they are making this into a trilogy, there's plenty of time for Spider-Man moments but you can never come back and capture the beginning stages of the superhero and the person behind the mask. Ultimately, the only thing that held this movie back for me was that it felt like we've seen it before. Other than some minor alterations to the story and obviously different actors, this was very similar to the one a decade ago and more than anything, it FELT like the older one. I thought it was better but not by much, mainly because it had the same overall feel and tone. I would've much rather had them take the Spider-Man story they had here and made it a little darker and more intense and dramatic. There is plenty of potential there but they don't take advantage of it. Instead, you essentially have yet another little kid/teenager superhero movie. Out of all of the superhero movies being made, it's definitely the least mature of them and that holds it back for me. Give Christopher Nolan this story and he'll make it amazing. Expand
  5. Jul 14, 2012
    7
    This movie was decent but it wasn't terrific. I do think that Andrew Garfield played an excellent Peter Parker, alot better than Toby ever could. However, the story was kinda shaky, which is disappointing since I'm a huge fan of the Gwen Stacey storyline, and Emma Stone is a wonderful actor. However, they really missed the mark with her character I think. But the overall story was justThis movie was decent but it wasn't terrific. I do think that Andrew Garfield played an excellent Peter Parker, alot better than Toby ever could. However, the story was kinda shaky, which is disappointing since I'm a huge fan of the Gwen Stacey storyline, and Emma Stone is a wonderful actor. However, they really missed the mark with her character I think. But the overall story was just disappointing. The Lizard was never the best Spiderman Villain and it translated here. I did like the fighting end sequence, which was really well done. However the stuff up to that was fairly lackluster. This definitely wasn't as good, or anywhere near the level of The Avengers from earlier this year and, with Chris Nolan's track record, I can't see this being as good as The Dark Knight RIses either. I believe this movie had to be perfect to come out on top in this superhero heavy summer of movies. Instead it was only good and only being good will get you 3rd place out of the 3 Mega Superhero movies this year. Expand
  6. Aug 24, 2014
    7
    Strong 3 1/2 stars.

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

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

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

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

    All in all a great movie, with very nice soundtrack and good actor performances. Definitely able to stand in comparison to the other recent Marvel movie endeavors (although I wouldn't yet compare this to the most successful ones).
    Expand
  7. Jul 22, 2012
    7
    An entertaining film. It's been done before, but Marc Webb makes a lot of effort to change what we see in the story ie: Mechanical web slinger in stead of organic, Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane. The Lizard was a good villain, if rendered in terrible CGI. Yet, the film is a good reboot, and while not up there with the Raimi films, it was very good.
  8. Aug 8, 2012
    6
    Watched a 2D version in the cinema, and now the aftertaste is quite irony since the redux deliberately put an
  9. Sep 29, 2015
    7
    Surprising good film. Despite re-covering stuff that was already handled well in Rami's Spiderman, this has good actors, decent action, especially for the heavily cgi stuff, and an interesting plot. I'm glad it had a different villain to the previous trilogy, and that it was handled well.

    The most notable difference from this film and the Rami films, is that there is a strong emphasis
    Surprising good film. Despite re-covering stuff that was already handled well in Rami's Spiderman, this has good actors, decent action, especially for the heavily cgi stuff, and an interesting plot. I'm glad it had a different villain to the previous trilogy, and that it was handled well.

    The most notable difference from this film and the Rami films, is that there is a strong emphasis on Peter Parker as a brilliant scientist, and also his web shooter devices. While it's strange that we must accept he can walk on walls and stick to anything, but has to bio-engineer an impossibly fantastic weapon that does the web shooting for him, I understand this is more in line with the comics, and so thus needs to be appreciated, even if suspension of disbelief takes one too many hits.

    I think the biggest flaw of this film is it's release so close the the Rami films, which really made superhero films what they are today. As everyone knows this was mostly a film to retain the Spidermany Rights, and thus had to be made when it was, but in an ideal world this would've been made at a much later date, to better distance itself from Rami's trilogy.
    Expand
  10. Mar 3, 2013
    1
    I just don't get it. The Spider Man trilogy started in 2002, and now we already have a reboot? Man, can't wait until this superhero fad dies off and never comes back.
  11. Oct 4, 2012
    3
    Sally Fields as aunt may just doesn't seem right... she is a great actress. but as Aunt may, I just don't see it. This movie was too drawn out and unnecessary really, I really enjoyed Tobey Maguire as spidey more-so. Not sure what to make of the suit in this movie either... Although the premise of having Gwen Stacy as his first girl friend went along with the comic book series. ISally Fields as aunt may just doesn't seem right... she is a great actress. but as Aunt may, I just don't see it. This movie was too drawn out and unnecessary really, I really enjoyed Tobey Maguire as spidey more-so. Not sure what to make of the suit in this movie either... Although the premise of having Gwen Stacy as his first girl friend went along with the comic book series. I wished we could all just agree to forget about spider-man 3 and just let Sam Raimi remake it. but this time keep venom out of it until much later on. But I would say this one is just as bad as Spider-man 3, but on the other side of the spectrum. Where Spider-man 3 tried to bite off more than Sam Raimi could chew in a single length movie. This one is the utter lack there of. Expand
  12. Jul 25, 2012
    6
    A LITTLE HARD TO BE IMPRESSED BY A LACK OF RE-IMAGINATION. I saw this with low expectations, but, like many, wanted to see what
    they had done differently from Sam Raimi's trilogy. I honestly believe
    it would have been great to see the story continued, rather than restarted and barely re-imagined. The pacing was painfully slow, and took way too much time to gain momentum with a story
    A LITTLE HARD TO BE IMPRESSED BY A LACK OF RE-IMAGINATION. I saw this with low expectations, but, like many, wanted to see what
    they had done differently from Sam Raimi's trilogy. I honestly believe
    it would have been great to see the story continued, rather than
    restarted and barely re-imagined. The pacing was painfully slow, and
    took way too much time to gain momentum with a story that was too
    bubble-gum pop to be taken seriously, and with about as much substance
    as watching an episode of Pretty Little Liars. The chemistry between
    Andrew Garfield and Emma stone was a high point, though at times Peter
    seemed a little too twitchy, and a little annoying when in costume. The
    second half of the film was much more enjoyable after being bored by
    the first, with some nice special effects. Unfortunately the film
    score, which should have complimented the screen action, lacked. I did
    however enjoy one of the last scenes with the blue snow and felt that
    the music in that scene was perfect for a great looking shot. All in
    all I wouldn't spend over $10 to watch this, and with the lack of
    action wouldn't bother with 3D but will probably watch it again when it
    comes out on DVD.
    Expand
  13. Jan 3, 2013
    8
    So much better then the original Spider Man. Garfield fits perfectly as Peter Parker, The rest of the cast is solid as well, The story is more loyal to the comic books. It's simply an enjoyable movie.
  14. Aug 6, 2012
    10
    Realistically, this movie probably isn't worth more than a 7, mainly because of the redundancy with the first Spider-man movie. Yes, The Amazing Spider-man promised us an "untold story", but turns out it was just false promises, it ends up being an almost copy of the first film, just improved. The biggest improvement it brings to the table is the romance, or should I say the love interest.Realistically, this movie probably isn't worth more than a 7, mainly because of the redundancy with the first Spider-man movie. Yes, The Amazing Spider-man promised us an "untold story", but turns out it was just false promises, it ends up being an almost copy of the first film, just improved. The biggest improvement it brings to the table is the romance, or should I say the love interest. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was a joy, she was an actual character that could stand on her own and not just a pretty prize like Mary Jane in the original trilogy. The interactions between her and Peter were really cute too (also great chemistry between the two actors), you get the feel they were partners supporting each other, which you didn't get at all in the Raimi trilogy, Mary Jane was more of a burden on Peter than anything else. It's simply put the best romance I've seen in any superhero movies to date. Special effects were pretty good too, especially Spider-man swinging, and the pacing was very good, I was never bored or wondering what was the point of a scene any time during the film. The weakest point of the movie was the villain though, he came across as very cartoony (and frankly stupid) which really clashed with the otherwise realistic interactions between the characters, his plan wasn't very smart either. Ultimately, this movie suffers from not departing enough from the original movie, which depending on how much you like the character, or how fresh the original is in your mind, may or may not be a problem. For me it just wasn't but I can see how it could be for some. Overall though this is still a very solid superhero movie in my opinion. Expand
  15. Jul 14, 2012
    10
    This movie was(for the most part)a fantastic movie.I did not like the 2 last Spiderman movies and because of that i was really looking forward to this movie.Some people say that the reboot was not necessary but in my opinion it was.Tobey Maguire's acting got extremely boring after the second movie and was just unsavory.Also,Kirsten Dust could not save the previous films and in the 3rd SPMThis movie was(for the most part)a fantastic movie.I did not like the 2 last Spiderman movies and because of that i was really looking forward to this movie.Some people say that the reboot was not necessary but in my opinion it was.Tobey Maguire's acting got extremely boring after the second movie and was just unsavory.Also,Kirsten Dust could not save the previous films and in the 3rd SPM movie the only good thing was Jameson.The villan was closer to the comics as was the rest of the movie which is something i found positive.This movie is trying to reveal a darker side of Spiderman with bigger succession than the SPM 3 attempt at this.Also,the scenes with the First Person look where also a nice addition to the movie.The cast and the overall acting was better than the acting of the first Spiderman movies and the fact that this movies remains true to the origins of Spiderman make this movie better than the rest.The one thing that could have been improved is the final battle which did not really make an impact on me.This movie is definitely recommended for everyone and is a nice and mostly truthful Spiderman movie that all the comic fans will most likely enjoy. Expand
  16. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    This film was excellent. Superb acting, on par with the comics, very emotional, and 'amazing' action. Garfield puts Tobey to shame. The film was tainted by over-marketing though, a mistake I pray Sony does not commit again.
  17. Jul 16, 2012
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is very well done. The acting is great, the effects are great, the characters development is very well done. The audience is presented with a more human superhero, flawed in numerous ways but struggling to overcome them while at the same time adapting to his new-found strength. Really, judging it from the comic-lover's point of view, its flawless. And that's all thatThe Amazing Spider-Man is very well done. The acting is great, the effects are great, the characters development is very well done. The audience is presented with a more human superhero, flawed in numerous ways but struggling to overcome them while at the same time adapting to his new-found strength. Really, judging it from the comic-lover's point of view, its flawless. And that's all that matters, isn't it? Expand
  18. Nov 28, 2012
    5
    I felt like I was watching a repeat of a story told not long ago. I feel like there was no need to reboot this story. My kids were watching this movie with me and they were familiar with the Spider Man story as well. I felt the movie fell short at some points and we were bored waiting for the next action scene to come along. I think there was too much focus on Peter Parkers backstory andI felt like I was watching a repeat of a story told not long ago. I feel like there was no need to reboot this story. My kids were watching this movie with me and they were familiar with the Spider Man story as well. I felt the movie fell short at some points and we were bored waiting for the next action scene to come along. I think there was too much focus on Peter Parkers backstory and love interest. Usually when you do a reboot there have been major advances in technology and you can use this to tell the story better thru technology. I felt like the first Spiderman gave you more excitement when Spidey was swinging thru the city of New York at lightning speeds and bouncing off walls. I think the first film was better. Expand
  19. Apr 6, 2014
    6
    I dunno what all the hate for this movie is about. It's not the best, it's not the worst. It's a fun Spiderman movie if you like Spiderman, but if you're not really a comic book person then you can safely skip this movie without having missed much.
  20. Oct 24, 2012
    10
    Unlike the original triology movies, actually follows and doesn't spit on, Stan Lee's created universe! That's about all I can say about this movie other than it having a much better cast too - each actor looks and plays the roles much better than the predecessors - without a doubt about it!
  21. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Finally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of AndrewFinally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are correct. The effects are amazing. The problems are the next: The Lizard, looks some weird, some important characters (yes the aunt may) appear on a background. Is a good reboot, I think that is better than the Avengers. I wanna watch the second part. Expand
  22. Jul 20, 2012
    9
    Thing that i like in this movie is those new stuff like the spider web!
    And those dodging skill ! this movie is 90% according to the Comic book!
    And a some moral value for a teenager who use his power randomly.
    Like those scene in school , maybe in the future he will learn 'great power comes with great responsibility'
    Well , A good movie for COMIC BOOK fans!
  23. Nov 14, 2012
    5
    An entertaining film, but about a subject matter than has been done perhaps one too many times. My spidey-sense tells me they need to give this franchise a long rest.
  24. Jul 7, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really enjoyed myself with this one. The story is the old Spider-man story we all know, but it's been changed so that this movie can shine on its own, and it does. It may be predictable, but it works and you really want to see what happens next, even though you already know what does. The movie also does a good job at building up the sequel, by keeping it subtle. There are a few things that haven't been resolved yet, one I'll get into right now. The romance between Peter and Gwen doesn't wait. After you get to know Peter, you get to know Gwen through her interactions with Peter. It's predictable and cliched as well, but it just works and sometimes you really feel for them, especially towards the end. You also get to know Dr. Curt Connors (Lizard) and how he wants to change the world to make the dominant species perfect. He seems sane at first, but then he goes insane through an addiction that I won't get into. The action is phenomenal; it gets the job done with flare. There's never a point where the acting is questionable. There's only a few negatives to this film. The first is with Peter's personality. He really has no defined trait except for his relationship with Gwen and that he used to be a Punk until his uncle died and he became Spider-man. I feel that the movie missed an opportunity where they could have used his photography to transmit his emotions. The other negative is the patriotic moment. In this, all the construction workers line up heavy-duty cranes so that Spider-man has an easier time getting to the final battle after a motivating speech by the boss and a cut to the American Flag. It's not needed, not that its a bad scene and it does make you feel proud. The one in the other Spider-man movie was appropriate because it was just after 9/11 and we all needed that moment for hope. It's not need in this film and it's the one cliche that drags the film down a little. Overall, I enjoyed myself with this movie and I hope you will too. Expand
  25. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    This movie is hard to talk about. The fact that it is really different from the Sam Raimi franchise was a plus for me because I personally didn't care about the previous franchise. So I gave this film chance because I knew that it would play off the original comics and I must say the "Amazing Spider-Man" amazed me. From the action sequences to the humor to the chemistry between GarfieldThis movie is hard to talk about. The fact that it is really different from the Sam Raimi franchise was a plus for me because I personally didn't care about the previous franchise. So I gave this film chance because I knew that it would play off the original comics and I must say the "Amazing Spider-Man" amazed me. From the action sequences to the humor to the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was also pretty good. So see this movie in theaters and you shouldn't be disappointed. Expand
  26. Jul 3, 2012
    2
    I dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, anyI dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, any way..............The actors look like they are reading off of Q cards. You dont get the sense of feeling towards themselves that people get when they are in love with there partner. Advice: wait till it comes out on tv or a Premium movie Chanel you may have. Don't waste you money.There are so many things wrong with this movie im just going to stop. Expand
  27. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    İf u ask me why 7 but not 10 i can state that main problem is Connors. He is good, i mean lizard is cool. but it is like a weaker copy of hulk. Even when it acts and fights. oh the other hand both avengers and reboot spider man's budget is 220 million. but look at the difference, Avengers action scene's are more incredible and lasts at least 30 minutes more than spider man. and castİf u ask me why 7 but not 10 i can state that main problem is Connors. He is good, i mean lizard is cool. but it is like a weaker copy of hulk. Even when it acts and fights. oh the other hand both avengers and reboot spider man's budget is 220 million. but look at the difference, Avengers action scene's are more incredible and lasts at least 30 minutes more than spider man. and cast is perfect, then for what producers spent 220 million. and where is the j,j? spider-man without his raging boss doesnt seem warm, as a movie it is good and watchable, some lacks of screenplay wounded and hardly walking spider at the end fight even doesnt feel his injuries. my points are 7-marc webb 9-andrew garfield 9 emma stone 6-screenplay 8-visual effects 10- stan lee's cameo:) Expand
  28. Jul 23, 2012
    8
    Fun but not perfect. Did the movie need to be made? No but I do not care because no movie needs to get made. This is entertainment and has the best Stan Lee cameo ever
  29. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    First, I like a lot, how close to the comic. I did not like to see that in Raimi's trilogy, good old Spidey networks launched "organically" so to speak. Why, what sense does it make the gesture mythical fingers to operate the spinner, if no action button? I liked that idea in the previous films, really.
    In "The Amazing" spinner turns the classic story almost becomes the original comic
    First, I like a lot, how close to the comic. I did not like to see that in Raimi's trilogy, good old Spidey networks launched "organically" so to speak. Why, what sense does it make the gesture mythical fingers to operate the spinner, if no action button? I liked that idea in the previous films, really.
    In "The Amazing" spinner turns the classic story almost becomes the original comic book, the character of Gwen, a new Spiderman, which I must admit, I have a lot more hook that, although good-natured, soseras Tobey. And many new surprises. But the main idea is that this reboot of the franchise, is a TOTAL facelift for the character, fresh air in the form of new faces, and what about the new suit ... SPECTACULAR. In an address with Marc Webb "500 days" as collateral, which is a relief. I would like to see this movie in the hands of a pseudo-Joel Schumacher. Finally, for fans of Spider-Man, mandatory viewing. And sure hope so, that anyone who values ​​and marvel comics, from the former to the latter, this movie will like, a lot.
    PD: Sorry but i'm spanish, and i use the traductor for this review.
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACHÚS
    http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5q7moV3Gk1qi89r1o1_500.gif
    Expand
  30. Nov 12, 2012
    5
    Far from perfect (or Spiderman 2), but not bad either (like Spiderman 3). Everything seems to work well, there is just nothing exceptional. Decent summer movie.
  31. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    While the special effects are impressive, the story line is not as well thought out as the 2002 movie. Also Andrew Garfield acting is not as good as that of Tobey Maguire. However the special effects are better than the 2002 movie and the stunts are amazing. Also the suit is really cool. The Lizard is also very cool and his human form as Rhys Ifan is amazing.
  32. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    As far as genesis movies go, this one is fantastic. Furthermore, it completely trumps Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. I'll admit I was skeptical of Andrew Garfield's ability to carry an iconic role like this one, but he did so beautifully. He was the right amount of dorky, funny, and serious, while giving a new feel to the Peter Parker character. I also loved the fact that Emma Stone was inAs far as genesis movies go, this one is fantastic. Furthermore, it completely trumps Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. I'll admit I was skeptical of Andrew Garfield's ability to carry an iconic role like this one, but he did so beautifully. He was the right amount of dorky, funny, and serious, while giving a new feel to the Peter Parker character. I also loved the fact that Emma Stone was in this movie, and as Gwen Stacy at that. She always provides solid acting and natural charm.

    The writers and directors did a good job of providing a lot of true-to-the-story components in the film. It is tough to do a revamp of a film within a decade and have the guts to actually retell the story from scratch, but this movie did just that. Overall, there was an appropriate balance of plot, romance, and action, as well as a seamless flow from beginning to end. Lastly, I was thoroughly entertained with Spider-Man's new fighting style. His movements were much sharper and present than in the past, but graceful and fluid when they needed to be. As a serious movie-goer and longtime comic book fanatic, this movie got it right.
    Expand
  33. Nov 24, 2012
    7
    Presents itself as a more accurate interpretation of the webslinging hero and coupled with some nice action scenes and a more-likeable Peter Parker, its a solid film. A solid film full of discrepancies. While it does present itself as an excellent reboot to the franchise, The original Spider-man movies and esp, Spider-man 2, despite the occasional cheesiness and non-canon elements, doesPresents itself as a more accurate interpretation of the webslinging hero and coupled with some nice action scenes and a more-likeable Peter Parker, its a solid film. A solid film full of discrepancies. While it does present itself as an excellent reboot to the franchise, The original Spider-man movies and esp, Spider-man 2, despite the occasional cheesiness and non-canon elements, does convey a more Spider-man vibe to it - it feels like Spider-man, genuine Spider-man as opposed to this version which, while decent, does feel detracted from the overall feel of Spider-man. The world itself apart from Parker, Uncle Ben and Gwen Stacey, lack character and feels more like a well-shot action film that coincidently has Spider-man in it. Seriously, if you placed a different main character in the movie and just have Spider-man as a side line character, the film would be fine. Its a great film but ultimately, it just doesn't have the feel and distinct 'Spidey-ness' of the original films. Spider-man 2 remains my favourite. Expand
  34. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    This is a much more human spider-man, he felt like the geeky Peter Parker with his actions and his position in school as well as his body language and communication with people including his love interest Gwen, He underwent a more natural development of his powers as well as emotional growth over the course of the film for given reasons. Unlike the Toby McGuire counterpart, He also had aThis is a much more human spider-man, he felt like the geeky Peter Parker with his actions and his position in school as well as his body language and communication with people including his love interest Gwen, He underwent a more natural development of his powers as well as emotional growth over the course of the film for given reasons. Unlike the Toby McGuire counterpart, He also had a sense of humor which is one of Spider mans strong points as that made him one of my all time favorite marvel characters. The villain for this film was also much more menacing than any of the enemies the original Spider man movies ever had, The character behind the lizard was unfortunately not as interesting as the rest of the cast though. The combat sequences were excellent with very impressive CG visual effects(minus the face he actually looked like the goomba from Mario Bros the movie.) They did an incredible job in emphasizing Spider Mans agility and use of the web during his battles, and again his witty lines never fail to further keep him consistent to his comic book self.

    I gotta say with all the down talk this movie is getting i was a bit worried myself about on whether or not it would be worth watching, but after seeing it, i actually wouldn't mind a second run if the opportunity arises, It is a great movie.
    Expand
  35. Aug 21, 2013
    4
    Well, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only girls must love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is interesting and very good but only the first half. After that the movie went bad. It reminds me of the power rangers kids series. I think there's a lot to fix in the movie story, but it's too late now.
  36. May 11, 2013
    8
    It is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter'sIt is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter's parents deaths adds some complexity to the story and Peter's first experience of Spider-Man's abilities is made into an amusing sequence. Credit for that must go to Andrew Garfield, who improves on Maguire's take on Parker no end, proving that Peter can be geeky without being too pathetic. Perhaps it was setting the story in high school, with the sympathies that come with being different in that environment, that makes Garfield's Peter more likeable.

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

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

    An enjoyable, if unnecessary, return to Spider-Man's roots with a fresh bunch of characters that is worth a watch even if just for a comparison with the original trilogy.
    Expand
  37. Jul 21, 2012
    8
    Great movie. I liked it much better than the avengers. The story is engaging, actors well suited to their roles, and awesome action. I'd say my only complaint was that I felt the movie was a little too "twilight" in that it focuses a lot on a teenage love story. But definitely recommend.
  38. Apr 26, 2014
    8
    I heard many mixed things about this film so I went it with middling expectations. I was a huge fan of the Sam Raimi Spiderman trilogy due to the fact that it was the first superhero film I saw and they were released as I grew up. Now with Amazing Spiderman its a bit darker, less cheesy and I have to say a lot better.
    Peter Parker, played by Andrew Garfield, is the geek we have come to
    I heard many mixed things about this film so I went it with middling expectations. I was a huge fan of the Sam Raimi Spiderman trilogy due to the fact that it was the first superhero film I saw and they were released as I grew up. Now with Amazing Spiderman its a bit darker, less cheesy and I have to say a lot better.
    Peter Parker, played by Andrew Garfield, is the geek we have come to know and love, but his geekyness has moved with the times. He is now what a geek would be seen as in modern society. He is quiet, has a hobby that he loves to do and he is interested in stuff at school. He is no super nerd like Toby Maguire's Parker but the stuff he likes, he knows very well.
    He has a thing for Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone, and she sort of has a thing for him too so the awkward chemistry between the two is already set in stone even before he gets his superpowers unlike the Peter/MJ romance from before.
    After finding out new information about his parents death Peter seeks out Dr. Curtis Connors, his fathers partner at Oscorp. Peter gets bitten by a spider on the subsequent visit, gains powers and BAM! Spiderman is born! Curt however is researching animal DNA to bond with human DNA in order to overcome obstacles humans face. When he combines his DNA with that of a lizard, he transforms into the films villain...The Lizard.
    So there are as many as three or four stories going on in The Amazing Spiderman at one time, so that justifies the 2 and a half hour run time pretty well but there are a couple of problems with this. The whole story about Peter investigating his parents death gets put to the side and is never brought up again after only being going about 40 minutes, leaving it unexplained. The vengeance on Uncle Ben's death is also dropped, which despite it being dropped for bigger more important things, is still a little stupid because the whole point of getting revenge on Ben's killer was to teach Peter that revenge isn't the answer and so that was never realised. Curt Connors is also not really explored as a character, he is very two dimensional up until his transformation and then he is just a straight up no holds barred bad guy for no apparent reason apart from to move the plot along.
    The rest of the film is excellent though and exactly what a Spiderman film should be. Andrew Garfield is a much more Spidey-like Spiderman than Toby Maguire was, Emma Stone's Gwen is actually pretty interesting compared to Kirsten Dunst's boring MJ. Everything has been stepped up a gear and yes the film has its shortfalls, but as a whole product, The Amazing Spiderman is the best Spiderman film to date and one of the best superhero films I have seen in a while.
    Expand
  39. Jul 8, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Perhaps it's because it was only 5 years ago that the last Spiderman film was released but this movie just felt... unnecessary. i didn't feel that there was anything that stood out from Spiderman (2002.) Sure, we had cosmetic differences, but the biggest difference, the mysterious circumstances surrounding Peter's parents' deaths, just felt dull. I couldn't connect with Peter Parker - he was just an arrogant, spoilt ass and I had a hard time feeling sorry for him. The villain was just plain BORING ; an evil lizard bent on infecting a city - really? No thank you. Writing this review just made me further depressed so I just warn you that this Spiderman film really adds little to the original film produced in 2002. Expand
  40. Aug 10, 2012
    8
    While Sam Raimi's earlier version was more poignant, I think I prefer this latest incarnation in terms of the cast, choreography, and overall production.
  41. Jul 28, 2012
    4
    This movie was a lot worse than the first 3. Andrew Garfield was not a good enough nerd to be peter parker, the whole story behind lizard was very confusing, and overall, this movie was a very mediocre superhero movie reboot.
  42. Jul 13, 2012
    5
    All I could think of while watching
  43. Jul 20, 2012
    8
    I really enjoyed this movie. But I'm a little confused about where it fits in with the rest of the Spider-Man movies. Seems like a lot of overlap with the Spider-Man (2002).
  44. Jul 8, 2012
    8
    I hate to admit it, but I walked into this movie cursing myself. "Here we go again. Another rehash of a super hero that has been done a million times." The funny think is walked out of the theater saying, "about time someone did justice to Peter Parker." Don't you just love it when a movie both proves you wrong and awakens you to bigger and better possibilities?
    I'm not saying this is
    I hate to admit it, but I walked into this movie cursing myself. "Here we go again. Another rehash of a super hero that has been done a million times." The funny think is walked out of the theater saying, "about time someone did justice to Peter Parker." Don't you just love it when a movie both proves you wrong and awakens you to bigger and better possibilities?
    I'm not saying this is anywhere near Christopher Nollan's universe. But, what a cool movie this was. Awesome script, phenomenal direction work, and enough effects to support the story without turning it into another amusement park ride.
    The only scene that I had hoped not to find in the movie is the one when they line up the construction cranes. A touch of Hollywoodese. We'll look the other way on that one. It is a studio picture after all.
    In general, I very much believed the story and the characters. Everyone was riding a good balance between what life deals them and the sacrifices behind changing our own fate. What a script. You even feel bad for the bad guys in this.
    Andrew Garfield was a great voice for modern teenage angst, and Emma Stone was equally significant. Great pair to front this. Everyone else felt like the perfect piece of the puzzle. Although I have a feeling the majority of the kudos on this one should go to a flawless script and surgical camera work. This is what happens when talented filmmakers get together and decide to turn the camp in comic books into a real life drama. Congratulations. I'm sold!
    Expand
  45. Jul 17, 2012
    3
    if you never saw the original movies then it might be worth seeing for some mild entertainment but in general it is a very dumb, unbelievable and badly written movie. there was no reason that i can see for this remake. the first movies were superior in every way.
  46. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    Five years after the last Raimi Spider-man film which was an utter disappointment comes The Amazing Spider-Man to bring the hero back into gear. But is it better than its predecessors? The answer is yes and no. The Amazing Spider-Man shows a new Peter Parker, who instead of a nerd, is actually a chill hipster dude who skateboard. Yeah, um that's not who Peter Parker is supposed to be. ButFive years after the last Raimi Spider-man film which was an utter disappointment comes The Amazing Spider-Man to bring the hero back into gear. But is it better than its predecessors? The answer is yes and no. The Amazing Spider-Man shows a new Peter Parker, who instead of a nerd, is actually a chill hipster dude who skateboard. Yeah, um that's not who Peter Parker is supposed to be. But putting that aside, Spider-man was almost perfectly done. One-liners and just taken in a plain humorous sense in some parts of the movie. But, the movie did try to get serious in many scenes like when Uncle Ben dies and that part was actually well done and creates more emotion to Peter's and his uncle's relationship which wasn't so strong in 2002's Spider-Man. The origin story has been told before but this one was well done to say the least. The Lizard looked weird and honestly, didn't even look like a lizard. The action in this movie is really well done also because the camera follows Spidey really well and Andrew Garfield did a decent job as his role. Emma Stone is perfect as Gwen Stacey, probably even better than Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-man. She is much more of a likable character than Mary Jane ever was in the previous movies. This movie was far from being AMAZING but it sure was pretty fun to watch and all Spidey fans should check it out and give it a chance. Expand
  47. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    It's a good movie, not perfect, but entertaining as hell. The Amazing Spider-Man is as good as Raimi's "Spider Man" (Not as good as "Spider Man 2"), but it is certainly more angsty and smaller in scope.

    If you're ok with that, then prepare for a Marc Webb experience :)
  48. Mar 8, 2014
    8
    I'm actually really pleased with this reboot. It's darker than the original Sam Raimi movies, it's not as cheesy, and I would say this movie comes in match with "Spider-Man 2". However, I did not find the lizard too interesting - it could have been better developed.
  49. Jul 10, 2012
    1
    I hate Marc Webb for this movie. Sure, the acting was great, but directing and script are a failure. This isnt the true Spider-man. Spider-man is about power and responsibility, and this one is only about revenge.
    How come he be a true hero if hes not interested in saving inocent civilians. And ooh, how he loves to reveal his identity to everyone. Hes so weak he can't even dodge a BULLET.
    I hate Marc Webb for this movie. Sure, the acting was great, but directing and script are a failure. This isnt the true Spider-man. Spider-man is about power and responsibility, and this one is only about revenge.
    How come he be a true hero if hes not interested in saving inocent civilians. And ooh, how he loves to reveal his identity to everyone. Hes so weak he can't even dodge a BULLET. He has no Spider-Sense.
    And Webb's words that the movie is by the comics is a huge lie.
    Expand
  50. Nov 4, 2012
    5
    The Amazing Spider-man was an almost decent summer flick, which seemed as if it could possibly surpass the original Spider-man films. It did for some parts, but ultimately collapsed by the end. I must admit, this adaptation of Spider-man was a friskier and wittier one, which moves at a clip; and Peter Parker's scientific ingenuity and sharp comic sense are well fleshed out. Marc Webb (ofThe Amazing Spider-man was an almost decent summer flick, which seemed as if it could possibly surpass the original Spider-man films. It did for some parts, but ultimately collapsed by the end. I must admit, this adaptation of Spider-man was a friskier and wittier one, which moves at a clip; and Peter Parker's scientific ingenuity and sharp comic sense are well fleshed out. Marc Webb (of (500) Days of Summer) knows how to direct romantic elements which is possibly the films high point, even more so than the action sequences which were uncreative and gravely disappointing. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy replacing Mary-Jane) can be considered improvements of their predecessors. And though it was a fun watch, and the beautifully dizzying cinematography and effects kept me glued, I can't help but feel a great sense of Deja vu. Seeing that the original film ended only a few years ago, why bother with a remake? It didn't break new ground nor radically set itself apart from the original, so why bother? This was simply rehash that didn Expand
  51. Sep 2, 2012
    10
    What could have been done to make the movie better? Absolutely nothing. The Amazing Spider-man is a fantastic movie, the best movie in months, and the best superhero movie since The Avengers. It was even better than Chronicle. My point is, The Amazing Spider-man was a great movie that you should see immediately.
  52. Jul 24, 2012
    5
    If your a Spidey fan there were some things to like in this reboot. Unfortunately being released so soon after Raimi's version they will always be compared. I was looking forward to seeing a little more of Parker's back story with his parents, but that plot line fell way short in my book and did little that the original did not. I also found the Uncle Ben story line far less satisfying inIf your a Spidey fan there were some things to like in this reboot. Unfortunately being released so soon after Raimi's version they will always be compared. I was looking forward to seeing a little more of Parker's back story with his parents, but that plot line fell way short in my book and did little that the original did not. I also found the Uncle Ben story line far less satisfying in this version. I did enjoy the Stacy character quite a bit, although again I liked the chemistry between Parker and Watson from the original quite a bit better. The Lizard as the villain was one area that I would consider an improvement on the first. Also the visuals where Spidey are concerned I found to be compelling when put up against the first. Overall not enough to warrant a reboot in my estimation. Expand
  53. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Peter Parker more Peter Parker than ever, and Spider-man more Spider-man than ever.
  54. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    For those of us that grew up with the comics and eventually the cartoon series, you can imagine how disappointed we were when we saw all the things spiderman screwed up, the Green Goblin being enhanced like he was a main bad guy and venom getting a solid kill count of 1 before spiderman defeats him. On top of all that Sam Raimi mixed some of his own personal struggles as a youth with TobiFor those of us that grew up with the comics and eventually the cartoon series, you can imagine how disappointed we were when we saw all the things spiderman screwed up, the Green Goblin being enhanced like he was a main bad guy and venom getting a solid kill count of 1 before spiderman defeats him. On top of all that Sam Raimi mixed some of his own personal struggles as a youth with Tobi Mcguire. It was as if he was doing to spiderman what George Lucas was doing to Darth Vader.
    Webb comes along and completely brings truth to the series, captures the Lizard perfectly and defines a spiderman who is bright like his father and shows that he's actually quite vulnerable a hero. He doesn't shoot webbing out of his hands all weird. He actually builds the devices to launch webbing that was developed by his fathers corporation (why spiderman is often considered batmanesque, he's actually quite smart and designs things). I still tip my hat to Raimi, as he brought the series to the silverscreen for the first time & such a movie wouldn't have been done so well if it wasn't for him. Hopefully like Batman we'll get to see the series expand just don't bring in the green goblin, the hobgoblin is much more powerful and actually remains the same person throughout the series.
    Expand
  55. Jul 7, 2012
    4
    I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse,I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse, the action is scarce and not especially entertaining. What I did like were those short 1st-person view moments, which were quite breathtaking. All in all, it's a mediocre superhero movie, which I wouldn't be afraid to miss. Expand
  56. Aug 5, 2012
    8
    ,,The Amazing Spider-Man'' is a new, fresh look over the friendly neighbourhood. Garfield fills the shoes of Spidey very good, the romance is well made, but maybe a little too teen drama, the script is almost amazing and the visuals and soundtrack are just perfect to integrate the viewer in the universe of Spidey.
  57. Jul 8, 2012
    9
    Ok... THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: Yes my first impresion was... hey!? what happened with Sam Raimi(director of the first 3 movies) and with Tobie McGuire!!! But today i saw this movie... and it was pretty COOL! Yes Andrew is a good spider-man and Emma is a good Gwen. The story is good and interesting. BUT... Where are Harry and MJ?? Where the hell is J.J. Jameson??? ANd the Daily Bugle??? SomeOk... THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: Yes my first impresion was... hey!? what happened with Sam Raimi(director of the first 3 movies) and with Tobie McGuire!!! But today i saw this movie... and it was pretty COOL! Yes Andrew is a good spider-man and Emma is a good Gwen. The story is good and interesting. BUT... Where are Harry and MJ?? Where the hell is J.J. Jameson??? ANd the Daily Bugle??? Some of those ditails make the movie... a little bit confusing for thos who saw the oder 3 movies and the comics.... Yes.. if you´re a Spidy's fan (like me) you don't want to miss this movie.. but there are some things that are very important that weren't in this movie... and is a bit dissapointing Expand
  58. Jul 23, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I found this movie not to me my cup of tea. A few cheese parts in the movie along with a few missing features really dropped this movie down a bit in my eyes. Making a quick comparson to the other 3 spider-man movies. I think this movie rates lower then the first 2 movies and higher then the 3rd. Third movie had way to many story lines going on for me. Harry (As the Green Goblin), Sandman and on top of all of that the Venom story line with Eric from that 70's show. So back to this review.
    What were the cheese things that just didn't sit right with me. I found this skateboarding hipster peter parker with spiked (Not how I would invision him). A few scenes left me thinking why put that in there? From throwing a football at a goal post and bending it. Then breaking and crushing or sticking to everything he touchs (The scenes felt a bit over board / childish). Spider-man playing with a robber sticks him to a wall then fires webs at him for fun. The scene where Peter is at Gwen's House and jumps over the side of a 100feet condo,Her Parents thought "I didn't see Peter leave out the front door" (Hard to explain). Thats just a few examples. A few features that would have connected me to the story or peaked my interest a bit more. Has to do with the Villian "The Lizard" I like the Lizard as a Villian he out matches Spider-man's strenght and speed. The one thing I didn't like was the look of the Lizard "No Snout" I was a fan of the comic's and tv series and the Lizards look just didn't cut it for me. ( I thought he looked like I-Robot with scales super fail with conneting me with the Villian) Sense I was a Fan of the comic's I loved the fact that the Lizard communiated with other repititles, I would have liked to have seen a few aligators to spice up a few action scenes. This isn't a make or break it for me in this new series of spider-man movies, but I think there is definitly room for improvement. I still will be checking out the next spider-man movie its just I'm not so pumped up from this one that I'll be seeing that next one on opening night.
    Expand
  59. Jul 5, 2012
    6
    This film is ok and quite enjoyable, Garfield is a good spiderman and peter parker and the on screen chemistry between him and stone is good. The CGI is good and for once in an action film you can actually see what is going on rather than the usual blurry sequences we get these days. its about time film makers slowed things down just a touch so we can see the action and enjoy it. This filmThis film is ok and quite enjoyable, Garfield is a good spiderman and peter parker and the on screen chemistry between him and stone is good. The CGI is good and for once in an action film you can actually see what is going on rather than the usual blurry sequences we get these days. its about time film makers slowed things down just a touch so we can see the action and enjoy it. This film manages it. When the film was over some guy next to me was clapping, for my money this film in no way deserves this show of appreciation but it is a good effort. One of the better comic book films and i preferred it over raimis efforts. Expand
  60. Jul 13, 2012
    7
    This was a good super hero movie. It was basically the same movie as the Spider Man with Toby MacGuire in that it had the same plot, same type of characters, and settings/scenes. They did change the details of course providing interesting twists to the essential plot points. The action scenes were better than the Toby MacGuire movie and overall, it had a grittier feel than the original.This was a good super hero movie. It was basically the same movie as the Spider Man with Toby MacGuire in that it had the same plot, same type of characters, and settings/scenes. They did change the details of course providing interesting twists to the essential plot points. The action scenes were better than the Toby MacGuire movie and overall, it had a grittier feel than the original. This spider man was never really a true geek/wus as Toby and when he changes into a tough guy it's more convincing. The main problem with this movie is that the acting isn't nearly as good as the Toby Spider Man. Toby, let's face it, is a far superior actor to this guy. They also made the villain's primary goal very lame. They could have done a lot more with the lizard and some diabolical plans. But, the Lizard was a pretty cool villain overall. The movie is more of a 5 compared to the Toby Spider man but I have to give it an 7 compared to the balance of super hero movies out there which are usually quite good. Cheers! Expand
  61. Jul 13, 2012
    7
    First of all, I believe this film should not have been made at all, at least until a much later date. I believe that the reboot of the series came much too early. However, I did still enjoy this movie to some extent. Being a huge fan of Spider-Man and having read the original comics, they spent far too long on the story as to how Peter managed to obtain his powers. However, the fightFirst of all, I believe this film should not have been made at all, at least until a much later date. I believe that the reboot of the series came much too early. However, I did still enjoy this movie to some extent. Being a huge fan of Spider-Man and having read the original comics, they spent far too long on the story as to how Peter managed to obtain his powers. However, the fight scenes easily make up for this, which are just exhilarating. I also believe that they managed to portray the Lizard very well. Andrew Garfield also manages to create a very like-able character. However, I couldn't help but notice was an absence of some key characters, including Harry Osborn. So, overall, action scenes are great, CGI brilliant, but the first half will likely bore those who have already seen the previous films. Expand
  62. Jul 10, 2012
    8
    I viewed the amazing spider man and love all the action scenes. There was so much action and real suspense, that is how a movie should be and that is what your money is really worth. The reptile look so scary and being in a room alone will give you the hebejebes. I loved this movie a lot. This spider man film is starting off when he first became what he had became. In the comic book he wasI viewed the amazing spider man and love all the action scenes. There was so much action and real suspense, that is how a movie should be and that is what your money is really worth. The reptile look so scary and being in a room alone will give you the hebejebes. I loved this movie a lot. This spider man film is starting off when he first became what he had became. In the comic book he was suppose to be bitten by a radioactive spider, that is the man reason he can walk walls, just like a spider does, he can shoot web just like a spider, well almost most. The red costume is to conceal his real identity just like Superman and Batman. Spider man's main purpose is to stop and rid of crimes and violence in the city. I wish he was working for the Detroit police department, maybe it will fix the crime problems going on in that city. Well anyway. I think New York city is the perfect place to film that movie and working along side the NY PD is awesome. The best spider man film I really loved the most of all superhero films is, Spider man 2 with Dr. Octavius, who was played by Alfred Molina. The amazing spider man should be nominated for a academy award for best motion picture of this year, because of the action and the drama. Expand
  63. Jul 17, 2012
    10
    My reasoning for giving this movie a 10 is not because I thought THIS movie was great(although I enjoyed this one more then the others) I thought that this spiderman series could be great, this is a different spin on the spiderman character that I think is good. His inability to shoot webs out of his wrists which many of my friend,s and I'm sure other people, disliked actually gave a senseMy reasoning for giving this movie a 10 is not because I thought THIS movie was great(although I enjoyed this one more then the others) I thought that this spiderman series could be great, this is a different spin on the spiderman character that I think is good. His inability to shoot webs out of his wrists which many of my friend,s and I'm sure other people, disliked actually gave a sense of realism to me, but to some I guess that they don't care if its realistic or not, all they want isa superhero. But all in all this movie kept my attention and maybe me interested in superhero movies again(p.s. I thought Andrew Garfield did a much better job of being spiderman than toby macguire did) Expand
  64. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers. Does The Amazing Spider-Man usher in an exciting new chapter in the franchise or signal yet another reboot?

    I have joined millions of moviegoers in condemning the horrid Spider-Man 3, a film that put the once-proud franchise into a coma with a single dance scene. But there were more issues to that film than just the sidestepping: the product felt tired and bereft of imagination, as if our hero needed a partner or a major shakeup. Throwing too many substandard enemies at one hero never solved anything, but that's exactly what we got. Something needed to change, but was a reboot really necessary? That was Sony's call; and so five years after Tobey Maguire and company were shown the door, the lights dim for The Amazing Spider-Man.

    Sadly, The Amazing Spider-Man is too drawn out, uninspiring, and downright boring. Its disappointment is so profound that it's a far cry from Spider-Man 1 & 2 and the worst superhero movie since Green Lantern. You all know the story: Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically-enhanced spider and wakes up with enhanced abilities. Yet, this is where the similarities between Sam Raimi's films and the current one end: webbing emanates from a man-made source, Mary Jane has been replaced by Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and even Parker's biological parents are Oscorp doctors who pass off young Peter to Aunt May (Sally Field, Norma Rae) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) before meeting an untimely end. Fast forward several years, and both Parker and Stacy are high school classmates, not twenty-somethings as were portrayed in the Raimi films. Stacy has inexplicably landed a cushy internship with Oscorp and its chief researcher Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who is seeking to reconstruct severed human limbs (including his own) in an effort to prolong human life. Connors worked with Parker's father (Campbell Scott) on the same recipe, only to see his work stifled with a missing formula that Peter discovers in dad's old briefcase. And just like the comics, Connors tests the newly-completed serum on himself, turning into the superhuman monster The Lizard. Rattled by the death of Uncle Ben and the news of Connor's transformation, Peter must balance his new powers with the realization that everyone close to him is at risk of the same violent ends if he remains Spider-Man. On the surface, it seems many of these resets would signal a new-found respect by Sony to remain faithful to the Marvel universe. But, consider this blasphemous alteration: almost everyone in the city knows Spider-Man's true identity, from a young boy stuck in a burning van to the police captain running the manhunt for the webslinger (Dennis Leary). There's even a suggestion that Aunt May herself has put two and two together after seeing Peter return home bruised and battered near the movie's ending. Why screenwriter James Vanderbilt would at first show such respect for canon then throw grenades like this into the middle of his script is beyond me. Either he assumes we're not fully vested with the character to begin with, or we're just ignorant moviegoers who consume and forget when the lights kick on. Either way, this insult doesn't help indie Director Marc Webb, who tries his best to paint pretty action scenes (such as several first-person views of Spider-Man slinging his way through the city) but fails to achieve anything new or exciting. And while our promising cast does its best with Vanderbilt's sub-par script, bad screenplays always trump good acting, a fact which is demonstrated in some of the cheesiest dialogue I've heard from the franchise ("I've been bitten - so have I," says our leads as Parker shares all). While capable actors, Garfield and Stone have little chemistry together and seem like an odd pairing from the start. Moreover, the story takes too long to develop, forcing audiences to wait 45 minutes before seeing any real action, none of which is satisfying or even inventive even in 3D. In fact, many of them feel like retreads of Raimi's efforts, demonstrating the incredible command he had of the character.

    Anyone who tells you this film is exciting or even a well-drawn character-driven story has obviously not seen The Avengers. Had The Amazing Spider-Man debuted sometime in the spring, perhaps my reaction would have been different. Once again that was Sony's call to make, and their product is so much the worse for it. Why they decided it was time to reboot, rather than reload, will confound moviegoers until one considers the contract, which requires the studio to produce a film every so many years, or lose the rights to Marvel. Therefore, The Amazing Spider-man is essentially a contract extension, doomed by a boring and plodding script and a post-credits scene that felt incomplete and largely ineffective. Let's hope Marvel can someday wrestle Spider-Man away from Sony, because very little about this version is inspiring or even worth the time.
    Collapse
  65. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    The new Spider-man played by Andrew Garlfield is a-lot more down to earth and cool as a actor, overall boosting the films rating because he's a more relate-able character. This makes the film a-lot better to view because the actor isn't forced to cry all the time. A.k.a He makes the Tobey Maguire Spider-man look like a complete **** The villain is most likely the best in the series becauseThe new Spider-man played by Andrew Garlfield is a-lot more down to earth and cool as a actor, overall boosting the films rating because he's a more relate-able character. This makes the film a-lot better to view because the actor isn't forced to cry all the time. A.k.a He makes the Tobey Maguire Spider-man look like a complete **** The villain is most likely the best in the series because he is the most **** up one and this also makes the fights more tense. It is a damn good film, so yeah, go see it. Expand
  66. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    For those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken someFor those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken some liberties in the origin story for the sake of a better movie, Marc Webb's version appears to be more loyal to the overall fantasy portrayed in the comics. Expand
  67. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is, as I said in the title, an excellent restart to the story. The acting, visuals, and story were all well-done and VERY enjoyable to watch. Speaking of the acting, Stone and Garfield were both a great joy to watch on film, mostly because they have this great screen chemistry and I can't wait to see them at it again in the next one (If there is one). This movie isThe Amazing Spider-Man is, as I said in the title, an excellent restart to the story. The acting, visuals, and story were all well-done and VERY enjoyable to watch. Speaking of the acting, Stone and Garfield were both a great joy to watch on film, mostly because they have this great screen chemistry and I can't wait to see them at it again in the next one (If there is one). This movie is very enjoyable and fun to watch, and I recommend any one of any age to go see this! I saw it in IMAX 3D, and not that I think it is the best way to see it or anything, but I thought it looked amazing on the IMAX screen so I recommend checking that out if you have the means to as well. Expand
  68. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    Honestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold notHonestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold not just in this film but in the planned films to come" and it is possible that the sequels might be better than this film. On the acting part, Neither Andrew nor Emma acted good. All the people going crazy after Andrew Garfield should notice the fact that the film was about Spider-Man, not the former. BUT I really admire the visual effects the film utilized and the creativity in respect of the stunts and the action-sequences was better than the previous films. Expand
  69. Jul 27, 2012
    5
    In the year of tentpole epic superhero films, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really stand out. After only five years after the last installment, the disapointing Spider-Man 3, the series has been rebooted for audiences once again. For those new to the series, this would be a nice way of introducing them to the web slinging superhero. But for those of us old enough to remember the original,In the year of tentpole epic superhero films, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really stand out. After only five years after the last installment, the disapointing Spider-Man 3, the series has been rebooted for audiences once again. For those new to the series, this would be a nice way of introducing them to the web slinging superhero. But for those of us old enough to remember the original, it may come off as predictable. The more light-hearted tone of the original is lost here (there are moments of humor, but it is overall, more serious and dark) and, while the effects have improved and are worth checking out here, the storytelling is pretty standard. There are engaging performances from Garfield (I particularly liked his bringing out of the well-known hero), Stone, and Ifans, but it doesn't really bring anything else new to the series. In a year of big tentpole super-hero films like The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really live up to it's title. That little pun probably has probably been used by anyone who didn't really like the film either in their reviews. Expand
  70. Jul 10, 2012
    8
    I think this version far, far surpasses the last Spider-Man trilogy in basically every way possible. Overall, as a movie, I think this version works far better, it´s more interesting, faster & better paced, has better action scenes, shows us more of Peter Parker and his family & friends than what the last trilogy did, and just overall has a better feel to it.
  71. Jul 9, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This was extremely entertaining! Although there were some weaker points, this movie is so much better than those made ten years ago. Marvel/Disney did a great job choosing actors, developing characters, and creating a great story, which more closely followed the comics compared to Spider-Man 1, 2, and 3. I wish the movie would have included more information about Peter's parents, but the clip at the end of the movie implied that this will develop in future films. Overall, fans of the comic book will really enjoy this film. Expand
  72. Jul 22, 2012
    7
    Solid reimagining of the Spiderman origin story, which is especially relevant for the vast majority too young to remember the 2002 version. Key substitution in the blonde haired Gwen Stacy character played by redhead Emma Stone in lieu of the traditional redhead love interest Mary Jane Watson, last played by blonde Kirstin Dunst. Pretty epic in a lot of ways, beyond getting bogged down inSolid reimagining of the Spiderman origin story, which is especially relevant for the vast majority too young to remember the 2002 version. Key substitution in the blonde haired Gwen Stacy character played by redhead Emma Stone in lieu of the traditional redhead love interest Mary Jane Watson, last played by blonde Kirstin Dunst. Pretty epic in a lot of ways, beyond getting bogged down in the reengineering of the origin, though it stretches my personal limits in suspending my disbelief as, while I'm okay with the radioactive spider, super powers, giant mutant lizards, fantasy science an all, Peter Parker does all his Internet searches on 'Bing', which is ridiculous, nobody uses Bing. Expand
  73. Dec 11, 2012
    6
    'The Amazing Spider-Man' fails to match the original Spider-Man, and deems itself to be ultimately pointless - revisiting original plot points, a predictable premise and a mediocre villain all are contributing factors. It seems that the film industry is spawning less and less original films, and more re-boots, re-hashes and sequels - and this is a shining example of that. TASM is a good'The Amazing Spider-Man' fails to match the original Spider-Man, and deems itself to be ultimately pointless - revisiting original plot points, a predictable premise and a mediocre villain all are contributing factors. It seems that the film industry is spawning less and less original films, and more re-boots, re-hashes and sequels - and this is a shining example of that. TASM is a good film, but we were only just getting used to Sam Raimi's Spidey Trilogy - and even though Spider-Man 3 was horrid, this still seems too similar to the original whilst not quite introducing anything new or fresh that might drive this new trilogy. Expand
  74. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    Different twist in building an origin of the superhero, some emotional scenes and new swinging action of the skinny Spiderman is not enough to wipe out Tobby Maguire Spiderman image from your head. Though exciting fun is there to make people come to cinema and I watched in a full packed Hall. Complete review @ http://bit.ly/KK1QuK
  75. Jul 4, 2012
    10
    The movie was very good overall, I enjoyed the movie a lot. The movie had elements based on the original Amazing Spider-Man comics (i.e. mechanical web-shooters), and had some elements from other comics such as Ultimate Spider-Man (Richard Parker and Dr. Connors). The story was great in my opinion and I think the cast was better too. Emma Stone fit the role of Gwen Stacy more than BryceThe movie was very good overall, I enjoyed the movie a lot. The movie had elements based on the original Amazing Spider-Man comics (i.e. mechanical web-shooters), and had some elements from other comics such as Ultimate Spider-Man (Richard Parker and Dr. Connors). The story was great in my opinion and I think the cast was better too. Emma Stone fit the role of Gwen Stacy more than Bryce Dallas Howard or Kirsten Dunst, and Andrew Garfield played a perfect role of Peter Parker. Expand
  76. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    I'm very happy to say that the reboot of spiderman follows the comics much more firmly in the way spiderman developed his powers, the general storyline with him being inspired to be a hero, and the witty comedy directed at bad guys. With an ending some will hate and others will love, this spiderman movie may be the best of them all.
  77. Jul 3, 2012
    3
    Wow. It's pretty bad. It barley held my interest. I found myself at times wishing it was over. The kid that plays spiderman has one of those faces you just want to punch...like Jamie Oliver. The tree points I gave it went to the cgi which was really good. The subplot about his parents it totally unnecessary, but maybe they have something big planned. Reminded me of a direct to dvd spiderman movie.
  78. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    This Movie By far was better than the entire Raimi trilogy. The story was compelling and the action scenes were great. Not to mention Spider-Man cracking jokes is awesome (Just like he should be) As for the 3D effects they were quite good especially The first-person shots. That's when the 3D shined, But the 3D is great throughout the entire film. I also like the relationship with Gwen andThis Movie By far was better than the entire Raimi trilogy. The story was compelling and the action scenes were great. Not to mention Spider-Man cracking jokes is awesome (Just like he should be) As for the 3D effects they were quite good especially The first-person shots. That's when the 3D shined, But the 3D is great throughout the entire film. I also like the relationship with Gwen and Peter. Also the fact that Spider-man is a Vigilante to The police which was actually very very compelling. Also the ending was top notch!. You should stay after the credits when the film is over ;) Expand
  79. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man, above all else, has heart. If you take away the brilliant acting of the main characters in Amazing Spider Man you're left with a far grittier and human take on the webslinger's story. Gone from this reboot is the campiness of the Raimi/Macguire rendition - replaced with the believable awkwardness of an adolescent dealing with something much bigger than himself.The Amazing Spider-Man, above all else, has heart. If you take away the brilliant acting of the main characters in Amazing Spider Man you're left with a far grittier and human take on the webslinger's story. Gone from this reboot is the campiness of the Raimi/Macguire rendition - replaced with the believable awkwardness of an adolescent dealing with something much bigger than himself. Fortunately, we don't have to take away the tremendous job of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. While the supporting cast was largely terrific in their roles, Garfield and Stone slipped into their roles flawlessly. I had mixed expectations going with how Garfield would do, but any doubts were quickly quelled. Garfield's unbelievably awkward and emotional performance was believable - a commodity in most super hero flicks - without coming across as the typical whiny protagonist. Stone, once again, knocked it out of the park as Gwen Stacey playing showing true chemistry with her nerdy counter part. The story wasn't fantastic, but very serviceable give the need to once again delve into the origin of the arachnid hero. However, the dialogue was fairly good throughout but truly shined in parts. I would love to dive deeper and deeper into this, but the bottom line is The Amazing Spiderman is a very good movie and borders on great when firing on all cylinders. Webb has set a solid foundation in place to get the most out of his new franchise. I can only hope that, like most super hero series, we won't have to suffer through diminishing returns. Expand
  80. Jul 3, 2012
    8
    I just finished watching this film, and I have to say that I really enjoyed myself. Here are some good things about the film: Webbs' version of Spider-Man was more faithful to the comics. Spider Man felt more agile and fast than Sam Raimi's version and was more easier to follow in his action scenes, also the chemistry between Peter and Gwen is spectacular as Garfield and Stone gave goodI just finished watching this film, and I have to say that I really enjoyed myself. Here are some good things about the film: Webbs' version of Spider-Man was more faithful to the comics. Spider Man felt more agile and fast than Sam Raimi's version and was more easier to follow in his action scenes, also the chemistry between Peter and Gwen is spectacular as Garfield and Stone gave good performances. Although they didn't have to repeat Spiderman's origins again, they tried to change it up a little and they succeeded in doing it. The Lizard also made a good villain and Rhys Ifans was convincing as both Dr Connors and his alter ego. And here are cons of the movie: The action sequences of the film was definitely not on par as with Raimi's Spider-man films, especially Spider-Man 2's train fight scene. Although the action was good and easy to follow, they were kind of short. The action scenes lasted 2 minutes tops and some even less, although they are quite frequent during the second half of the film. Overall, it was a great film that provided more closure to Parker's origins and also was a subtle coming-of-age film that showed Parker's change of character from a nerdy high school student, to a morally-driven hero. I give this film an 8 out of 10. Expand
  81. Aug 10, 2012
    10
    A true origin movie!!! The actors are much better and it goes much more in depth with the story of Spiderman. Get ready, because when this DVD comes out throw out those horrendous Toby McGuire Spiderman movies and make space for the real Spiderman!!!
  82. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    For a reboot, it was okay. The Lizard was okay, but I'm wondering if the producers knew that the Lizard was not that interesting in the comic version prior. The actor (Andrew Garfield) did alright while Spiderman, but while Peter Parker, makes me sad for the actor and I guess for young Peter. Aunt May is supposed to be about as innocent as a senior citizen in the big city can be; SallyFor a reboot, it was okay. The Lizard was okay, but I'm wondering if the producers knew that the Lizard was not that interesting in the comic version prior. The actor (Andrew Garfield) did alright while Spiderman, but while Peter Parker, makes me sad for the actor and I guess for young Peter. Aunt May is supposed to be about as innocent as a senior citizen in the big city can be; Sally Field honestly didn't fill the shoes as well as her predecessor Rosemary Harris (btw, I like Sally Field, this just wasn't her part). Emma Stone and her character were actually the bright lights of the casting. Even Martin Sheen (whom I love as an actor) didn't really add to or improve on the prior Ben Parker. Last note: The standard Marvel teaser at the end of the credits - total flop - did nothing to make me want to see any upcoming Marvel movies, did not whet my appetite for more ... nothing. Best thing about it was that it lasted perhaps a minute.
    If I knew then what I know now, I'd have saved the money and waited for DVD.
    Expand
  83. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    I attended the midnight premier of The Amazing Spiderman last night and I'd have to say that it is the best Spiderman movie to ever hit theaters. It is far superior to the previous Tobey Maguire trilogy. The acting is great by Garfield and Stone and the actor playing Dr. Connors plays the role perfectly. It seems that the negative reviews for this movie are coming from people who areI attended the midnight premier of The Amazing Spiderman last night and I'd have to say that it is the best Spiderman movie to ever hit theaters. It is far superior to the previous Tobey Maguire trilogy. The acting is great by Garfield and Stone and the actor playing Dr. Connors plays the role perfectly. It seems that the negative reviews for this movie are coming from people who are grasping for attention by saying they disliked the movie. This is a great movie for any Spiderman fan. Expand
  84. Jul 3, 2012
    5
    A less involving remake of a movie that should have been left alone. While I think The Amazing Spider-Man did a fantastic job of representing Peter Parker, the rest of the movie just sort of flopped about, switching between humor and drama so abruptly and randomly, you are left wondering if you should be feeling sad or amused during scenes. The movie never really got going or got me as theA less involving remake of a movie that should have been left alone. While I think The Amazing Spider-Man did a fantastic job of representing Peter Parker, the rest of the movie just sort of flopped about, switching between humor and drama so abruptly and randomly, you are left wondering if you should be feeling sad or amused during scenes. The movie never really got going or got me as the viewer involved, so most attempts at drama failed. Additionally, the movie is incredibly long and drawn out, and I found myself wishing it would end.

    Don't get me wrong, the movie is not terrible. It is well made and well written. There's just... something about it that makes it very distant from the viewer. It took too long to get going and even then never really established itself.
    Expand
  85. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    Everything about this movie is better than and more creative than any Spider-Man movie before it. Andrew Garfield is a fantastic Parker and a superb Spider-Man. Definitely Amazing!
  86. Jul 3, 2012
    8
    It wasn't a bad movie. Overall it was great. But the origin story was so boring. Its a story I've heard a million times over the years, and just 10 short years ago in the last spider-man movie. I wish they would have left out that part and focused more on either enhancing the rest of the movie, or adding in more.
  87. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    Saw the midnight premiere and was blown away by how great the movie was. The movie went into so much more detail than the original trilogy. The characters are amazing and the relationship between Peter and Gwenneth is done very well. The movie is fun and exciting. Get your tickets!
  88. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is as stylish and slick as it is emotionally grounded in the world we live in. Director Marc Webb takes the superhero genre and doesn't try to make it larger than life. Instead, he makes it down to Earth, in a way that Joss Whedon couldn't do with The Avengers and in a way that Christopher Nolan couldn't do with The Dark Knight. Spider-Man is back.
  89. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    Obviously, this movie is based on the amazing spider-man cartoon that's new and that's why we won't see Mary Jane until the next movie; when aunt May thinks Peter needs a girl and so the neighbor happens to have a daughter [Mary Jane] and Aunt May introduces her to Peter. But I wonder how they are gonna do with the other girl [Stacy] that happens to fall in love with Peter after she failedObviously, this movie is based on the amazing spider-man cartoon that's new and that's why we won't see Mary Jane until the next movie; when aunt May thinks Peter needs a girl and so the neighbor happens to have a daughter [Mary Jane] and Aunt May introduces her to Peter. But I wonder how they are gonna do with the other girl [Stacy] that happens to fall in love with Peter after she failed a test and Peter becomes her tutor. Man, spidey is surrounded by too many girls now. Lets see, Gwen, Mary Jane, Stacey, and of course our favorite super hero that happens to have the same powers captain America has BlackCat.

    The amazing spider-man is an amazing movie with lots of action. I really like it. Although, Peter Parker seems to be revealing too much of his powers during this movie. If I had seen what happened in real life I would say, "he is definitely not human.' I mean seriously, the train, the basketball, will someone in the movie say, "oh this guy I met the other day is definitely Spider-man. But the way he was web swinging was awesome because I felt it was more than just swinging. There was jumping from wall to wall, there was spinning on the wall while a bunch of birds flew behind him (that was cool). And of course Lizards mouth could had been a lot bigger, like a crocodile's mouth. It would had been amazing to have seen spidey trying to keep the mouth open as his head is so close to it. The thing I love about spider-man the most is that he is the most fun super-hero to watch. Although some people say a giant or Hulk can kill spider-man and that he is really not that powerful. I think he is awesome because his powers are very limited. That's exactly what they did in this movie. They didn't make spider-man so powerful, otherwise he wouldn't be fun to watch. And even though people say hulk or a giant , that's not true. Why? Because spider-man is smart. I think something they should do in a next movie is make a stronger villain for the web-head. In the movie I would like to see spider-man play a dragon ball z video game so that he can learn a really good lesson I learned from that game: "When you depend too much on your strength, you leave yourself wide open.' And lets also include Black Cat so that we can have two super-heroes fighting side by side. I always love to have movie ideas because when I really enjoyed the movie I spend some time imagining the characters in my head and interacting with them. I've imagine myself with powers and creating funny moments in my head too.
    Expand
  90. Aug 1, 2012
    1
    I was skeptical as much as many people when I heard that Colombia Pictures was rebooting a franchise that was no more than a decade old. Nonetheless, I went in with an open-mind and judged this film from the perspective as both a reboot and on it's own merits. All I can say is this movie is amazing...amazingly underwhelming. That is not to say this movie is not without it's positives. TheI was skeptical as much as many people when I heard that Colombia Pictures was rebooting a franchise that was no more than a decade old. Nonetheless, I went in with an open-mind and judged this film from the perspective as both a reboot and on it's own merits. All I can say is this movie is amazing...amazingly underwhelming. That is not to say this movie is not without it's positives. The cast is generally well-rounded (Andrew Garfield really pours his soul into the role), the chemistry between the two romantic leads is very solid, and the action is well-choreographed, with tight cinematography to boost. The core issue with this movie is lies within the script and execution. One opportunity that this reboot sorely missed is the movie doesn't take the chance to stick closer to the comic book source material. Not only does it deviate more from the source material than the Raimi trilogy but the filmmakers go for a Nolan-Batman-esque dark tone by making Peter Parker an emotionally damaged teenager. This feels completely out of place since Spider-Man is supposed to be comical and wisecracking. Parker sometimes does wisecracks but it is so sporadic that it only ends up making his character confusing. Spider-Man is not Batman, the writers tried to put elements into a character that simply don't fit. Another huge misstep was in the villain plot, which features The Lizard. Not only is the motivations of the character confusing and seem to change on the fly, but he also looks like a combination between Killer Croc and a Goomba. Halfway through it becomes obvious that The Lizard is simply another Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin villain except not nearly done as well. Plus the script is so full of plot conveniences and half-baked elements that it truly feels like this script was subjected to many rewrites. Seeing this film, it seemed obvious that the filmmakers were trying to combine the dark brooding tone of the Nolan Batman franchise along with the high-concept sci-fi elements of the Avengers franchise and none of them seem to mesh nor are they executed with the same quality as those film's. I predict that this film is going to be the 'Superman Returns' of the Spider-Man series, a complete misfire of a reboot that fails to bring any fresh momentum to the franchise. This is definitely the weakest Spider-Man movie, even weaker than 'Spider-Man 3' (I never thought that could be possible). Expand
  91. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    This movie was surprisingly great, as I did have my doubts about it. Great new cast, Peter Parker and Gwen have great on-screen chemistry (although I will always be a fan of MJ). Also, the beginning was great, as it more properly explained the origin of Spider-Man (although the amount of time before he gets his powers it a bit stretched out). I love how he uses artificial webs instead ofThis movie was surprisingly great, as I did have my doubts about it. Great new cast, Peter Parker and Gwen have great on-screen chemistry (although I will always be a fan of MJ). Also, the beginning was great, as it more properly explained the origin of Spider-Man (although the amount of time before he gets his powers it a bit stretched out). I love how he uses artificial webs instead of the previous trilogy where the webs magically came out of Parker's wrist. The Lizard was also a much better villain than I had expected, as he is physically more than Parker could ever handle, leading the scenes with him to be a thrill ride of wondering what would come next. Overall, a great movie. Any fan of Spider-Man, heck, any fan of action or comic books in general should see this movie. Even if you don't know about the masked web slinger, this movie will explain it all to you. Expand
  92. Oct 6, 2012
    3
    no se si alguien me pueda entender pero en cierto caso "use the traslator if you want" , yo personalmente pienso que la actuacion andrew garfield, emma stone, y martin sheen fue buena, los efecto fueron buenos, y la forma de dirigir de webb es muy interesante, pero la historia de la pelicula es muy mala, en los primeros 15 minutos peter "investiga" acerca de sus padres y despues deja deno se si alguien me pueda entender pero en cierto caso "use the traslator if you want" , yo personalmente pienso que la actuacion andrew garfield, emma stone, y martin sheen fue buena, los efecto fueron buenos, y la forma de dirigir de webb es muy interesante, pero la historia de la pelicula es muy mala, en los primeros 15 minutos peter "investiga" acerca de sus padres y despues deja de hacerlo. cuando el tio ben de peter muere, peter se dedica a hacer una busqueda como si fuera krave el cazador en encontrar al asesino de su tio, y despues deja de hacerlo para buscar al lagarto que al final termina encarcelado, mala la idea. el romance fue bien al principio pero despues se hizo muy rapido, como si los escritores pensaran: vamos hacer que peter bese a la chica, le revele su identidad y que al final de la pelicula rompa con ella para que 5 minutos despues regresen a ser novios!!! no me gusto mucho que peer fuera un chico con capulla que practica skate y con un peinado al de edwar cullen, que gwen fuera fria al final, lo digo porque cuando muere su padre no se le ve triste, pero cuanto termina con peter termina llorando, el lagarto fue una basura, un hombre lagarto gigante desnudo con una cara de simio, que tenia el plan de convertir la gente en lagartos, pero que ni siquiera logra durar mas de medio dia en su estado de lagarto, ¿y que paso con la familia de connors? ¿porque flash thompson no fastidia tanto a peter como en los comics? ¿porque gwen es una chica ricachona con una familia completa? ¿porque el capitan stacey le quita la dinamica de j jameson? Expand
  93. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    Dont even bother reading the extremely negative reviews. I was very skeptical going in, but what a hell of a start for a new trilogy. The best part about this fresh start, is the 'darker' direction Sony decided to roll with. And as for Garfield, I'm actually surprised at his performance. Any true Marvel fan will appreciate this movie. Well done. Can't WAIT for the Venom tie in.
  94. Jul 3, 2012
    10
    Please don't listen to reviewers bashing this because it's a reboot. It's leaps and bounds above Raimi's films. Trust me....this is the real deal. It's a wonderful adaptation, and one of the best superhero films ever made. Better than The Avengers.
  95. Jul 4, 2012
    10
    I had my doubts when I first heard that they were rebooting Sam Raimi's beloved Spider-Man and opting for a "younger" cast but, after seeing what this new cast and crew are capable of I am glad they did. The Amazing Spider-Man delivers in every category. Raimi's Spider-Man was great but, it time to put that behind use. Go see The Amazing Spider-Man, it's awesome.
  96. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    Is it amazing? In terms of grasp on character, yes it sure is, from peter parker or his alter ego all the way to a small part like flash thompson, every character gets a little defining character moment to show their a real human being not a dumb stereotype. Is the action amazing? Very nearly its strong but needs a little work though one scene in slow mo in a library is both greatlyIs it amazing? In terms of grasp on character, yes it sure is, from peter parker or his alter ego all the way to a small part like flash thompson, every character gets a little defining character moment to show their a real human being not a dumb stereotype. Is the action amazing? Very nearly its strong but needs a little work though one scene in slow mo in a library is both greatly choreographed and hilarious. Special effects are mainly very good, the lizard for the most part becomes a very believable creation you believe he's dr connors and the most amazing thing is that even when he's talking It dosent seem weird it makes more sense to the character. Their are flaws but mainly their nit picks. He way this film makes you believe and want to cheer for the love, the relationships, the action is just fantastic, this is a foundation which an amazing sequel could be built upon. Expand
  97. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    Stayed much truer to the original comics than its predecessor. Garfield plays a much more believable Peter Parker, and his chemistry with Stone is spot on. The dialog is cute and amusing, but at times Twilight-esk. The action sequences are "meh". It's Peter and Gwen's relationship that make this movie good.
  98. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    Let me start with a little background before I get stuck into The Amazing Spider-Man. Now, I was a massive fan of Sam Raimi
  99. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    I don't understand all of the hate for this movie it really is the oddest thing its almost as if we watched a completely different movie. I loved this movie and almost everything about it and before I start I am a very huge fan of the Raimi spider-man trilogy and always have been. I thought this just completely blew the first Spider-Man movie out of the water. Better everything, BetterI don't understand all of the hate for this movie it really is the oddest thing its almost as if we watched a completely different movie. I loved this movie and almost everything about it and before I start I am a very huge fan of the Raimi spider-man trilogy and always have been. I thought this just completely blew the first Spider-Man movie out of the water. Better everything, Better acting, Better direction, an overall better movie. I'm already super excited for the sequel. Expand
  100. Jul 4, 2012
    9
    By properly placing Gwen Stacy into the story, this version of Spider-Man stays closer to the original Stan Lee stories and has the potential, over two or three films, to deliver the real goods on this character, unlike the Raimi films. It is the Gwen story that makes Spider-Man Spider-Man and by leaving that out, Raimi bypassed something fundamental.

    Whereas Rami was fun but light and
    By properly placing Gwen Stacy into the story, this version of Spider-Man stays closer to the original Stan Lee stories and has the potential, over two or three films, to deliver the real goods on this character, unlike the Raimi films. It is the Gwen story that makes Spider-Man Spider-Man and by leaving that out, Raimi bypassed something fundamental.

    Whereas Rami was fun but light and simplistic, this version takes a grittier more realistic approach. The web slinging is filmed more frequently with stunt men and less frequently with CGI, and includes some first person camera scenes of those acrobatics, and so feels much more visceral and real. At one point you can even see as Spider-Man rises to the apex of his swing and before he descends again, the webbing go loose and then pull taught. It's that sort of realistic granular detail that gives this version more credibility than the others, which in turn makes every dramatic event hit with greater emotional punch. It's not just the web slinging; the fights, the characterizations, the relationships between characters, all are handled in a more nuanced realistic way. So when bad things happen to characters, it hits you harder emotionally.

    Even the pre-credits ending (there is a scene post credits), which seems light-hearted, has dark overtones for those who know what waits down the road. And that's another thing. Raimi's Spider-Man's tone is so different from the comics that you could not even tell the proper story in Raimi's version. It wouldn't fit. It would seem completely out of place. This version, by sticking closer to the comics realistic (and I know it sounds odd but the comic is more realistic than the Raimi films), is setting things up and establishing a tone that will allow the actual story, as originally written in the comics, to be delivered in a sequel.

    I admit that Spider-Man 2 was a great romp, but it wasn't really Spider-Man. This is the first true Spider-Man movie. At last, after 50 years, it appears we are finally witnessing - starting with this film and following with a sequel or two - the core narrative of Spider-Man dramatized on screen.
    Expand
Metascore
66

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

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