User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1423 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. 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 andI 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  4. 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
  5. 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.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
  6. 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 stretchFIrst 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
  7. 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'tIts 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. Jul 25, 2012
    9
    The best Spiderman film to date, with a dream cast (Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Martin Sheen in particular) a compelling, to-the-point origin story, a fun soundtrack and some awesome fight scenes. While it does follow the same cues as Raimi's original Spiderman movie, that's simply because it's Spiderman's origin, it draws from the same comic book that Raimi's film drew from, soThe best Spiderman film to date, with a dream cast (Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Martin Sheen in particular) a compelling, to-the-point origin story, a fun soundtrack and some awesome fight scenes. While it does follow the same cues as Raimi's original Spiderman movie, that's simply because it's Spiderman's origin, it draws from the same comic book that Raimi's film drew from, so similarities are bound to occur. But overall, I believe this film far outdoes Raimi's Spiderman, the characters in this Spiderman are just so...I guess...loveable :/ And let's face it, the lack of Tobey Maguire makes would make any series reboot a winner, there's something about that guy's acting that stirs about the urge in me to lamp him one, quite an issue when I only ever see him on expensive, fragile screens.
    It does annoy me that they went with the age old, "Cop fights superhero because he doesn't want him taking the law into his own hands" bullsh!t we've seen a million times before, but I do like the way they tie that off towards the end.
    Expand
  11. Jul 25, 2012
    5
    The word that summarize this movie is "pointless".
    It's a souless script that adds absolutely nothing to the "first" version of Raimi.
    Script is poor and plot is weak at best. It seems like the director just wanted to lay out some ground for future films. It's like following a checklist to introduce spider-man to a new audience. Waste of time, not entertaining at all. And if you hope for
    The word that summarize this movie is "pointless".
    It's a souless script that adds absolutely nothing to the "first" version of Raimi.
    Script is poor and plot is weak at best. It seems like the director just wanted to lay out some ground for future films. It's like following a checklist to introduce spider-man to a new audience. Waste of time, not entertaining at all. And if you hope for some good action you're out of luck too. Fighting scenes are few and far in between
    Expand
  12. 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
  13. Jul 24, 2012
    8
    Marc Webb tackles Spiderman in The Amazing Spiderman. A bit presumptuous if you ask me to put the adjective Amazing in the title itself especially when you are basically one film old and taking over from Sam Raimi and have relative new comer Andrew Garfield donning the spandex unitard that Tobey Maguire wore while swinging across New York City. Does Webb rise to the challenge or does heMarc Webb tackles Spiderman in The Amazing Spiderman. A bit presumptuous if you ask me to put the adjective Amazing in the title itself especially when you are basically one film old and taking over from Sam Raimi and have relative new comer Andrew Garfield donning the spandex unitard that Tobey Maguire wore while swinging across New York City. Does Webb rise to the challenge or does he fail. Does Andrew Garfield succeed where Tobey failed (in impressing me as spidey). Does Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey make a more compelling love interest for Spiderman than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson.
    Speaking of Marc Webb, I loved his 500 Days of Summer and his unusual approach to a "not-a-love-story". The comparisons to Sam Raimi are inevitable and there are even those are calling this as Spiderman 4 - It is not. This is Webb's human approach to the Spiderman lore. There is a lot more back story as Webb tries to establish the beginning and even the story before the beginning. Webb and his screenplay writer Vanderbilt have infused the story with a lot of humor and it helps you relate to peter parker/Spiderman that i found lacking in Raimi and Maguire's Spiderman often I felt Maguire came off as insufferable. And for someone whose first movie was a romantic comedy heavily reliant on music Webb packs a punch with the action sequences that would make Nolan proud.

    Andrew Garfield as a nerdy geeky bullied Peter Parker is charming and as Spiderman is a hero you feel like cheering for. Garfield tasted success with The social network and makes his mark as the masked vigilante. He transitions seamlessly between being a lost helpless orphan to being a radioactive-spider-bitten swinging super hero, a bullied nerdy geeky high-schooler to Emma Stone kissing teenager. Andrew Garfield makes geek chic and makes the unitard sexy. Maybe he is too tall to be Spiderman but I'll take him over Tobey
    Expand
  14. Jul 23, 2012
    1
    If you like the marvel universe and the comics, you will really loose faith in humanity.
    This is more a teenager movie than a spiderman movie. Spidey looks like an unsure crying teenager who may have look too many twiligh movies. In fact it could have been any "superhero" in this movie. The actor role is not good at all except for peter's girl friend. The Artistic direction seems to have
    If you like the marvel universe and the comics, you will really loose faith in humanity.
    This is more a teenager movie than a spiderman movie. Spidey looks like an unsure crying teenager who may have look too many twiligh movies. In fact it could have been any "superhero" in this movie. The actor role is not good at all except for peter's girl friend. The Artistic direction seems to have gone out of budget and imagination and 3D effect are very unequal. The filming technics are poor, it's a pain to wash like some over used and missplaced focus effect. Even Spiderman 3 that was really bad, was above this in term of realisation. The final cut could have been amputed of 30 minutes to add some dynamic to the movie, some scenes are really long for nothing.
    By reference to the comics, the main character should be quick and intelligent, and this spidey is nothing of that, somtimes his reactions are so ridculous, you just want to slap him, put him in his costume and tell "so now what ? amaze me ... amazing spiderman" ... and certainly he would just cry.
    So in fact it's more a love/teen movie than a super hero movie, they could have replaced spidey be any hero/emo guy it whould have been the same. In term of character respect it's one of the worst marvel movie.
    Expand
  15. 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
  16. Jul 23, 2012
    0
    No script? No ideas? No creativity? Let's make Twilight in spandex and ram it down their throats! Peter Parker is an awkward science geek? Screw it, let's make him a sullen, brooding emo dick, take his shirt off, and rope in the broads. As much of a train wreck as John Carter is, at least it's not a cynical train wreck. This is: a disgusting, factory-assembled, boardroom-arbitrated,No script? No ideas? No creativity? Let's make Twilight in spandex and ram it down their throats! Peter Parker is an awkward science geek? Screw it, let's make him a sullen, brooding emo dick, take his shirt off, and rope in the broads. As much of a train wreck as John Carter is, at least it's not a cynical train wreck. This is: a disgusting, factory-assembled, boardroom-arbitrated, hopelessly written **** It's so cynical and calculating in the way it machinates every scene for maximum profit that it makes you physically sick. Marc Webb, Vanderbilt, Sargent, Kloves, all the hacks involved, and everyone at Sony should go straight to movie jail for this abomination. I still can't figure out what the Lizard was trying to accomplish. He's so badly written and unthreatening, you half expect him to yell "Switch to Geico or die, Spiderman!" Expand
  17. 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
  18. Jul 23, 2012
    7
    Most of the negative reviews on here are really uninformed reviews. While this movie is titled "The Amazing Spider-man;" this movie seemed more like a strange mixture of both series "The Amazing Spiderman" and "Ultimate Spiderman." Most people are familiar with "The Amazing Spiderman" series because it's been printed since the 1960s. So if things seem unfamiliar about this movie it'sMost of the negative reviews on here are really uninformed reviews. While this movie is titled "The Amazing Spider-man;" this movie seemed more like a strange mixture of both series "The Amazing Spiderman" and "Ultimate Spiderman." Most people are familiar with "The Amazing Spiderman" series because it's been printed since the 1960s. So if things seem unfamiliar about this movie it's because the writers picked out elements from ultimate spiderman. I personally didn't like the fact that they mixed the two comic series together, because I was expecting there source material to be the comic they named it after not two different comic series.

    This movie is actually really good I wouldn't say it's completely superior to the first three movies but it does excel in several places where the first three movies didn't. First of all the cast is far superior in my opinion. While the first three movies had great actors it just didn't seem like they were that into the making the movie and it really showed in their performances , not to mention there were some really strange casting decisions ( I.E. Eddie Brock/ Venom being play by the guy from that 70s show).

    Secondly the plot is far more comic accurate than most probably give it credit for. The villain actually has amotives and goals he wants to achieve, and they're well thought out. What I mean is that the lizard man initially is running his experiments to find a way to genetically engineer genes into people so they can grow back limbs and stuff like that, but of course something horribly wrong happens and he becomes a monster; however, as the monster he feels real power and thinks humans are weak overall. These thoughts lead him to trying to figure out a way to either eliminate or modify humans. The green goblin in the first movie just did everything because he was crazy; it never really feel like he had any motives besides I want to kill people for the heck of it. What I hated about the first trilogy is that at the end of every movie they killed off the main villains. I know this sounds nit picky but it almost seemed like they did it just because it was convenient. Instead of placing one scene at the end of the movie where it shows norman osbourne being locked up in a prison or something like that they just killed him off so they never had to mention him again in the next two movies.

    Thirdly the character development is phenomenal and the talent really gets the heart and soul of the characters spot on.

    The main negative thing about this movie is occasionally it feels like it drags on and this is in part of the character development. There are a lot of tear jerking scenes in this movie that just don't really feel necessary. These scenes are in there to make you feel more invested in the characters but they could have accomplished this by doing scenes that were more entertaining in my opinion.
    Another thing where this movie fails is that it feels less fun than the original 3. If there is anything the first 3 did right is that it didn't take itself serious at all really and that's why they were pretty entertaining even pretty bad at the same time. The most nit picky thing I didn't like about this movie is that the physics were really ridiculous, for example there is one scene where he throws a football at normal speed and it hits and bends the goal post; that's physically IMPOSSIBLE the only way he could accomplish that is if the football was first indestructible and then he threw it at like 500 mph.

    Overall this isn't the best comic movie I've seen but it definitely isn't the worst. The actors deliver believable great performances and the story is very true to the comics. Definitely give it a try at least.
    Expand
  19. Jul 23, 2012
    10
    This movie had little bit of everything. I found Garfield's Peter Parker very relatable. The chemistry between him and Stone's Gwen Stacy was much better than McGuire's Peter and Durst's MJ in Raimi's trilogy.
  20. Jul 22, 2012
    7
    Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had a lot of convincing to do, and after the end of The Amazing Spider-Man I was convinced. I feel like the Spider-Man universe is now a far more realistic one. This movie has all the great action you would expect with an interesting storyline and villain. If you've been waiting for a cooler Spider-Man, this is your move. Let's just hope the special effectsAndrew Garfield and Emma Stone had a lot of convincing to do, and after the end of The Amazing Spider-Man I was convinced. I feel like the Spider-Man universe is now a far more realistic one. This movie has all the great action you would expect with an interesting storyline and villain. If you've been waiting for a cooler Spider-Man, this is your move. Let's just hope the special effects and production values are a little more stellar for the next film. Expand
  21. Jul 22, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie sucked. This Peter isn't geek, let me say again...PETER PARKER ISN'T GEEK! His hair, is NOT a Peter Parker's hair, he loves to spread he is the "amazing" spiderman, I tought he would even tell J Jonah Jameson(I bet he would if he was in this movie)...this Parker loves to show off, he is no better than Flash Thompson!! Gwen Stacy is intelligent, the lizard is ridiculous, it just don't look like a lizard, but like a halloween costume. In short it's a "twilighted" spider-man. Sam Reimi Spider-man is way better than this one, and Tobey Maguire is the real Peter Parker!! Expand
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. Jul 22, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Having watched the Spiderman trilogy, my expectations of The Amazing Spiderman were initially low. Reading into some early reviews of the movies, I felt unimpressed. Nevertheless, I decided to enter the theater with an open mind. What I got was unprecedented. I saw a movie that was spectacular, endearing,a film that actually made me care about the characters. Toby Maguire might as well have played a plank of wood sleeping in a field for three hours. Andrew Garfield brought something to the movie, that Raimi could never evoke from Maguire; flavor, a peculiar flair, that stimulates the movie, even when there is no action taking place. His character is rigorously researched, resembling the original Spiderman envisioned by Ditko and Lee. He brings humor to the table( albeit a bit cheesy). He is smart, dependable, and caring. He personifies the high-school geek, but brings to charm it. He encourages us to stand up to the bully. He is bold in the face of danger. He gets the girl. He is smart, both practically and theoretically.

    Then we see the dark dimension to the film. The dissonance in the family that leads to the poignant death of his Uncle. A scene that allows us to sympathize with the rebellious geek. We are offered a character with many dimensions, a flawed character, unlike the stereotypical heroes we are normally offered. The on screen relationship between Garfield and Stone is a pleasure to watch. The chemistry is bubbling between the pair. Including some memorable quotes and moving scenes. Trust, a quality long lost on our generation is exemplified in Stone's and Garfield's characters, when he reveals his true identity to her. The tension is augmented by the fact that Stone's father, Capitan Stacy, is actively hunting Spiderman. We see the overbearing father holds the same level of disapproval for Peter Parker as he does his altar-ego. The Down to earth nature of the film is best displayed through the blue collar, Uncle Ben, played by the veteran actor Martin Sheen. Sheen brings the intrinsic qualities of family love and togetherness to the movie. He is a man who has worked all his life. He can be tough on Peter but means well. He loves his wife, and is enraged when Peter fails to pick her up from a dangerous neighborhood. When Peter becomes disenchanted, he storms out. Uncle Ben follows, ending up in a dangerous area.Ironically, the danger Ben warns Peter about is the very thing that kills him. In the conclusion, we see the insightful text message sent to Peter, which urged him to come home that night. In a way Peter is faced with a unresolved guilt. He seeks vengeance, but revenge cannot satiate the hole his uncle's death leaves. I particularly loved the exploration of Peter's past. It gives us a greater character profile and helps us understand how he came to live with his aunt and uncle. The Lizard was a good villain no doubt, but I felt maybe his character should have had a bit more screen time. Overall, the atmosphere and the plot were good. Rounded off by a great cast. It has all the makings of a great movie. Bow down Mr Raimi 10/10
    Expand
  25. 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.
  26. MB_
    Jul 21, 2012
    1
    Whatever you do do not take your kids to watch this film. They will resent you for weeks to come, it's just so damned boring. They will scream at you and moan at you as they watch it and hate you when you come out. Now if you're a grown up don't bother either, shallow, predictable and just plain boring. You have been warned.
  27. Jul 21, 2012
    10
    Amazing. The best of the Spider Man's movies. But I wanna see Mary Jane and Gwen in a fight for Peter in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I'd appreciate that :)
  28. Jul 21, 2012
    6
    The film was good, don't get me wrong. The characters were much better, and much more likable than Raimi's version, but I feel it was too soon.

    The world is the same, the story and structure is very very similar, it terms of effects nothing has changed, and the first person shooting was quite annoying. My original score was 7 but I'm bringing it down to 6 because of the so called "3D",
    The film was good, don't get me wrong. The characters were much better, and much more likable than Raimi's version, but I feel it was too soon.

    The world is the same, the story and structure is very very similar, it terms of effects nothing has changed, and the first person shooting was quite annoying. My original score was 7 but I'm bringing it down to 6 because of the so called "3D", which just seemed to make the screen darker with no REAL added value.
    Expand
  29. Jul 21, 2012
    6
    At the end of the day , regardless of how hard director Marc Webb tries to veil it , you simply cannot escape the fact that the Amazing Spider - Man is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle . Director Webb's decision to re - visit Spidey's origin , has in my opinion backfired . It lacks the maturity and slick sense of style so very characteristic of Christopher Nolan's Batman films ,At the end of the day , regardless of how hard director Marc Webb tries to veil it , you simply cannot escape the fact that the Amazing Spider - Man is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle . Director Webb's decision to re - visit Spidey's origin , has in my opinion backfired . It lacks the maturity and slick sense of style so very characteristic of Christopher Nolan's Batman films , being overly - reliant on traditional comic book movie cliche and somewhat unimaginative set - pieces . The performances of the entire cast - Garfield and Stone in particular - are worth a mention as they keep you invested in some otherwise dull moments . At the end of the day , I can't help but feel that The Amazing Spider - Man could have been so much better had the creators not decided to take an overly - conservative approach and instead would've dared to think outside - the - box the way Nolan did with his Batman films . Nonetheless , it's still decent fun if you've got a few hours to spare , just don't set your expectations sky high Expand
  30. Jul 21, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It was a safe, solid action film which did not push any boundaries. I would have given this higher but it was just too similar to the original film and was done too soon in my opinion. Could still be a solid series of films as long as they try new story lines but I understand why this one was quite similar to the first Spiderman as it is about his origins. Expand
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.