User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1422 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 7, 2012
    9
    This Movie was great, the new Spidey was awesome even with all the changes, Its a totally new FUNNY, POWERFULL,REALISTIC Spiderman, I was hoping to see an Avengers 2 clue but I thik we have to wait
    ooo and It has a secret scene after a Few credits
    It was trully AMAZING
  2. Jul 7, 2012
    7
    While I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with SpideyWhile I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with Spidey and Lizard are back and forth battles and great to watch. The one thing I was really worried about was the cast, luckily they proved me wrong. The comparisons are inevitable, people (including myself) will compare Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire unjustly. Maguire had 3 movies to cement his legacy, Garfield just this one. With all that said, I think Garfield does a better job of being Peter Parker than he does Spider-Man. He's a spot on Peter Parker in terms of size, mannerism, the way one would picture a "real life" Peter would act. As Spider-Man however, it's a bit raw. He brings the constant sarcasm and wit that the Maguire Spidey didn't do too much, but Garfield did go a bit over the top at times. Emma Stone, who plays more quirky characters in her career, ends up doing really well as the level headed Gwen Stacy. Rhys Ifans does a better Curt Connors/Lizard than expected, you could really feel for his character, also appearing pretty bad ass in the fight scenes as well. Very well done for Sony, hoping they take this trilogy in the right direction. Expand
  3. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    I don't know what people are talking about with saying the movie was a failure--sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but to say the acting was terrible and the story was old? The acting was believable and the story is what it is. It is following the comic books. The similarities there are between this installment and the others has to do with the fact that it is the same story! II don't know what people are talking about with saying the movie was a failure--sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but to say the acting was terrible and the story was old? The acting was believable and the story is what it is. It is following the comic books. The similarities there are between this installment and the others has to do with the fact that it is the same story! I felt they did a really great job at recreating the characters and taking a different route with Gwen Stacy, since the dynamic was more complex than it was with Mary Jane. Anyhow! I loved it! I'm pumped for the next movie. Guess what? I wasn't expecting the movie to make a story that veers from the original, but I was hoping to have a more believable character that wasn't a sap and a love interest that was actually palpable. It delivered those things. That's all it needed for me. I didn't expect a Gotham City retelling of Spider-man, because in Spider-man there isn't political corruption that's ever addressed. In its own rite it fulfilled something that most superhero movies have been missing: substance over action. Expand
  4. Jul 7, 2012
    6
    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 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 aWell, 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
  5. Jul 7, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a comic book geek for the past 3 decades, I'm a little more critical than most. However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" gets some things right, comic book-wise, but gets a lot wrong. And from a movie perspective, it's really quite weak. Overall, it's an amazing, albeit expected, disappointment.
    First, let's talk about what The Amazing Spider-Man did right. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man and Peter Parker were very good. He was skinny, gawky, **** and funny. He WAS Ditko's Spidey. I loved him as much as I loved Tobey. And that is saying a LOT. They included his love and aptitude for science. His dialogue while dealing with common criminals was very accurate with a teenager given a little bit of power, yet not realizing the responsibility that comes with it. Painful lessons then ensued to bring said **** teenager back down to Earth. This interpretation of the teenage mind was actually better than the original trilogy. In addition, the creation of his web shooters being a product of Oscorp that he essentially weaponizes was a perfect modern take on them, and another improvement on the original trilogy. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was absolutely adorable. Her strength, personality and sheer cuteness (even though I prefer the red hair...I have such a thing for red hair) complemented Andrew's portrayal well, especially as they interacted more and the story progressed.
    While I was hesitant about the Lizard as a primary villain, they wove him into the story so well that I was pleasantly surprised to find him so interesting. While Rhys Ifans did a great job as Dr. Connors was a much better selection for portraying the raging Lizard, I always liked Dylan Baker's Dr. Connors. The key to making the Lizard a suitable primary villain, though, was weaving him into a story with some depth, which they did. He was centralized very well with not only a reason to become the Lizard, but also a reason to tie him into Peter/Spidey. Also, fixing the problem they had with the portrayal of Venom, the Lizard was larger than life, ominous and a physically superior being to Spider-Man. Finally, while it took until end to finally see it, the last scene with Peter and Aunt May established a very good chemistry and character element to the overall story. I look forward to seeing this blossom in the future movies as it greatly exceeds the original casting by Raimi. At first I was concerned about May not being portrayed as old enough, but in the end, it worked.
    All of the good things above transpired in the second half of the film, which made me actually stay because, while I've only walked out of two movies in my life (Dune and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), this was very close to being my third. The first hour of The Amazing Spider-Man was mind-numblingly boring. I was not aware they were seriously going to redo and/or retell his entire origin. The "untold story" required it, apparently. For those who love the ACTUAL origin story and loved the way Raimi told it, this was a kick to the crotch. It was insulting. It was unnecessary. It was so very badly done. It, frankly, ruined the movie for me. I think there was a way to weave the actual origin into this without redoing it all. Next, the script. While the second half of the movie added meat to this new origin, which made the rest of the film tolerable, the dialogue was complete crap. As much as Andrew and Emma seemed good together, the dialogue between them tried repeatedly to screw it up. It was weak, fake and hard to watch. Completely unnatural for two people who appeared to have chemistry.
    Next, the directing. Direction in this film is clumsy, spotty and elementary. Some action scenes are good, some are choreographed and/or edited very poorly. The camerawork during the Emma/Andrew scenes meant to bring them together and have the viewer care about the relationship developing, misses the mark completely. Editing may be more at fault here, especially during action sequences, but the qualitative variance from scene to scene smack of a poorly directed film.
    In the end, while I am always a sucker for comic book movies, especially beloved ones like Spider-Man, nothing happened in The Amazing Spider-Man to warrant dumping Raimi and the original cast. As bad as some may have thought Spider-Man 3 was, this movie did absolutely nothing to prove this was the right direction in which to go. Yet, based on audience and critical reaction, as well as the press around the mid-credit surprise ending piece, two more movies have been announced to tell yet another trilogy. Hopefully this movie will improve over time as the story unfolds, but with Christopher Nolan's Batman/Dark Knight masterpieces and Raimi's original bar set, there is no reason this movie shouldn't have been able to stand on its own, independent of supporting story lines in later films.
    Expand
  6. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    For those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken someFor those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken some liberties in the origin story for the sake of a better movie, Marc Webb's version appears to be more loyal to the overall fantasy portrayed in the comics. Expand
  7. Jul 7, 2012
    4
    I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse,I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse, the action is scarce and not especially entertaining. What I did like were those short 1st-person view moments, which were quite breathtaking. All in all, it's a mediocre superhero movie, which I wouldn't be afraid to miss. Expand
  8. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    When I first heard that they were rebooting Spiderman with stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and that it would be directed by Marc Webb, I was pretty excited. Once I stepped into the theatre, I was ringing with anticipation. And when the movie ended, I was speechless. Yes, this may sound dramatic, but to me, "The Amazing Spider-Man" exceeded my expectations in every single way andWhen I first heard that they were rebooting Spiderman with stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, and that it would be directed by Marc Webb, I was pretty excited. Once I stepped into the theatre, I was ringing with anticipation. And when the movie ended, I was speechless. Yes, this may sound dramatic, but to me, "The Amazing Spider-Man" exceeded my expectations in every single way and completely blew me away. It easily and instantly became one of my favorite movies, and I can't wait to see it again. Here's why: first, I loved the mysterious back story involving peter and his father, which drew you in from the minute the movie began and left you wondering as the movie ended. I was also a huge fan of the Lizard, a slithering, misunderstood villain whose action-packed battles with Spidey were thrilling to watch. Thirdly, and most importantly, the two main characters (Garfield and Stone) stole the show, in my opinion. Not only were their acting and character portrayals superb, but the chemistry between the two actors was so undeniably genuine that I felt as though I was experiencing every emotion along with them. Director Marc Webb, who made another favorite film of mine, (500) Days of Summer, proves that although he may not have the most extensive background in film making, he most definitely has the talent to make heartfelt, interesting and fun films, to say the least. I am absolutely obsessed with "The Amazing Spider-Man" and eagerly anticipate its sequels. Expand
  9. SFN
    Jul 7, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. best spider-man movie ever, period, Andrew plays a absolute perfect spider-man/ Peter Parker, the beautiful Emma stone is perfect for Gwen Stacy, people complain about how the movie takes awhile to get started and it does but only because their telling every detail that the others didn't mostly about Peter's parents, the acting is really good and the i was also impressed with the CG also, me being a spider-man fan and knowing everything there is to know about him this is a perfect film, all these people who say its no good are not real fans, this is a movie for actual spider-man fans not for everyone that goes and see's it, if your a fan you can't go wrong with this movie Expand
  10. Jul 7, 2012
    8
    Anyone who actually knows anything about Spider-Man would understand this is better than the original. Andrew Garfield's wry sense of humor and character out of costume is more on par with the likes of Spider-Man in every sense. Emma Stone is immediately likable and her chemistry with Garfield is great. We were practically forced to like Kirsten Dunst and most of the scenes between her andAnyone who actually knows anything about Spider-Man would understand this is better than the original. Andrew Garfield's wry sense of humor and character out of costume is more on par with the likes of Spider-Man in every sense. Emma Stone is immediately likable and her chemistry with Garfield is great. We were practically forced to like Kirsten Dunst and most of the scenes between her and Maguire were more painfully awkward than enjoyable. Expand
  11. RPD
    Jul 7, 2012
    9
    Andrew Garfield delivers. He's the Peter Parker we should have had in the first place. Better than Spider-Man 1, 2, and 3 combined. Went to see this with my son and a friend of ours and we left talking about how awesome it was. "Better than The Avengers?", I asked. They said yes. Me, I'm not sure if I'd go that far...
  12. Jul 7, 2012
    0
    Watched it, and it is in my opinion the worst Spider-Man movie there is. The movie is more focused on the emotional relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, there is not enough action it's all boring conversations and feelings. The actors looks way to old to be in high school. They also got Dr. Connors character all wrong, Connors wanted to maintain his human nature in the comicWatched it, and it is in my opinion the worst Spider-Man movie there is. The movie is more focused on the emotional relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, there is not enough action it's all boring conversations and feelings. The actors looks way to old to be in high school. They also got Dr. Connors character all wrong, Connors wanted to maintain his human nature in the comic books, he didn't want to play a god. This Connors was very gloomy. Personally I think Andrew Garfield is a bad choice for Spider-Man, he looks like something that escaped Twilight, he doesn't look anything like a nerdy outcast. In the movie nothing about Peter's parents is really unveiled. I was looking forward to see the movie, I thought it was an interesting reboot, I liked the new costume and that they have gone back to the web shooters. But it was a great disappointment, I was hoping the Lizard could safe this movie but the villain was poorly made and nothing like I had expected.

    To me the best Spider-Man is and always will be Tobey Maguire.
    Expand
  13. Jul 7, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really enjoyed myself with this one. The story is the old Spider-man story we all know, but it's been changed so that this movie can shine on its own, and it does. It may be predictable, but it works and you really want to see what happens next, even though you already know what does. The movie also does a good job at building up the sequel, by keeping it subtle. There are a few things that haven't been resolved yet, one I'll get into right now. The romance between Peter and Gwen doesn't wait. After you get to know Peter, you get to know Gwen through her interactions with Peter. It's predictable and cliched as well, but it just works and sometimes you really feel for them, especially towards the end. You also get to know Dr. Curt Connors (Lizard) and how he wants to change the world to make the dominant species perfect. He seems sane at first, but then he goes insane through an addiction that I won't get into. The action is phenomenal; it gets the job done with flare. There's never a point where the acting is questionable. There's only a few negatives to this film. The first is with Peter's personality. He really has no defined trait except for his relationship with Gwen and that he used to be a Punk until his uncle died and he became Spider-man. I feel that the movie missed an opportunity where they could have used his photography to transmit his emotions. The other negative is the patriotic moment. In this, all the construction workers line up heavy-duty cranes so that Spider-man has an easier time getting to the final battle after a motivating speech by the boss and a cut to the American Flag. It's not needed, not that its a bad scene and it does make you feel proud. The one in the other Spider-man movie was appropriate because it was just after 9/11 and we all needed that moment for hope. It's not need in this film and it's the one cliche that drags the film down a little. Overall, I enjoyed myself with this movie and I hope you will too. Expand
  14. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    This movie was amazing, the characters are very well played and you really feel for them, the action scenes are awesome and really make you excited and think 'wow', it's not perfect, they spend a lot of time building the story and characters and then just kinda stop and it gets on with the Spider-Man/Lizard story, which isn't bad because the action scenes more than make up for it, anyoneThis movie was amazing, the characters are very well played and you really feel for them, the action scenes are awesome and really make you excited and think 'wow', it's not perfect, they spend a lot of time building the story and characters and then just kinda stop and it gets on with the Spider-Man/Lizard story, which isn't bad because the action scenes more than make up for it, anyone who's seen it may know what I mean, but a very good, enjoyable film, looking forward to the next one! Expand
  15. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    Brought to you from Stan Lee's Marvel comic: The Amazing Spider-man, this film production re-imagines all three previous movies into one master piece, in which incredible direction and presentation flows freely. Andrew Garfield makes debut as he takes the costume of his childhood hero, with extremely amazing performance.
  16. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Peter Parker more Peter Parker than ever, and Spider-man more Spider-man than ever.
  17. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Great movie! 9/10. I was also a Spider Man Tobey Maguire fan, but then I really got disappointed in Spider Man 3 because I was expecting a DARKER side of VENOM. Well, this reboot is way too promising, especially when you think "what if Venom/Carnage/Sandman/Jackal/Rhino/Electro/Vulture (name it all with your favorite villains) appears in a SOLO (I didn't like those ANNOYING TAG TEAM FESTSGreat movie! 9/10. I was also a Spider Man Tobey Maguire fan, but then I really got disappointed in Spider Man 3 because I was expecting a DARKER side of VENOM. Well, this reboot is way too promising, especially when you think "what if Venom/Carnage/Sandman/Jackal/Rhino/Electro/Vulture (name it all with your favorite villains) appears in a SOLO (I didn't like those ANNOYING TAG TEAM FESTS in SPIDER MAN 3) story sequel?, then you'd definitely be excited in awe. This is DARKER, no more exaggerated childish like Spider sense slo-mo's, more realistic, and I believe this could appeal comic fans. I wrote this review, also to show the producers that I want a VENOM/CARNAGE sequel, saving it for the last movie in the franchise (SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST). And if anyone agrees, please help me raise this to the producers!..................AMAZING MOVIE! Expand
  18. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    While the special effects are impressive, the story line is not as well thought out as the 2002 movie. Also Andrew Garfield acting is not as good as that of Tobey Maguire. However the special effects are better than the 2002 movie and the stunts are amazing. Also the suit is really cool. The Lizard is also very cool and his human form as Rhys Ifan is amazing.
  19. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Very good movie, it works almost flawlessly in transition between emotional and action scenes, both Garfield and Stone perform well and they have chemistry, add a great supporting cast and you got yourself a strong film. The action scenes and CGI work is outstanding as well, Spider-Man really shines and there's an obvious strong choreography work behind the scenes, simply fantastic.Very good movie, it works almost flawlessly in transition between emotional and action scenes, both Garfield and Stone perform well and they have chemistry, add a great supporting cast and you got yourself a strong film. The action scenes and CGI work is outstanding as well, Spider-Man really shines and there's an obvious strong choreography work behind the scenes, simply fantastic. Couldn't have asked for a better reboot for the franchise. Expand
  20. Jul 6, 2012
    7
    Yeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-ManYeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-Man shots while jumping from building to building. Garfield's acting while Peter Parker saved this movie, and lucky for us, that pretty much dominated this movie. Expand
  21. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    I have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 iI have to give it up for Marc Webb on doing an excellent job on (rebooting so to say) Spiderman. The cgi was beautiful as was all of the visuals, the action was kicka$$ and the acting was perfect. Andrew Garfield was excellent as Spiderman, way better than Tobey Maguire in my opinion. At first i had my doubts with this film, 1 i thought it was too early to reboot the franchise and 2 i didn't think Andrew Garfield was a great choice at first because i've only seen him in "The Social Network" which he was great in but i couldn't picture him as an action star, but i was wrong. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field and Martin Sheen all made up a perfectly blended together cast. I must also say that Rhys Ifans did more than an amazing job as the villain (The Lizard). The Lizard was pretty terrifying at times which is very hard to do in superhero films, and the tone of the movie was great, you actually feel for the characters and what they're going through which certainly is not easy to accomplish in a film, especially one like Spiderman. Everything overall was very well done in this film. My only flaws were the 3d is totally not worth it, there was little to no 3d at all, and in the trailers they showed Spidermans perspective on him swinging from building to building like first person but there wasn't any of that in the actual movie. It also got a bit corny at times when Peter (Spiderman) first got his powers, but thats to be expected to some extent. Overall this was a great film, a definite must-see of the summer, just not in 3d. 9/10 Expand
  22. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Let me start by saying I am a HUGE Spider-man fan. I have been reading the comics since I was a child and I have always been very critical of how he is portrayed.

    As excited as I was about the Toby Maguire films, they were very flawed. If you are going to make a movie from characters that already exist, you have to stay as true as possible to those characters. They are popular for a
    Let me start by saying I am a HUGE Spider-man fan. I have been reading the comics since I was a child and I have always been very critical of how he is portrayed.

    As excited as I was about the Toby Maguire films, they were very flawed. If you are going to make a movie from characters that already exist, you have to stay as true as possible to those characters. They are popular for a reason and the people going to see them have expectations. The story may have been pretty accurate, but for the most part, the casting, acting, and CGI was horrible (Alfred Molina and Thomas Haden Church excluded, they were fantastic).

    That being said, Spider-man had to be remade, and "The Amazing Spider-Man", in my opinion, delivers.

    The cast looks as though they were pulled right from the books (minus Sally Field, so NOT Aunt May). Garfield as Parker is brilliant. From his tall, lanky, awkward, yet strong and agile frame to his sarcastic and adolescent comments, he is what I would have imagined and wanted him to be on the big screen.

    The Lizard was also very well portrayed. His size, strength, and intelligence came through clearly. No matter how much they showed him I still wanted more.

    The CGI was excellent, the changes between real actors and animation were nearly seamless. Spidey's agility was very apparent as some of his poses were recognizable from a few McFarlane issues.

    It was also the finer details hat made it great, like Spidey's web shooters and The Lizards lab coat (I would sigh when he took it off).

    The story line may not have been as accurate as it should, but his story is always told a little differently each time. I think this version was entertaining and interesting, it gave Spidey some greater depth and made it easier to get behind him.

    Now I didn't see this movie for the love story, or the specific actor, or to be on the edge of my seat every second. I went to see Spider-Man be Spider-Man, the fact that everything else about this movie was still fun to watch was a bonus.

    Any movie can be picked apart, but If you are a fan like me, you will love this film.
    Expand
  23. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    Beautifully acted,great visuals,with a great addition of humor.In my opinion,it surpasses the original Spider-man,but it will take time for most people to realize it.
  24. Jul 6, 2012
    10
    I found better this Spider-man than that of Sam Raimi. Meanwhile, I liked how they dealt with the psychology of Peter Parker, I liked the atmosphere are very dark and I loved the mystery that lies in the disappearance of Peter's parents (I also found the best costume that looks more amateur). Now could start a new trilogy and I'm happier this way because they are facing in the world of Spider-man.
  25. Jul 6, 2012
    9
    This is the first Spider-Man movie since 2007's Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is just what a summer reboot looks like! The movie was awesome, I saw the Tuesday night showing before people were getting ready for 4th of July weekend. The ending was shocking, but I can't say any spoilers right now! However, my guess is that there's gonna be a sequel to the movie soon if AndrewThis is the first Spider-Man movie since 2007's Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is just what a summer reboot looks like! The movie was awesome, I saw the Tuesday night showing before people were getting ready for 4th of July weekend. The ending was shocking, but I can't say any spoilers right now! However, my guess is that there's gonna be a sequel to the movie soon if Andrew Garfield is gonna come back reprising Spider-Man. I believe The Hobgoblin should be in the movie, but I don't know yet. It was a great reboot and I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises coming out. I hope there's gonna be a line. Expand
  26. Jul 6, 2012
    8
    Right off the bat, The Amazing Spider-Man is the best out of all four Spider-Man movies released so far. The key positive aspect of Mark Webb's reboot and what Sam Raimi failed to achieve with his franchise is remain faithful to the comic books. All of Peter Parker's iconic moments is still intact, the inevitable spider bite, uncle Ben's death, the first time he dons the realistic-lookingRight off the bat, The Amazing Spider-Man is the best out of all four Spider-Man movies released so far. The key positive aspect of Mark Webb's reboot and what Sam Raimi failed to achieve with his franchise is remain faithful to the comic books. All of Peter Parker's iconic moments is still intact, the inevitable spider bite, uncle Ben's death, the first time he dons the realistic-looking suit, it's covered in greater detail and you don't feel the Expand
  27. Jul 6, 2012
    4
    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 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 storyWhat 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
  28. Jul 6, 2012
    5
    I loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in aI 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
  29. Jul 5, 2012
    10
    All I have to say is this is by far the best Marvel movie I have seen since Iron Man. I cant believe how well written this movie is. I wasn't bored, I cared about the characters and what they were going through. Every actor played there parts perfectly. It wasn't like avengers which was a 2 hour and 30 minute toy commercial and completely forgot about what the story was about andAll I have to say is this is by far the best Marvel movie I have seen since Iron Man. I cant believe how well written this movie is. I wasn't bored, I cared about the characters and what they were going through. Every actor played there parts perfectly. It wasn't like avengers which was a 2 hour and 30 minute toy commercial and completely forgot about what the story was about and character growth. I can also say like others have already that its also better than the first 3 spiderman movies combined. Comic book movie directors, writers and producers should see this movie as the perfect example on how to do a well balanced Superhero movie. Expand
  30. Jul 5, 2012
    9
    As far as genesis movies go, this one is fantastic. Furthermore, it completely trumps Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. I'll admit I was skeptical of Andrew Garfield's ability to carry an iconic role like this one, but he did so beautifully. He was the right amount of dorky, funny, and serious, while giving a new feel to the Peter Parker character. I also loved the fact that Emma Stone was inAs far as genesis movies go, this one is fantastic. Furthermore, it completely trumps Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. I'll admit I was skeptical of Andrew Garfield's ability to carry an iconic role like this one, but he did so beautifully. He was the right amount of dorky, funny, and serious, while giving a new feel to the Peter Parker character. I also loved the fact that Emma Stone was in this movie, and as Gwen Stacy at that. She always provides solid acting and natural charm.

    The writers and directors did a good job of providing a lot of true-to-the-story components in the film. It is tough to do a revamp of a film within a decade and have the guts to actually retell the story from scratch, but this movie did just that. Overall, there was an appropriate balance of plot, romance, and action, as well as a seamless flow from beginning to end. Lastly, I was thoroughly entertained with Spider-Man's new fighting style. His movements were much sharper and present than in the past, but graceful and fluid when they needed to be. As a serious movie-goer and longtime comic book fanatic, this movie got it right.
    Expand
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.