User Score
7.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1248 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. Jan 23, 2013
    7
    Its a made well movie but not great. Some errors like lines and ageing makes it bad, worst part is that they are 29 and 27. THEY ARE TEENS! They can't be 30 it's like seeing Iron Man be 74. It is a movie likely to succeed but a prequel would not be high in getting a prequel.
  2. Jan 20, 2013
    4
    This movie is awful and i gave it 4 out of 10 just because there are some things on which i can't close my eyes and got to admit, that they're done well. But there's some many wrong choices, especially in plot. I don't want to tell like every mistake, but most irritating for me was the fact, that this movie didn't bring main topic of Spider-man's existing, this movie never told us, that: with great power, comes great responsibility. In this movie this phrase never appears, and if authors wants to tell us about that in later movies, it's a big mistake, because then this movie looks even worse and cannot live on itself, only as a part of a trilogy, and i hate that tendency. This movie creates some interesting topics and never gives us answers, just to carry for other movies. This movie must be a self-contained story, but story is not only problem. I don't like this much "edgier, dark and realistic" atmosphere. I don't like this Parker with his tight jeans and skateboard. They wanted to tell us THE OTHER STORY THAT ISN'T REALLY REVEALED but instead it's the same story and not even finished. Effects and Ema Stone only saves this movie for me. Expand
  3. Jan 15, 2013
    6
    I still don't think this movie needed to be made, but I honestly didn't care so long as it was a good film; The Amazing Spider-Man is a good film. Sure, it covers some familiar territory, but it also adds/changes some aspects of the story which is much appreciated; it stands on its own and is more than capable of sustaining another franchise for a while longer. Andrew Garfield is a very solid and likable Peter/Spider-Man (as well as a solid actor), and Emma Stone is great as well; their fantastic chemistry is what drives this film. Rhys Ifans is an adequate villain, but he's underwhelming to say the least. I look forward to the sequel and potential future Marvel collaborations. Expand
  4. Jan 5, 2013
    6
    Out of all the 2012 superhero movies, this one was my least favorite and a big disappointment. I was hyped for two years for this and went to the midnight release and The Amazing Spider-Man at times was great and other times when it was complete trash. The positives though go to the well chosen cast, they were all great and I enjoyed each of the scenes they were in. Unfortunately this movie loses serious points because this is the most rushed movie I watched in my life. There are so many scenes that had potential but aren't just ruined, they are destroyed by editing, that's where I start getting fumigated. There are a lot of plots that lead to no where, so theres more points taken off. The Lizard is also a wasted villain with no special back story or meaning to the character, it felt like he was just thrown in there. This movie isn't bad, but it surely ain't amazing, so far this is not a good start for a reboot, and I think Sony is to blame for a lot of the problems in this movie. I recommend this for any Spider-Man fan, but I can't guarantee you'll love it. Expand
  5. Jan 3, 2013
    8
    So much better then the original Spider Man. Garfield fits perfectly as Peter Parker, The rest of the cast is solid as well, The story is more loyal to the comic books. It's simply an enjoyable movie.
  6. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    Well, I really loved it. I wasn't keen on these Marvel heroes like Spider-man or Hulk, but I liked this movie, and it attracted me. I just wanted to keep on watching. I also like when things are realistic.
  7. Dec 28, 2012
    4
    No, I didn't think a reboot was warranted, and nothing in the previews urged me otherwise. That said, I thought for sure they'd do a great job with it, with the track record of hero-based reboots being taken seriously and respected in the last decade. I expected to at the very least be entertained. If you can read between the lines of the above, you can understand where I'm coming from when I say I am completely dumbfounded by the consistent amount of praise I see for this adaptation. Aside from looking more sterile and overly-indulging in video game caliber CG in places where it wasn't even necessary, making films from over a decade ago look modest in their graphics work, there were nothing but issues for me. From the set designs that actually didn't require green screens to the casting, I am left scratching my head because usually when I get online to complain there are 10 other people touching upon the bases I have been running in my head. A lot of reviews praise the additional back story. If by additional back story, you mean cliche scenes of going against the grain in high school complete with jock bullies, and locker drama seen in countless other 'teen angst overcame' movies, okay...you got it. They may have spent more time in his school and very non-Parker-esque like household, but that doesn't mean the extra time spent was actually "building" on anything. It wasn't even just the CG that was over polished and sterile, but even the story lines, and even the big build up scenes. Dennis Leary seemed to be completely playing up what must've been countless people's comments telling him that he reminded them of Aaron Eckhart in Harvey Dent's shoes, and the very hard to get wrong cliches got as thin as it gets when playing up the "rich girl brings rough-around-the-edges" kid to an extreme needlessly "formal" dinner at the Stacy residence. It was a series of scenes I spent wondering if Leary was embarrassed to be rattling off the script he was given for this, as surely the fans and rest of the internet would be tearing this thing to shreds. Silly me... or have I just gone mad? An honest wonder.

    The sewer drama unfolded like the audience had the brain capacity of a 7 year old, having to blatantly have a smart kid like Parker being so thoughtless as to rig up his camera so carefully to snap the lizard's photo, then zooming right in on the back of the camera to the "property of Peter Parker" label on the back that looked like it's only purpose being stuck there was for this scene specifically, covering most of the bottom of the item, then the movie pans right up to this, spoonfeeding us this "clue" in case we missed it. There is little to no attention to detail even on such a pivitol scene (like the rest of the film) to even make the label look worn...like "oops, forgot that was even on there". Nothing subtle here...and yes, subtly does work even for a comic book movie. Other tidbits that left me biting my tongue include the scene of the spider crawling out of the bite wound, and the fact that they got away with banking on the praise they'd receive for one aspect, namely "being truer to the original, and truer to reality" by incorporating the synthetic web shooter vs. the spider's venom itself passing on web-spinning capabilities as in some variations of these stories. The rest of the movie negates this cry for credibility in every way -- nothing felt natural. I guess I've been spoiled -- most movies I sit through are concerned with all of these things so my mind doesn't even have to wander to consider picking apart things like that. Much like an ex wife who lost a divorce who is defending her meltdown, "I've grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle!" In all honesty I expected this to be good, because they had so many skeptical eyes on them for such and early reboot and a legacy to uphold or outdo, and since that has actually been achieved by others more often than before, Marvel and Co. surely would only back something that would do it justice. In that light, this 4am squinty-eyed review is one I was not expecting to write, and I would've guessed I'd be more likely to write something like this for a movie like 'Chronicle', which I enjoyed much more than I thought I would. The Amazing Spider Man turned out to be quite the table turner for me.
    Expand
  8. Dec 27, 2012
    1
    One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. My brothers saw this in the theatre and were singing praises about it so of course one of them got it for Christmas. Every once in a while my brothers will recommend a good movie to see (The Avengers, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, etc.) and then they'll recommend crap like this and it just cements my theory that they'll watch anything that shows up on the TV screen. This movie has no redeeming values and is a complete retread of a superior movie that is only TEN years old. The directing is awful, pushing a dazed spiderman who can't act through scenes & events that feel like they are being checked off of a list. The camera work is boring, feeling like it was shot from all tripods & steadycams. The acting is non-existent except for Martin Sheen (who I feel bad for being stuck in this poor excuse for a movie) and most of the characters come off as jerks. If there are any non-stunt SFX, I didn't notice them... I guess the $230m budget went into filming in LA & NYC because for a superhero movie this is really bland. Everything about this predictable, copycat of a movie is a direct downgrade from the 2002 version and has no merits of it's own. Do not waste your time with this and do not support Hollywood's obsession with "remakes". Expand
  9. Dec 25, 2012
    8
    I'm not a Spider-Man fanboy for life, but I have some pretty average background with the franchise. I loved the Amazing Spider-Man Animations Series of the 90s and also own a bunch of Spider-Man comic books. What I can say is, that this movie reminds me much more on the memories and style and story of the Spider-Man I know from my childhood than the last Trilogy by Raimi (which I didn't like that much). A lot of people seem to dislike the new movie, but in my eyes it is far superior to the raimi-trilogy when it comes to lore, comic-book feeling and 80s / 90s atmosphere. But maybe I'm not the best reference as I tend to dislike a lot of modern superhero movies. Expand
  10. Dec 11, 2012
    6
    'The Amazing Spider-Man' fails to match the original Spider-Man, and deems itself to be ultimately pointless - revisiting original plot points, a predictable premise and a mediocre villain all are contributing factors. It seems that the film industry is spawning less and less original films, and more re-boots, re-hashes and sequels - and this is a shining example of that. TASM is a good film, but we were only just getting used to Sam Raimi's Spidey Trilogy - and even though Spider-Man 3 was horrid, this still seems too similar to the original whilst not quite introducing anything new or fresh that might drive this new trilogy. Expand
  11. Dec 10, 2012
    8
    This was a worth while reboot. The original Spiderman suffered from a cartoonish undertone, and horrid acting from most of the main cast. The few good things about it were crushed by its played out take on the whole thing.

    What does this movie have that the other doesn't? Adult jokes, better explanation of his back story, and better acting. I really hope that they make a sequel.
  12. Dec 9, 2012
    6
    It's a dumb, predictable popcorn flick where every scene has a painfully obvious meaning and you always know what's going to happen next. I hate that kind of cinema but the funny thing is, the action here is actually thrilling (the crane scene was amazing!), the added psychological depth makes Parker a compelling character, and, perhaps most importantly, Garfield totally nails it. There are worse ways to spend two hours. Expand
  13. Dec 9, 2012
    9
    A superb Spidey film, as good as Spiderman 1+2 I thought, if not a little better. Just an all round good film and exactly what you want it to be. The 'web shooting machines (can't be bothered to google technical term) on his wrists are a geeky and therefore pleasurable addition. How couldn't you enjoy seeing a pink flash every time he fires a web?
  14. Dec 1, 2012
    8
    I didn't see this movie in theaters because I thought it wouldn't be that good, but boy was I wrong! The only part I didn't like was when Dr.Connors peeled away the casing on his new arm. That literally scarred me for life...but that's just me!
  15. Nov 30, 2012
    6
    Under the engaging direction of Marc Webb, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an intimate and energetic reboot of Sam Raimi's original blockbuster trilogy, and for sharing so many similarities to the first film, it stands on its own very well and is impressively refreshing. Andrew Garfield puts forth a more relatable, complex and yet simpler Peter Parker - he's **** and egotistical when he has the upper hand early on, yet also delivers the emotional sobriety during the more serious and dire moments, and overall delivers a very solid performance as a teenager taking on these enormous new powers. The chemistry between him and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is perhaps the biggest improvement - where the MJ/Peter plot in Raimi's trilogy grew tired out and soap opera-ish, here the romance is tangible and very authentic. The film also has some very nice emotional moments, particularly near the end, that lends it some dramatic credence it might have been lacking until then. However, the action scenes are not nearly as fun as Raimi's, and even during the climax they don't seem to carry much tension or suspense - which doesn't mix well with the otherwise darker and more serious treatment - and a couple of moments that should be emotional heavyweights are treated with surprising briskness. Overall, it's a very solid and enjoyable reboot, but so far Raimi's trilogy is still the better Spider-Man. Expand
  16. Nov 30, 2012
    10
    This is by far the best spider man movie yet.Never thought a reboot of spider man would be 10 times better than the first spider man movie.Maybe it was the story line of the first spider man movie that made me fall asleep or could it have been the acting of Toby Maguire that made me hate Spider man 1,2 and 3. so when saw the trailer for the amazing spider man I truly thought this could probably be the worst spider man movie ever made.But never judge a book by it's cover or in this case never judge a movie by it's cover the amazing spider man is easily one of this year's best movies in my books.Glad I did not judge the movie by reading the other reviews given by other users on this website.Just have to say again the amazing spider man movie is the best one yet and I truly hope there could be sequel's if the amazing spider man so good who knows how good the sequel's could be. Expand
  17. Nov 29, 2012
    9
    This movie was surprising in a good way - much better than I'd expected. It's far better than the last two Spiderman movies, and even though they re-do the Spiderman origin story I liked the way it was done in this movie much better than the original movie. This is regardless of the comic book series. Sometimes the original stories from comic books don't carry over well for modern movies so I think the story was well done to accommodate both movie fans and original comic book fans. Expand
  18. Nov 29, 2012
    9
    This was an outstanding movie and, in my opinion, better than the Spider-Man films of a decade ago. I enjoy the way Andrew Garfield portrays the Peter Parker character much more than Toby McGuire. He is not such a dweeb, is more charismatic, wittier, and just a better actor in general. And thank you to whoever decided to use Emma Stone as the romantic/love interest. Not only is she one of the best young actresses in Hollywood but she is absolutely stunning. Much more believable for the role of the beautiful "damsel in distress" than Kirsten Dunst. I'm sorry but I am not a fan of Dunst and don't understand why people find her attractive. I also thought the rest of the cast was great. Denis Leary and Martin Sheen almost stole the show. The director also made the physics more realistic. With the exception of a football bending a goal post in half, the physics felt more authentic throughout, not only the combat but also just the gliding through the city shooting out webs. I also liked the plot development. I had a friend mention how they prolonged the "origin" too much for his tastes but I actually enjoyed that a lot. If they are making this into a trilogy, there's plenty of time for Spider-Man moments but you can never come back and capture the beginning stages of the superhero and the person behind the mask. Ultimately, the only thing that held this movie back for me was that it felt like we've seen it before. Other than some minor alterations to the story and obviously different actors, this was very similar to the one a decade ago and more than anything, it FELT like the older one. I thought it was better but not by much, mainly because it had the same overall feel and tone. I would've much rather had them take the Spider-Man story they had here and made it a little darker and more intense and dramatic. There is plenty of potential there but they don't take advantage of it. Instead, you essentially have yet another little kid/teenager superhero movie. Out of all of the superhero movies being made, it's definitely the least mature of them and that holds it back for me. Give Christopher Nolan this story and he'll make it amazing. Expand
  19. Nov 28, 2012
    8
    A great cast, and solid directing headline the many merits of this exceptionally entertaining, but slightly extraneous reboot.
  20. Nov 28, 2012
    5
    I felt like I was watching a repeat of a story told not long ago. I feel like there was no need to reboot this story. My kids were watching this movie with me and they were familiar with the Spider Man story as well. I felt the movie fell short at some points and we were bored waiting for the next action scene to come along. I think there was too much focus on Peter Parkers backstory and love interest. Usually when you do a reboot there have been major advances in technology and you can use this to tell the story better thru technology. I felt like the first Spiderman gave you more excitement when Spidey was swinging thru the city of New York at lightning speeds and bouncing off walls. I think the first film was better. Expand
  21. Nov 26, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider-Man is probably the best in the franchise yet. The movie is particularly fun when dealing with the discovery of powers. It doesn't hurt that Emma Stone is hot, either. This Spider-Man is at it's worst during the action scenes but still does more than enough to entertain. Basically speaking, The Amazing Spider-Man is a promising reboot.
  22. Nov 24, 2012
    7
    Presents itself as a more accurate interpretation of the webslinging hero and coupled with some nice action scenes and a more-likeable Peter Parker, its a solid film. A solid film full of discrepancies. While it does present itself as an excellent reboot to the franchise, The original Spider-man movies and esp, Spider-man 2, despite the occasional cheesiness and non-canon elements, does convey a more Spider-man vibe to it - it feels like Spider-man, genuine Spider-man as opposed to this version which, while decent, does feel detracted from the overall feel of Spider-man. The world itself apart from Parker, Uncle Ben and Gwen Stacey, lack character and feels more like a well-shot action film that coincidently has Spider-man in it. Seriously, if you placed a different main character in the movie and just have Spider-man as a side line character, the film would be fine. Its a great film but ultimately, it just doesn't have the feel and distinct 'Spidey-ness' of the original films. Spider-man 2 remains my favourite. Expand
  23. Nov 23, 2012
    3
    A bit on the weak side I'm afraid. The movie doesn't seem to rise up from being a silly teenager flick, nerdy boy meets hot girl and then proceeds to tell her he's Spiderman. That's about it.
  24. Nov 23, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is the amazing reboot to Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield plays a believable Peter Parker, as many nerds can relate to his emotions and his lifestyle. Plot(no spoilers): The Amazing Spider-Man gives audiences the back story behind the mysterious disappearance of Peter's parents. One day when Peter stumbles upon his father's old briefcase, his life changes forever. Many signficant changes to his ordinary lifestyle include his new relationship with fellow classmate, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone); To the murder of his beloved fatherlike Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen). Ultimately, these are nothing compared to the mutated spider bite which gives him Spider like powers such as sticking to walls and great reflexes. As he becomes thankful for his powers, he accquires a relevation that makes him want to become much more, The Amazing Spider-Man, keeping the streets of New York clean. Along the way however, he becomes a part time lab partner with Oscorp Industry's Dr. Connors (Rhys Ifans) working towards the better health of mankind. However when Connors injects himself with the untested regenerative antidote, he becomes The Lizard and is a potential threat to the well being of New York. As Peter realizes his part in The Lizard's creation, he believes it is his responsiblility to make sure he doesn't harm any civilians. My opinion: the CGI was top notch and the acting combined with the story is enough to make any audience feel for the emotions Peter experiences throughout his lifechanging story. Comparison to Spider Man: A decent number of scenes, lines, and story plot are quite similar in terms of his origin story, and his family life. However The Green Goblin and The Lizard have completely different motives as antagonists, however they both have similar origins. I would recommend this to anyone, especially those who have never fully experienced a live-action Spider-Man movie, and to those who are die hard fans Expand
  25. Nov 21, 2012
    3
    You're going to love this movie if you're new to Spiderman and the history behind this character. If you're an old Spiderman fan, you either loved it because you love Spiderman so much or hated the movie because it did not exactly portray the origins of Spiderman and his powers, except for Uncle Bens death. For an 2 hour film it seems the movie spend most of the time showing how a guy went from being the hipster d-bag at starbucks to the hipster d-bag holding a starbucks cup with super powers trying to do a kick flip in an abandon garage. Compared to the Dark Knight: Rises and the Avengers, this super hero movie is a super zero movie. I can't pathom how hard I tried to keep this movie from boring me to tears with scenes only suitable for teenagers who are going through puberty and can get off with such bland story line. Expand
  26. Nov 21, 2012
    10
    I don't know what it is, I've scene this 3 times and the first I thought it was a great superhero movie, the second I thought it was something more. Something that mixes music and visuals to create a very meaning full experience. And the third I found it truly and full-blown emotional experience. Again, the music and important moments as well as the ending created the most meaningfull superhero movie yet. It was awesome. Expand
  27. Nov 18, 2012
    5
    Spiderman at his worst. It was like Twilight trying to become a super hero movie. Gwen Stacy's only importance was that she worked at a top secret laboratory, despite being a high schooler. Her role as a love interest seemed very forced because she didn't help Spiderman get stronger at all. Heavy emphasis on how cool Uncle Ben is was over done because it took nearly half of the movie for him to die, which shows how much it dragged on for. Aunt May is a withering grandma who only wants eggs, a joke that excuses Peter Parker from telling her anything that goes on in his life. Dr Connors is a desperate in-debt scientist whose role is to be a Spiderman's personal problem because Peter gave him the formula to be a lizard; absolutely no style. And Peter Parker himself, a cool skateboarding high schooler who gets beat up only because he stands up for others; nothing nerdy about it. When he's Spiderman, he seems very weak. Gets shot in the leg and can barely walk; Gets surrounded by a bunch of thugs and runs away. Marc Webb's directing is very straightforward, which is good for his other movies, but not for this first action movie. Viewers should take note that most of Spiderman is viewed in the dark, perhaps for Webb to push a darker theme for Spiderman. However, Spiderman isn't Batman, and Spiderman's Personal/Hero life really isn't as complicated. Raimi, please come back. Expand
  28. Nov 14, 2012
    8
    The original spiderman movies are some of my favorites of all time, so how does this one measure up? It's a good movie that does certain things well (the fight scenes and choreography are fantastic- I believe they are just as good as in the original films), but I feel that Peter Parker is less likeable than he should have been. The movie just isn't as compelling as the originals. As was expected, many of the plot lines are left unraveled by the end of the movie (in fact, no plot lines are wrapped up at all in the course of the movie), so let's hope that we can get some answers soon- otherwise most of this one is just a bunch of cryptic mumbo-jumbo. Expand
  29. Nov 14, 2012
    8
    A great movie with quite a few plot holes that keep it from being amazing. The action is really captivating, the drama between the characters is interesting. The film keeps with the comics quite a bit which is nice for a change. You have a credible enemy who is a decent match for a hero who is just coming into his powers. Glaring plot holes at the beginning of the movie loses the movie points. What also loses points is the campy ending which is coherent yet lacks total believability in the circumstances. It's a fun and enjoyable movie. 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.