Columbia Pictures | Release Date: July 3, 2012
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1566 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,095
Mixed:
314
Negative:
157
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
5
kristen58Jul 6, 2012
I loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if theI loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in a new universe, that's just fine, but 75% of this movie was just his origin story that we just saw in 2002 Spider-Man. I was just sitting there thinking "yeah, I know, move on already" for 90 minutes. Yeah, a few details were different...I think they could have changed more. I could also tell that this movie was very geared towards teenagers and the MTV crowd, and that made it seem stupid to me. The Twilight preview before the movie didn't help. Neither did the girls screaming "woo" in the theatre when Peter and Gwen kissed. Please. I also HATE cheesy 3D tricks, and this movie ended with the stupidest "this would look cool in 3D!" trick ever. It it so stupid and cheesy and not quality cinema. I don't give a crap about 3D! I just want to see a movie with real characters and a story, not watch Spider-Man shoot a web right at my face just because it would look cool in 3D. So enough venting, there were things I liked. One thing I did like was that they did a more humorous take on Spider-Man. This one definitely was funnier that the previous series. They also were obviously going for a more realistic character, as even as Spider-Man he was still clumsy, and his climbing and jumping was more human and less overdone with CGI. They also allowed the suit to look like real clothing, and not digitally enhanced. You could see wrinkles and I think even a zipper. How "perfect" the spidey suit always looked in the previous movies always bugged me. So, I kind of liked the new one, even though it seemed unpolished, since that's what they were going for. Overall it was entertaining and worth seeing, but most of the movie was unnecessary and redundant. Expand
24 of 38 users found this helpful2414
All this user's reviews
6
tallmanwritingNov 12, 2012
Andrew Garfield pulls off Peter Parker with a lot more believability than Tobey Maguire. This isn't the best super hero movie by any stretch, but it's an entertaining 90 minutes. I'll probably even watch a sequel, something I never did withAndrew Garfield pulls off Peter Parker with a lot more believability than Tobey Maguire. This isn't the best super hero movie by any stretch, but it's an entertaining 90 minutes. I'll probably even watch a sequel, something I never did with Maguire in the lead role. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
FDT44Jul 26, 2012
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,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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
JTKelleyAug 10, 2012
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
YellowKirbyNov 26, 2015
I liked this movie when I first saw it, but It's quite forgettable, really. Andrew Garfield really isn't as good a Spider-Man as Tobey Maguire, and Rhys Ifans' Lizard isn't as interesting as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. All in all, it's anI liked this movie when I first saw it, but It's quite forgettable, really. Andrew Garfield really isn't as good a Spider-Man as Tobey Maguire, and Rhys Ifans' Lizard isn't as interesting as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. All in all, it's an alright movie, but it's no match for the original trilogy. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
RealMuthaFJul 7, 2012
I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie.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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
Slimshady6Jul 11, 2012
I had very mixed feelings for this film. I read the ultimate spider man comics, and had high expectations for this film to be based more on it. Which is kinda is and kinda isn't. I understand bringing in lizard man to introduce the newI had very mixed feelings for this film. I read the ultimate spider man comics, and had high expectations for this film to be based more on it. Which is kinda is and kinda isn't. I understand bringing in lizard man to introduce the new spider man. But the way they placed big events and brought characters in the movie I dont understand how they are going to make the second one good and especially making this series beat Sam Raimis spider man movies. This movie was ok, But throwing out main events out of the comic books and not following the story of how it should go, its going to end up like Sam Raimi's series. Bringing in Gwen Stacy and Her Father and killing her dad so quickly was a stupid idea. I just wish someone would actually follow a storyline for once. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
6
GilbertoJul 12, 2012
The Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short givenThe Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short given that I really enjoyed those last films, and while this reboot didnt really satiate me completely, I did for a fact enjoyed watching it. The first problem with the film is that it is doomed to repeat what we already know. For the first half an hour, Spideys obligatory build up before becoming the hero we know is revisited, and that includes Peter being bitten by a spider and Peter watching his uncle Ben being murdered. The director seemed aware of the issue as the scenes are given some new twists, and also seemed to resume everything as quick as possible, but this overall make them feel uneventful. Once that is overcome, the movie starts opening some interesting elements, as well as some interesting characters. Emma Stone as Gwen is great to give an example. Actions scenes are quite nice ,but I dunno if as memorable as other heart pumping scenes from the first three, like per say: the train sequence in Spiderman 2. The soundtrack is OK but at the end pretty forgettable and really falls short to the outstanding soundtrack from the hexed trilogy before it. At the end, perhaps "The Amazing Spider Man´s" most unselfish but unfortunate fate is that it going to be compared to Sam Raimi´s work, and it is from that perspective that it falls short in some and other aspects. It is a good movie to watch with great characters, fighting scenes, music and actor performances, but all of that was also done (and in some ways even better) with the first line of movies and this calls into question if it was really necessary to start all over again. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
HalfwelshmanSep 24, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man is a decent quality film and a pretty fun ride. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are excellent, with Garfield remembering to be a human first and a superhero second, and stone having great chemistry with the web-head asThe Amazing Spider-Man is a decent quality film and a pretty fun ride. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are excellent, with Garfield remembering to be a human first and a superhero second, and stone having great chemistry with the web-head as Peter Parker's highschool sweetheart Gwen Stacy. Denis Leary is also superb as Gwen's over-protective, condescending but well-meaning police captain dad. Rhys Ifans is less successful as The Lizard, the film's most prominent antagonist, his performance inconsistent, his character's motivations ill-defined and his CGI-transformed appearance looking a little off (an anthropomorphic face grafted onto a reptilian body turns out not to be the cleverest design decision in motion picture history). It's nice to see a new take on the titular hero that's more like Smallville than Sam Raimi's trilogy, but you do feel a little cheated at the film's conclusion with its many hanging plot threads that will doubtless be resolved in the sequel(s). Though The Amazing Spider-Man breaks new ground in terms of its slow-burning style of storytelling, the key beats in the plot are predictable and cliched, and the film as a whole is far too long, though I'm not sure which scenes could justifiably be cut to improve pacing without negatively impacting the story as a whole. It's oddly gratifying to see director Marc Webb finally attempt to address the (theoretical) physics involved in someone swinging from skyscrapers, and by executing many of the film's stunts in reality using sophisticated wire-work and harnesses, he manages to avoid the slightly rubbery Spidey of the Raimi era. The Amazing Spider-Man is a solid foundation for a new franchise that remains pleasingly grounded and promises to explore the lesser-known lore of the Spideyverse. The post-credits scene also suggests that the sequel could go to some really interesting places now all that lengthy exposition is out of the way again. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
BrokendownJul 23, 2012
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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
Steve101Jul 7, 2012
Well, its far from the best spider-man movie made. However, I still found this movie a half descent flick. I also (And i know everyone is going to disagree with me, but..) thought this movie was better than the Avengers. So, yeah, it wasWell, its far from the best spider-man movie made. However, I still found this movie a half descent flick. I also (And i know everyone is going to disagree with me, but..) thought this movie was better than the Avengers. So, yeah, it was pretty cheesy at some parts, and Spidey was a bit too self centred (My uncle got murdered, Im gonna go kick the crap out of everyone), but it was still a descent flick. Character development was satisfactory, and I somehow liked the transition from webs loaded into wrists to technologically invented webs. It just fit the story better. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
BKMJul 5, 2012
Reboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it reallyReboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it really necessary to start from scratch so soon? While that can be debated, the film itself is a letdown thanks in large part to its attempts to present a darker and hipper Spidey than we are accustomed to. Peter Parker rides a skateboard? He barely even has to try to win the affections of Gwen Stacey? None of this feels true to the web slinger's roots. But the biggest problem is that Marc Webb and his creative team haven't made the franchise their own. Ultimately The Amazing Spider-Man feels too carefully plotted out and safe when it needs to take risks and find its own identity. Expand
7 of 15 users found this helpful78
All this user's reviews
5
KarthXLRJul 7, 2012
Overly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailersOverly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaser in the end credits.

Not necessarily bad, just completely forgettable.
Expand
7 of 15 users found this helpful78
All this user's reviews
5
HipsteranJul 12, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Although making a reboot of a movie that was released 10 years before is absurd, I'm not going to complain about it because you knew that long before going to the movie and I believe it's not fair. However, because it was directed by Marc Webb and featured great stars (Emma Stone, Andrew Garfield, Sally Field) I must say I expected the movie to be more emotional and more character-developed than the old Spider Man movie. I must say I was wrong. Other than Peter Parker (which had a coming-of-age period that was interesting) the characters seem one-note. And it is such a shame because we all know that both Emma and Sally Field has great acting skills. Another problem in the movie was it's villain. The whole lizard thing was weird (him wanting the whole human population to be a lizard). Also, Andrew Garfield's spider man ego didn't match with Peter Parker, and while Spider man was fighting I completely felt that I was watching someone else. The length of the movie also made me killed myself and even Emma Stone with the umbrella couldn't save the extremely unnecessary love scenes. We know that there is going to be a sequel to The Amazing Spider Man. And I know that the only thing that will save that movie is Marc Webb's creativity that we didn't see in this movie. I except something like Expectations-Reality scene from 500 Days of summer in the next movie. Expand
4 of 10 users found this helpful46
All this user's reviews
5
txrangersfan72Jul 7, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a comic book geek for the past 3 decades, I'm a little more critical than most. However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" gets some things right, comic book-wise, but gets a lot wrong. And from a movie perspective, it's really quite weak. Overall, it's an amazing, albeit expected, disappointment.
First, let's talk about what The Amazing Spider-Man did right. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man and Peter Parker were very good. He was skinny, gawky, **** and funny. He WAS Ditko's Spidey. I loved him as much as I loved Tobey. And that is saying a LOT. They included his love and aptitude for science. His dialogue while dealing with common criminals was very accurate with a teenager given a little bit of power, yet not realizing the responsibility that comes with it. Painful lessons then ensued to bring said **** teenager back down to Earth. This interpretation of the teenage mind was actually better than the original trilogy. In addition, the creation of his web shooters being a product of Oscorp that he essentially weaponizes was a perfect modern take on them, and another improvement on the original trilogy. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was absolutely adorable. Her strength, personality and sheer cuteness (even though I prefer the red hair...I have such a thing for red hair) complemented Andrew's portrayal well, especially as they interacted more and the story progressed.
While I was hesitant about the Lizard as a primary villain, they wove him into the story so well that I was pleasantly surprised to find him so interesting. While Rhys Ifans did a great job as Dr. Connors was a much better selection for portraying the raging Lizard, I always liked Dylan Baker's Dr. Connors. The key to making the Lizard a suitable primary villain, though, was weaving him into a story with some depth, which they did. He was centralized very well with not only a reason to become the Lizard, but also a reason to tie him into Peter/Spidey. Also, fixing the problem they had with the portrayal of Venom, the Lizard was larger than life, ominous and a physically superior being to Spider-Man. Finally, while it took until end to finally see it, the last scene with Peter and Aunt May established a very good chemistry and character element to the overall story. I look forward to seeing this blossom in the future movies as it greatly exceeds the original casting by Raimi. At first I was concerned about May not being portrayed as old enough, but in the end, it worked.
All of the good things above transpired in the second half of the film, which made me actually stay because, while I've only walked out of two movies in my life (Dune and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), this was very close to being my third. The first hour of The Amazing Spider-Man was mind-numblingly boring. I was not aware they were seriously going to redo and/or retell his entire origin. The "untold story" required it, apparently. For those who love the ACTUAL origin story and loved the way Raimi told it, this was a kick to the crotch. It was insulting. It was unnecessary. It was so very badly done. It, frankly, ruined the movie for me. I think there was a way to weave the actual origin into this without redoing it all. Next, the script. While the second half of the movie added meat to this new origin, which made the rest of the film tolerable, the dialogue was complete crap. As much as Andrew and Emma seemed good together, the dialogue between them tried repeatedly to screw it up. It was weak, fake and hard to watch. Completely unnatural for two people who appeared to have chemistry.
Next, the directing. Direction in this film is clumsy, spotty and elementary. Some action scenes are good, some are choreographed and/or edited very poorly. The camerawork during the Emma/Andrew scenes meant to bring them together and have the viewer care about the relationship developing, misses the mark completely. Editing may be more at fault here, especially during action sequences, but the qualitative variance from scene to scene smack of a poorly directed film.
In the end, while I am always a sucker for comic book movies, especially beloved ones like Spider-Man, nothing happened in The Amazing Spider-Man to warrant dumping Raimi and the original cast. As bad as some may have thought Spider-Man 3 was, this movie did absolutely nothing to prove this was the right direction in which to go. Yet, based on audience and critical reaction, as well as the press around the mid-credit surprise ending piece, two more movies have been announced to tell yet another trilogy. Hopefully this movie will improve over time as the story unfolds, but with Christopher Nolan's Batman/Dark Knight masterpieces and Raimi's original bar set, there is no reason this movie shouldn't have been able to stand on its own, independent of supporting story lines in later films.
Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
4
PPPETERJul 8, 2012
this movie was really slow for the first hour and then it got better andrew garfield has to be the worst actor i have ever seen play spider man he acts like he is on drugs half the time
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
4
ObeyingSlaveJul 6, 2012
What a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dyingWhat a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dying had no effect on him what so ever. He was very **** and went right into attacks. He was not tactical at all. It felt so incredibly rushed. The story moves so quickly. He just gets the suit. It's like he pulled it out of his ass or something. This was a complete let down. The story is so generic and one-dimensional. I don't even know why they had him like cameras. They tried to make him some cool kid. He used the camera like one time and didn't use it any other time. The comedy was the only thing appealing. The fight scenes were very generic and predictable. He's a lazy, disrespectful, over-confident, teenager who happens to get abilities to climb on walls. It is also stupid how he has those little machines pushing out webs. It makes him so much more vulnerable. All you have to do is aim for those and he's as good as dead. Would not watch again. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
4
FreezyBabyJul 4, 2012
I don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into theI don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into the ridiculous, the characters other than Peter Parker are written so lifeless and one-note. I thought there was plenty enough to distinguish this from the last franchise, but I think it's very fair to compare them if you give this one a fair shake standing on its own. This movie, however, does not stand well on its own, Ironically, this one apparently stayed more true to several of the details of the comics but lacks any of the energy and wonder of a comic book. The first movie of the last series had this is spades. Just a really disappointing effort, and the first recent Marvel movie I disliked more than I liked. Expand
7 of 19 users found this helpful712
All this user's reviews
6
djm229Jul 3, 2012
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,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; 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
3 of 9 users found this helpful36
All this user's reviews
5
nickgreene11Jul 5, 2012
This film is okay. Everything you expect, nothing you don't. List all of the superhero clichés and you'll find them. It isn't a smart movie in any aspect. Bad dialogue, questionable cutting. What frustrates me the most is all of theThis film is okay. Everything you expect, nothing you don't. List all of the superhero clichés and you'll find them. It isn't a smart movie in any aspect. Bad dialogue, questionable cutting. What frustrates me the most is all of the missed opportunities to take this rich universe and say something meaningful with it. Where it has the opportunity to soar, it strolls and plays it safe. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
ConscriptJul 11, 2012
As a summer movie, the Amazing Spider-man is great. As a movie though, wow is it bad. The editing for the film is just awful. It is incredibly apparent early in the movie that huge, huge chunks of the story have been edited out at the lastAs a summer movie, the Amazing Spider-man is great. As a movie though, wow is it bad. The editing for the film is just awful. It is incredibly apparent early in the movie that huge, huge chunks of the story have been edited out at the last second and only a scant few of the glaring holes are covered by re-shoots. Firstly, it is very noticeable that everything promised by every single trailer, even those in the month up to the film, was removed. There is no untold story, there is no resolution to the Oscorp storyline involving the serum, etc. Every single bit of that was removed. They completely failed to remove the dozens of references to it in the movie though. Peter gets angry numerous times about his parents leaving and disappearing on him. They attempt to cover that, sloppily, with a brief glimpse of him finding an article about their plane crash, yet he continues to get mad as if they abandoned him, not that they died tragically after only leaving him for a short time. There is no resolution to the Oscorp stooge guy taking the serum to that VA hospital. He gets attacked on the bridge by Lizard, but isn't killed or even hurt, and then he disappears from the film. In the trailers it is evident that he plays a big role further in the movie in revealing the "untold story" to Parker as he is dying. Every drop of that is removed and it just leaves this massive empty space about what the heck happened there. There is no motivation for the Lizard's actions. He simply starts to go nuts, hear voices, and decides to kill people/transform them into Lizards. Essentially it is the same story of the Green Goblin from Spiderman but done worse. Speaking of Lizard people, he magics up these gas grenades from nowhere, apparently having transformed his injected serum into an aerosol dispersant while living in the sewers, using them to make a bunch of cops into Lizards. They then disappear off screen until the antidote is launched out of the conveniently 2-minute countdown timed mortar. There was supposed to be much more involving them which was also cut from the film.

In the end, it is an entertaining movie, but once you start to think about it you realize you saw about half what the movie promised in the trailers and only about 3/4ths of an actual movie thanks to all the horrible edited plot lines. You end up with a Spiderman movie that is better looking than the previous incarnations, has some very good pieces, but in the end feels like an incomplete movie and a total cash grab before Sony lost the rights. Hopefully the sequel is a much better put together movie which in part could have been caused by the completely inexperienced director they handed the franchise to.
Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
ClaymixJul 3, 2012
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 soA 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
9 of 29 users found this helpful920
All this user's reviews
6
jsp41Jul 3, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This reboot of spiderman is in no way bad, but definitely has room for improvement. To start off, everything looks great, the web slinging, spidey in his suit, and the Lizard. Andrew Garfield is a much better Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire, and I loved all of his smart quips during fights, its just a classic Spider-man thing and I really loved how Garfield played this role. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was likable, but overall was much more under developed compared to Parker and Dr. Connors. Speaking of Connors, he was awesome...until he became the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choice as the leads villain, but just didn't pose a huge threat to Peter or Spidey as I had hoped he would. My major problem with the movie as whole, however, was that Peter never found the guy who killed Uncle Ben, and I realize that maybe he realized what he was doing was immature as Capt. Stacy (played by a surprisingly good Dennis Leary) knocked Spidey for beating on criminals of the same type, but the director could have at least had more closure to the whole story arc, and it just abruptly ended as the Lizard came into play. All in all, a solid superhero movie that has room to grow into something great and I can safely say that I am looking forward to where this iteration of Spider-man goes in the future. Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
MagnificentMJul 3, 2012
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,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 (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
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
5
GreatMartinJul 13, 2012
All I could think of while watching
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
4
MeltedFab5Jul 4, 2012
Tone is all wrong. Awkward only plays effectively until the awkward situation is resolved. This movie is as awkward as the main characters who never grow out of it. This movie has no sense of fun and no sense of Spider-Man or Peter Parker.Tone is all wrong. Awkward only plays effectively until the awkward situation is resolved. This movie is as awkward as the main characters who never grow out of it. This movie has no sense of fun and no sense of Spider-Man or Peter Parker. Keep asking yourself...what does this kid want...and see if you find an answer. The movie was actually boring and the most satisfying moment was watching the credits role. Even the after-credits teaser was lame. Really?? Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
6
MattInRCJul 3, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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.
Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
6
ShiranaiJul 5, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Dear Mark Webb. Is your name Christopher Nolan? No? THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE?!?! Full disclosure here I actually review movies and videogames professionally this is not a professional review this is a fan's livid rant about how my fellow peers can rate an average movie so highly. I have to give Mr Webb credit for being bold. He tries a lot of new ideas some work but most don't. The plot changes itself in the middle of the movie not once but twice. I don't know who to blame here. i never expected much from this movie since hearing about it two years ago, but after seeing some of the previews I thought maybe just maybe it might not be half bad. Unfortunately I was horribly horribly wrong. What is it everyone loves about this movie? The story of the movie is just as lost and confused as the rest of us. I thought Emma Stone looked quite a bit like Gwen Stacy I think she did a decent job. I think Garfield did as best as he could with the script given to him he certainly moved like Spider-Man did, but why was his character portrayed so far from what makes Peter Parker? I really don't know who is at fault here I think enough went wrong that it isn't possible for one person to take the blame for all of it. I would recommend seeing it so you can understand just how horribly things went wrong. I would like to ask my fellow peers just how many of you sucked Stan Lee's dick to give this average movie such a high rating. Very little is ever resolved. The whole movie feels like they filmed about 6 hours worth of footage, and a few months before the movie was set to release they realized they were out of time, and said ok just watch the footage and give me 2 and a half hours worth of decent material. Then we all give it to the editors and work or magic. Audiences are so gullible and trusting now so they will just take whatever we give them as long as we throw some cool special effects in there to whet their appetite. Why am I so angry you ask? This movie was meant to "correct" whatever Canon issues the Sam Raimi films had. It does the exact opposite. They change the personality of Peter Parker ENTIRELY from "canon" He is a somewhat loner skater kid? I was waiting for Avril Lavigne sk8er boi to kick in in the background. Peter was bullied he doesn't save others from bullies he was NEVER a popular kid. Furthermore what happens to the vengeance? Ya we know he won't go through with it but the entire thing is dropped. They spend 20 minutes of the movie setting it up just to drop it entirely? Oh and what happened to the dialogue in EVERY trailer of Kurt Konners telling Peter "You think this was a coincidence?" I think we all know where the story would have gone, problem is it didn't exist in the movie. Whatever plot used to be in the movie, and isn't is advertised heavily in the trailer. This movie pissed me off but it pisses me off more that so many of my peers are freaking sell outs. It isn't horrible but it is far from Amazing. Who do we blame editing department? Director? Writer? Pushy Producers? They changed just about everything about Spider-man yet they claimed this would be more "true" to the original. And most importantly. WHY THE HELL DID HALF THE FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE KNOW WHO HE WAS? Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
6
TVJerryJul 10, 2012
This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn.This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn. He brings a personality to the part that makes him constantly charming, even though his emotional side just keeps turning on the water works. The story starts with promise and the early discovery scenes are entertaining, but as the film develops, it falls apart. The action scenes are often muddled and over-edited. The lizard villain looks fake. The pacing lags more than once. Other than Garfield, there's not much here's to recommend. NOTE: Stay thru the first part of the credits for a sequel teaser. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
5
billrullerJul 29, 2012
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 actuallyI 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews