User Score
7.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1255 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 12, 2012
    5
    I'm sorry, but the reboot just didn't work for me at all. The story was just all over the place, and it moved so slowly. I understand that they were going for a character piece here, but they're focusing too much on every plotline that it's just hard to hold on too. Also, I know they're trying to go on a more darker approach to the Spider-Man storyline, but another main reason for Spider-Man's appeal to audiences is the wonder and joy of discovering and using these powers, and it's utterly lacking in this movie. Yes, there's some humor on Peter using the powers for the first time, but it's hardly wonder. And Jesus, the new Spidey costume sucks. Andrew Garfield was pretty good as Peter Parker though. Oh well. Hopefully they learned from their mistakes in time for the second movie in 2014. Expand
  2. Aug 11, 2012
    10
    Amazing is an understatement. As a Spider-Man fan, I have waited for my whole life to get the true definitive Spider-Man movie, and I have finally gotten it. Wonderful performances, thrilling action, incredible screen writing, perfect humor, and fantastic character arcs make Spider-Man one of the most entertaining, and personal, comic book movies of all time. This is a fantastic movie, one that everyone should see. Expand
  3. Aug 10, 2012
    6
    Quality direction and cast counterbalance a lackluster script and a lack of differentiation from the 2002 film. While it's slightly better than its predecessor, the film isn't good enough to justify its own existence.
  4. 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!!!
  5. 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.
  6. Aug 8, 2012
    6
    Watched a 2D version in the cinema, and now the aftertaste is quite irony since the redux deliberately put an
  7. Aug 8, 2012
    8
    Being a fan of the old Spiderman movies i was curious as to how this one would turn out. Once I heard that Andrew Garfiled was going to be Spiderman I got excited. His performance in The Social Network was Amazing. Also Marc Webb the director of 500 days of Summer which I loved directed this film, and Emma Stone is playing Gwen Stacey, so far this movie looks great. Then I saw it and was blown away. The acting was great, and the chemistry between Andrew and Emma was awesome, The special effects were brilliant, and it was a great spin on Spiderman which I loved. Many people find it different from the original. But it's suppossed to be different, its a reboot, not a remake. Why would you want to watch the same movie twice. Anyway this movie was very entertaining and I loved it. Expand
  8. 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. 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
  9. Aug 5, 2012
    9
    my roomate's step-mother brought in $15301 last month. she has been making cash on the computer and moved in a $482100 condo. All she did was get fortunate and put into work the information given on this web NuttyRich.com
  10. 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.
  11. Aug 3, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'd say this movie is equivalent to Spiderman 3. I hated all the conspiracy's in it. Garfield was a joke of a Parker, but Emma Stone played an... Amazing Gwen Stacey. Expand
  12. Aug 3, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Tis movie isn't amazing but it is one of the best of the spiderman movies. there are some memorable moments but thre are some ridiculous scenes, like the scene with the construction workers giving spiderman a lift. the cgi wasn't the best but it was still good. The movie dragged a little and the lizard shared similarities to the 2002 Spidermans Green Goblin in an overall score.
    Story-7
    Cast-8
    Sound-8
    Animation-6
    total-8/10
    Great
    Expand
  13. Aug 2, 2012
    6
    A good reboot of the Spider-Man franchise, but I think all of this should have happened in 2003. The boring drama scenes are still the same old thing from the original.
  14. Aug 2, 2012
    10
    Best Spider-Man yet. The younger casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone paid off big time! They were much more believable in their roles than the Spider-Man franchise has ever given us. Though the villain was not that exciting, this is the first superhero movie that I've ever seen that I honestly want to see again. Usually the genre is a little boring to me, but this movie is top-notch.
  15. Aug 1, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When it comes to reviewing Amazing Spider-Man it Expand
  16. Aug 1, 2012
    9
    I watched this recently, and I think 80% of the time the movie was catching your eye, so you don't really ever get bored, also funny sometimes. (Sometimes, not a lot)
  17. Aug 1, 2012
    10
    I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Compared to the "other" first movie, I'd say I enjoyed them both equally, yet in different areas and aspects. They both had elements apart from each other that I recognized growing up and this one successfully updating the story for the times. My version of Spider-Man was the intelligent, science wiz that was not necessarily popular, yet wasn't an outcast either portrayed in this version. Compared to the other movie, I liked how they had Peter develop his own mechanism for dispensing the webbing which I was fond of as a kid, his more talkative nature while he's in his Spider-Man persona which in turn, funny as it sounds, makes him feel more human while in the suit. I loved the chemistry between Peter and Gwen and in my opinion, accurately projects that sorta young love, filled with awkward moments and uncomfortable eye contact that anyone can relate to when starting a new relationship with someone. The antagonist was no slouch, and everyone's performance were well done from top to bottom. Expand
  18. 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. 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
  19. Jul 31, 2012
    8
    Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and everyone else in the cast is fantastic. The special effects are some of the best ever. What is really amazing though is that the story of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man is just as fresh and emotional as the first time it was told 50 years ago. (and the last time we saw it less than 10 years ago.)
  20. Jul 30, 2012
    3
    I am really not "getting" all the positive reviews this movie is getting, seems very formulaic to me, was too long by quite a bit. Spidy didn't seem nerdy enough to me as Peter Parker. I thought the whole becoming spiderman sequence from bite to finish was better in the first film. I thought Spideys spinning and swinging and Spiderman stuff was better in Spidey one. There was little if anything to recommend this over the first film, character development, villain, action all seemed to be worse to me.

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

    Wasn't expcting all that much, was still disappointed.
    Expand
  21. Jul 30, 2012
    9
    I love Spiderman movies ever since 2007, this should be on sales now! The movie is more than 2 hours of entertainment, making me impressed of the whole story.
  22. Jul 29, 2012
    5
    I wasn't really interested to see this movie, even though the trailer looked pretty cool. My friends tell me that this wasn't so good, so I never bothered. Until my dad wanted to see it with me, so I broke down and watched. Its actually better than I thought, but its not as great as I hoped it will be. After the disappointment of Spiderman 3, I was hoping the re-boot's will make a dark and serious Spiderman movie, but this one was lil too silly. I will give credit, the fight scenes, special effects, and the beginning of the story took it slow and explained more than the original. I also like that they used Gwen Stacy instead of Mary-Jane Watson, this follows more to the comics. However, the problem starts when Peter Parker becomes Spiderman. I don't understand why he has to use a device to shoot webs, I wish they use the same idea from the original when the webs come out of his wrist. Another thing...is it me, or is Spiderman more goofier in this one? He chuckles and acts like a child the whole time while wearing the suit, kinda like how Dark Suit Spiderman did in Spiderman 3. As for the new actor of Peter Parker / Spiderman, he was okay. He's likable and funny, but for some reason I just think Tobey Macguire was mostly memorable and more mature. I kinda think new Spiderman is too exposing, he reveals his true identity 4 times....not that much of a private superhero. The Lizard, he was pretty good. I like the character and the CG of the mutated monster looked pretty good. So my thoughts in this movie are kinda mixed, I like the movie but I don't find it as great as I wish it can be. I'm still glad I finally got to see it, and maybe change my mind if I see it again and like it. Expand
  23. 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.
  24. Jul 28, 2012
    10
    I love marvel comics and specially the superheroes. This movie is great. It's my favorite movie. I recommend it to the people who like action and some comedy. It is a fantastic movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  25. 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, 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
  26. Jul 27, 2012
    6
    The idea of a reboot seemed dumb to me, it was too soon, but I decided to ignore that and hope for the best and see this. The problem is that, it doesn't change that much the original story, I was expecting a very different perspective of Peter's story, instead we get basically the same things repeated all over again but with a quicker pace, and like a fan made version of its origins. After it finishes introducing Spider-Man the movie starts to get better, but it doesn't leave a mark on you. Also, the Lizard's face felt it needed much more. Oh and what also annoyed me the most, was the tacked on jokes, the jokes felt very scripted, they didn't come out naturally. Is not bad to remake a movie, but please do a change to it, if you are doing it so soon! Batman Begins was a reboot and a very different one at that. Expand
  27. Jul 26, 2012
    4
    FIrst ask yourself if you were satisfied with Sam Raimi\'s Spiderman Trilogy. If the answer is yes, more than likely you will find this remake completely unnecssesary. If it\'s no, you might be in luck but keep in mind this Spiderman makes little to no attempt to introduce anything new or original in terms of plot. This movie is also loaded with plotholes and multiple events that stretch whatever sense of realism this spiderman brought to the table. Good news is Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are great! Bad news is pretty much everything else, in that this spiderman offers absolutely nothing new or interesting to the superhero. Expand
  28. Jul 26, 2012
    6
    Its been a mere decade since Sam Raimi helmed Tobey Maguire (as twenty-something Peter Parker) and company together to set the modern standard for the webslinging hero. As the first two films experienced both commerical and critical success, it's understandable as to why the latest project, The Amazing Spider-Man may strike some fans as being "too soon." But, such popular wisdom didn't halt the 500 Days of Summer director Marc Webb from attempting to prove the nay seyers wrong. Challenged with the prospect of following 2002's Spiderman, this Spidey-film, in production, suffered from the sole disadvantage of being a subsequent act: avoiding semblance. Being a remake, however, involves at least some similarity. In any regard, the film succeeds in distinguishing itself largely due to the new Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield. Known for his spotlighted performance in The Social Network, Garfield assumes a modernized persona in 'Spider-Man.' He, though playing a bit older of a teenager than did Maguire in his debut, is instantly accepted in his role, having a fresh-faced innocence framed with anxious tics, angst, wry humor, and an unpretentiously down-played charisma that realistically reflects towards today's youth. Moreover, unlike the hackneyed "nerdy" image Maguire attained, Garfield is a punkish, skateboarding, internet-surfing, texting teen who just feels right; factor in the tall, lengthy stature that fills the red and blue arachnid suit which draws a far closer semblance to the comics than does Maguire's diminutive clumsiness. Peter Parker, then, is an abounding improvement; we even get to see him as a child in the Prologue. His love interest, the newly monikered Gwen Stacy--no more scarlet-headed Mary Jane--played by the ultra-talented Emma Stone is a beachy, yet intelligent blonde, all emo-short skirts, high boots and blimpingly gazing eyes underscored with thick-painted eyeliner; she is terrific and delightfully lighter and more expressive in character than the cold, equivocally taciturn Mary Jane of previous films. The two together, though, don't always stick like one would want them to, as the pathos and jokes don't land consistently, but individually they work wonders. When a mid-plot twist reveals Gwen's father (Denis Leary) is head honcho of the police force, (Leary miserably nods along) the divided love affair between the two crossed teenagers assumes more of the same division as between Peter and Mary Jane, and ups the ante in cohesive sentiment. As for Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, they are near perfect castings but neither is used nearly enough. And, the one-armed scientist-reptile-symbiote, Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) the screenplay's poor excuse of a villain, is a character no more an antagonist than Peter Parker for a chunk of the film. He is brought to his monstrous transgressions by one Dr. Ratha, who demands that Connors create an antidote for an ailing company superior. While The Amazing Spider-Man does devote some attention to character revamping, namely Peter Parker and the fledgling Gwen Stacy, as well as capturing some subtle nuances from the comics, it also fails to web its components together, often revisiting the same plot points of its predecessor. Though forgiving the latter is sensible, the former is impeachable. What we're talking about: plot contrivances, continuity errors, gaping lapses in logic, and embarrassing coincidences. For one, not nearly enough is said about Peter's parents, particularly his father. Early on, Peter is searching the web (why is a teenage prodigy using Bing?) and it is there he whimsically finds an article of his father with Connors. Others include: what happened to Uncle Ben's murderer? What happened to Dr. Ratha after he was seen in his vehicle on the Williamsburg bridge? Why are no photos taken of the 8-foot tall reptile rampaging through cars like magots? Why are a swarm of lizards walking on a web of Spiderman's in the sewer? Who writes "Property of" on anything? Why do crane operators work during evacuations? If Dr. Connors' reptile-transforming serum was ephemeral, and thereby needed to be injected every four hours or so, why would he expose the entire New York population to it?; the effects would be short-lived. And, the last I will mention, why is Denis Leary the only police officer on the roof of the building in the finale, when hundreds of other SWAT personnel are meandering on the street, watching the hero and villain fight? It's these contrivances and more that mar all that 'Spider-man' offers; director Marc Webb can only feint the mishaps with unfulfilled emotive closeups that merely break up the pervasive silliness for a short time, but such aren't ever forgotten. By the looks of it, the making of 'Spider-man' was lost right from the boardroom; oh, there it is, WHOP! It's an icky mess to clean up. Expand
  29. Jul 25, 2012
    9
    This is the best spiderman movie yet!! The characters, plot, cgi, acting and the fact that Tobey Maguire isn't spiderman anymore is what makes The Amazing Spider-Man better than Sam Raimi's spiderman movies and this one follows the comics unlike before.
  30. 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
    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
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.